Funding Disclosure: Former NSF Director on UFOs, Zero-Point Energy, NASA's Moon Base

Well, G'day and welcome back to Reality Check. I'm your host, Ross Kultert. And today,

we have Dr Anna Brady Estevez, a long time friend of the program she's been with us before,

but I've long wanted to get Anna back on because of her illustrious career and her long-stated

interest in UAP as someone who's been at the very top of science in America. Dr Anna Brady

Estevez is a deep tech investor, scientist and former US government program director whose career

spans elite academia, high-level federal innovation programs and federal capital. She earned her PhD in

chemical and environmental engineering from Yale, where she was also a National Science Foundation

graduate research fellow, and she completed her undergraduate work at John Nuss Hopkins studying

chemical engineering in Spanish while competing as a varsity athlete. Professionally, she's operated

at the very highest levels of both public and private innovation ecosystems. She's worked in

corporate strategy roles at major energy companies, advised through Boston Consulting Group and

moved into venture capital through programs like the Kauffman Fellowship. But one of her most

impactful roles in government came when she served as program director at the National Science

Foundation. There, she helped oversee hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for early stage,

high-risk, high-reward technologies, supporting startups working across space, energy,

advanced materials and emerging digital systems. Today, she's a founding partner at American

deep tech, where she focuses on identifying and funding breakthrough technologies that could

reshape entire industries. It's a VC firm that now has explicitly prioritized UAP that's

unidentified anomalous phenomena derived and UAP inspired technologies, and has spoken publicly

about the need to remove stigma from UAP research, arguing that unexplained phenomena should be

treated as legitimate scientific questions, especially when they intersect with areas like advanced

sensing, propulsion, material science, and artificial intelligence. She's also described,

including previously here on Reality Check, her own personal sightings of anomalous objects,

particularly luminous orb-like phenomena you remember she was with us with Sarah Gam after they

seen extraordinary orb-like objects over the Congress. And Anna's explained that these experiences

combined with conversations with senior figures across government and industry pushed her to take

the subject seriously. In interviews and public appearances, Anna consistently emphasizes what she

calls an agnostic source agnostic approach rather than jumping to conclusions about whether UAPs

are ET or something else. She argues we should focus on the observable data, the performance

characteristics and the potential technological implications. Her perspective is that without

definitive answers about origin, the phenomena may point towards scientific breakthroughs

or at the very least critical gaps in our current understanding of physics and aerospace systems.

Anna's very engaged in policy discussions around UAPs advocating for increased transparency,

I think you're still on the UFO UAP disclosure fund, Anna, better data collection and more structured

funding pathways. She sometimes compares the scale of opportunity to a modern day Apollo program.

So whether you see UAPs as a scientific mystery, a national security issue, or a frontier for

technological innovation, Dr. Anna Brady Estevez brings a rare combination of credibility, curiosity,

and cross-sector experience to the conversation. Anna, welcome to reality check.

You are an over-achievement. What's been your most important role as a woman in science do you

believe? Well, I think the thing that's been most important for me, you know, and many people

can relate to, you know, having times in their career that were more difficult or things working

out. And so I think most people have experienced that. So sometimes those tastes of humility combined with

I had the mandate to fund a large number of companies. What I found was that people who, most of

the time, the innovators were not being taken as seriously the more disruptive their science. So

having the opportunity to fund such a large number of entrepreneurs, I can't unsee what I've seen,

which is just that people are capable of tremendous things. And we really need to experiment more

and be more supportive of creators and disruptors. So I think that that's what I'm most grateful for

is that opportunity to have learned from the entrepreneurs and the innovators who just

shocked me with what's possible. It's funny. I'm really happy you evoked the Apollo program because

to me as an outsider looking in on American society, I think the exceptionalism that was

portrayed in the 1960s with the decision by JFK to go to the moon. We will go to the moon not

because it's easy, but because it's hard. That kind of era of American exceptionalism in science

and achievements in science, is it over? I really think it's just beginning. You know, so one thing

is to have that vision and to now, you know, even more so than then have that shared vision with

so many countries around the world with Artemis partners. And because technology has advanced,

there are things that are now possible, you know, on the moon and in space that weren't before.

So when we think about with advanced manufacturing, with AI, with transitioning from space being

about exploration and bringing people together and showing that leadership to delivering real

solutions that affect people both on and in the future off planet, there's just so much more

that's easily accomplishable today compared to what would have been possible back then.

Now, the role that I think is perhaps most interesting, it's an extraordinarily senior role

as a program director in the National Science Foundation. You were making decisions about

who to fund with what are essentially federal grants to spark good science in American

colleges and universities. I think the National Science Foundation funds an enormous percentage

of the overall funding for colleges and universities across the United States. So it's an extremely

important institution. I guess I've got to tease you a little bit. I've got to ask you at the

very height, at the very apex of that incredible institution, the NSF, did you ever come across

acknowledgments or implicit references to the UAP mystery that the allegation of a reverse

engineering program that's secretly working with non-human technology? Was it something that was

ever discussed? Well, I think we really worked hard to try to share as much of that as really

there was time to because I think we spent dozens of hours actually speaking on it publicly

while I was in my NSF role working with NASA and other agencies. So one of the reasons that I

am able to speak is that many of those things I spoke to while in government to really get the

information out there. So I probably had hundreds of conversations on anomalous phenomena, UAP,

in general, during the end of my time there, we had, like I said, I think it might have been 40

hours of related content that we put out in US space disruptors day. We actually had a day,

we had two separate days when we brought UAP and anomalous phenomena alongside other technologies.

So the first day we had was I think December 18th, 2024, and then it was something like January

16th or 17th in 25. And the first day was positioning UAP and even remote viewing as well

alongside areas like US launch capabilities, satellites, advanced communications,

in space biotechnology, in space semiconductors, moon infrastructure, which we referred to as moon

infrastructure, digital assets, and AI. So we really, we really saw it as critical across the

interagency of the US space economy interagency as something that just needed to be understood and

addressed with the highest priority space technologies. The second day, we focused a little bit more

on energy and resources alongside UAP. I think the one of the guys that spoke at that forum,

that two day forum was Richard Banderick, Banderick, and he made some quite extraordinary admissions

about having worked directly with what he believed were non-human technologies of some kind.

Did you believe it? Yes. And as a disclaimer, he's somebody that I enjoy continuing to do

collaboration and work with. Okay, so the implication there is you've got a guy on the record

at what was essentially a NASA forum, and that, well, NASA, they were involved in it in being part

of the forum. What was the reaction among the people in NASA? Because as we know, the official

position with NASA, I think Jared Eidsickman, said the same now as the new administrator,

the real position is that there's no evidence of extraterrestrial or non-human intelligence

engagement with this planet. Nobody knows anything about aliens. There's no recovered non-human

technology. How can you have a NASA forum that you're part of with your expertise as a top scientist?

And everybody's sitting there listening as a bloke's describing working with non-human technology.

What was the reaction in the room? Well, so I mean, it was it was virtual. So we couldn't exactly

see people's faces, but I mean, when we did prior engagement with people with entrepreneurs,

I actually did a follow-up call with the entrepreneur. So there was a time earlier on where we

had probably over 100 entrepreneurs. And so then I said afterwards, what do you think about this?

So day later or something, the presenters have left who were discussing UAP and sharing

information. And the first person said something like, this is science. We must find out what's

really going on. And I thought, okay, that's interesting. That's open-minded. And then the second

person who was a pilot said, this is all up in pilot's faces all day every day. And I thought, wow,

this is a much more advanced conversation than I expected. So I think in the government,

I mean, my experience was there were both people who hadn't necessarily experienced the phenomena.

And you know, they were often very curious and open-minded. And then there were a lot of people

who had seen and experienced things. And then there were other people who maybe weren't able to

speak about their involvement. But they would say things like, it's great that we could actually

talk about it. And then there are other people who do speak to their engagement while in government.

And a few years ago, I had an opportunity to introduce David Grush to someone who'd been in a

very senior role, a very senior role at NASA. And because they both had the right security

clearances, David gave that person indication of what he knew about the legacy program and the

retrieval of non-human technology and efforts to reverse engineer that technology. And I can

remember the former NASA person said to me in some frustration afterwards, if this is true,

I've just wasted the last 50, 60 years of my life. If it's true that there's a parallel

program going on behind the scenes covertly inside US science. What does that say about

the fact that we've got public funding that you've overseen through your role at the National

Science Foundation? Fundamentally, if it's true, it's a deceit on the American public and it's

a gross misuse, isn't it? Of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.

Well, I think different people would have different opinions on that. So first of all,

just to be clear, I don't think anybody would disagree that the US has, you know, UAP aside,

far more advanced technologies that are commercially available. So if you're wondering, does the US

have better AI? Why are you wondering? If you're wondering if we have better quantum, yes we do.

You know, we have better pretty much every area of technology that are not commercially visible

or available. So I don't think that we can conflate having advanced programs with, you know,

and that is something that's normal and non-UAP fields. So I guess one of the things that I look

towards is how do we bring this to the benefit of Americans and to people around the globe?

And what are some of the structural limitations that might have impeded that in the past?

Because I think it would actually be a much bigger issue, to be honest, if the United States was

aware of these phenomena and did not make those investments. No, I completely agree with you.

I guess what I'm asking is we've put billions of dollars into NASA with old-fashioned rocket

technology that goes right back to the 1930s and the 1940s. Not a huge amount has changed

in rocket fuel technology, rocket propulsion technology since the 1940s. Yes, we've developed

the systems that Elon Musk has advanced to perfection, the capacity to self-land and reuse.

But ultimately, we're still using rockets to go to the moon and the Artemis mission, which I'm

sure will get to shortly, it's going to be reliant on that rocket technology. The implication,

though, if there is a reverse engineering effort going on behind the scenes with retrieved

non-human craft, can I ask you first, do you believe there is such an effort going on? Do you

believe that there are sections of the United States government working in collusion with private

military contractors to reverse engineer non-human technology? I mean, I would hope that there have

been efforts and it's been disclosed by many people that there are. So I think that to the extent,

I mean, I've personally seen advanced craft, so I do believe that there's access to that both

in the United States and other places. And so the most normal thing is that engineers and scientists

are going to reverse engineer and forward engineer. Isn't it pretty done then to be focusing a

moon mission landing something on the moon using technologies that are now probably superseded by

something in the black? I think it depends on what's available, but I mean, I'm definitely

somebody who's pushing to get access to the most advanced technologies we have and to see how

they can be broadly utilized. Why do you think if it is being concealed, if there is a covert

program, why do you think it's being concealed? I mean, one of the joys of good science, I know a lot

of scientists and scientists love talking to other scientists. They love sharing their ideas and

discussing ideas over the water cooler and a cup of coffee or a strong pint of bitter. They enjoy

discussing their discoveries. What we're talking about here is something that's antithetical to that

idea, the good science. The whole Apollo mission was based on the idea that we brought together

some of the world's cleverest minds to crack the nut of solving how we get to the moon within a

certain time period and do it safely and return. Are we not cutting off our nose to spite our face by

keeping this technology secret and how much is that hindering good science? Well, you know, I think

what you brought up really resonates with me, which is the point about spending our human capability

in ways that we can really get the most out of it. So I am not, I don't think it's a good thing for

people to be spinning their wheels on something that doesn't get utilized. So, you know, I think

trying to get people onto the highest performing projects is definitely something that's really

important. Why are we keeping it secret there? What's the reason? Why is it being buried? Why not

make a declaration? Why not come out and say, yes, we have recovered in a gigantic. I think the

most of the people in the American public would accept that it has to be kept secret to some degree

how we've recovered, what we've recovered, and what we're doing with it. I think most people

would be sympathetic to the idea that we want to keep it secret so that we can advance it beyond

what our foreign rivals can do. But why the secrecy? So you're asking somebody who has not been

keeping secrets, who's been more pushing for disclosure. So I guess, you know, I would probably

be the wrong person to ask on that. But in terms of the inflection point for some things that could

really push this forward, you know, so right now we're at a stage where, I mean, there's a lot of

need globally, you know, and in the US, whether it's for providing more power, you know, so people can

have, can meet their basic needs. I mean, there's over, you know, I think there's over 500 million

people in Africa that have less electricity than they would, you know, it's under-electrified.

You know, and there's that, there's energy shortages. I mean, there are homes in the United States

that are not as hot or as cool as, you know, as people would like them to be. So there's, there's

real life-changing, you know, if there's the potential for increase to agricultural yields. So there's,

there's compelling opportunity to improve people's lives around the world and in the United States.

And then as we think about what most people believe right now is going to drive innovation and

drive solutions, many people are expecting AI to carry the day. So whether it's AI to more quickly

enhance biomedicines, whether it's efficiencies, whether it's energy, whether it's design of

advanced materials, many people believe AI is going to be core to that. The fortifying factor for

that is energy. So in terms of the importance of bringing forth more energy and more energy

efficiency and also the ability, you know, oftentimes people have spoken to nervousness about an

energy transition. Energy transition has been coming and there's also the opportunity for even the

energy companies to do very, very well by that because there are new environments such as in space

and so much infrastructure and so much solution that can be developed that, you know, the energy

companies can decide whether they want to be a part of that or whether they want to be on the

sidelines. Okay, let's talk about energy. I mean, one of the great allegations that's bobbed

around in UFO conspiracy circles for much of the last 60, 70 years is the claim that the US has

had breakthroughs in ZPE, zero point energy, which if true means we'd be extracting energy from

the quantum vacuum that we'd be able to draw from literally a cup of air unlimited amounts of

energy. It would make fossil fuels, hydrocarbons, oil, utterly irrelevant overnight.

You've said publicly that you've had conversations with many senior people that have led you to the

conclusion that you do believe that there is some kind of reverse engineering effort going on

with retrieved technology. It's convinced you that this is real and that there are highly advanced

crafts that are operating both in our atmosphere under water and in all, but something's going on.

Clearly, something is going on. Why I'm inviting you to speculate here. Do you believe that there is

zero point energy technology that potentially is in the position of the US government?

Well, I think that, you know, I want to be careful in saying that, you know, for something to be

meaningful, I ask the question of, can we turn it on right here in the room? Can we access it?

And so, I am somebody who has always really felt that we need to work to advance

all areas of energy technology. You know, and some of those that are a bit more incremental,

you know, I've focused less funds on. We have recently invested in a company,

a Cazamir. So, that's a company that we've invested in. You know, I've worked quite closely with

Landon Zinski, both in American DeepTech and while we were in government. So, you know, I would let

that company share, you know, where they are on the roadmap when they want to talk about it.

But I think the importance of furthering such work, you know, is something that we certainly welcome.

And if there is advances, you know, wherever they are, we seek to get to the state of the

art and to see how can be better utilized. What have you been told, though? Is it talked about

in the quiet corners of the National Science Foundation or the conferences that you've attended

as a very senior scientist? Have people admitted to you that they believe the United States

is working with zero point energy technology or potentially with LENR called fusion style

energy systems? Well, we do have a member of the firm also, Larry Forzley, who does work in

low energy nuclear reactions. So, he is very much working towards lattice confinement fusion.

But are any, is anybody ever told you that the US has made breakthroughs in that technology?

That's more something that typically comes up outside of the government and there are certainly

people who have said that. You know, there are certainly scientists who have said that, you know,

and we're focused on getting to, you know, what's really available, what's really out there.

Are you aware of allegations that scientists at Pax River or US Defense Department Facility

and Virginia came forward with evidence of low energy nuclear reactions to a congressional oversight

committee? So, I guess I'm, so I'm kind of bad with names. So, I do know that Larry Forzley,

who we work with, had, so I don't know if that's a similar group or a dissimilar group, did speak

to having been asked about, about some of these technologies. So, but I wouldn't be the person

to be able to speak to, you know, that might have been a different meeting.

Sure. I want to get to the nitty-gritty of this though, Anna, because fundamentally, at the heart

of all of this, there are allegations that won't go away that energy breakthroughs and propulsion

breakthroughs have been discovered and suppressed by the US government. One of the people who's

made allegations about this, for example, is a guy called Dr. Salvatore Pay, who was also working

at Pax River, but not on the particular LE in our project that I was talking about. Is there

any evidence that's ever been put to you suggesting that there is active suppression of ongoing

breakthroughs and technologies? No, but I would, in terms of in the government, but what I would say

is advanced technologies can be taken black. So, that is something that technologies can be

classified. So, that is what happens. I mean, I'm in the weird situation where I've been in touch

with scientists working on potential energy systems. One minute, they're telling me that they're

getting far more energy out than n. They've achieved a breakthrough, particularly in LE and R systems.

Next thing I know, they're talking to certain government entities, normally that a partner of

the energy gets involved, then you hear about the involvement of private military contractors,

Lockheed Martins, a constant mention, so is Northrop Grumman. It all then disappears into the black.

This has happened multiple times. I've spoken to multiple people who contacted me and told me about

imminent scientific breakthroughs like this. I believe very strongly that the United States

is suppressing technologies. Have you got a view? They do, you know, the government does classify

technologies, you know, so that is... Can you think of any good reason why an energy system like,

for example, Cold Fusion, LE and R might be being suppressed? I'm really more focused on trying to

bring those technologies forward. So, I don't want to defend that. I mean, I think that it is

the concern that's often come up is national security, is when they talk about why.

Yeah, this is the point. I would like to see. I do believe there's

advantage to bringing forth advantage energy systems and finding the right way to do that. So,

I'm more in the camp of trying to figure out what is possible to utilize in a responsible manner.

Okay, then let's work it this way then. Let's assume that you're an investor through deep

tech putting venture capital into, say, a low energy nuclear reaction energy system. It suddenly

hypothetically starts getting amazing breakthroughs. What do you do as a venture capital investor that's

put millions of dollars into this project? If the Department of Energy comes to you and says,

look in the interests of national security, we're actually putting an invention secrecy act

slap on this whole project. We're asking you to shut it down from public disclosure.

We're not going to let this proceed any further into public domain. What do you say that?

Well, I mean, I think that some of the ways that the, there are paths that need to be

architected and probably from the beginning. And so, what I would say is I believe there are

members of our government and our Congress who would very much like to see advanced energy

solutions that are available. So what I would say to, for instance, to Congress is much of Congress's

focus has been on determining what's going on in the legacy program. I would say create your own

programs that you have visibility into and get that alignment with people who are going to have

the ability to call into question limiting, limiting use of technology.

As somebody who's, I'm sure, a believer in free enterprise and doing the very best to get

the best possible science, what would you think about a government effort if it did happen to shut

down say your venture capital investment into a low energy nuclear reaction breakthrough to

suppressing it in the interests of national security? Would you accept it?

I wouldn't appreciate it. If we had to accept it would be another, it would be something that we

would find out through that process. But, you know, I mean, so I can't speak to the national,

all the national security dimensions. But, you know, obviously anything to do with national

security is very, is very serious. And, and that is something that people need to work through.

During your time as National Science Foundation program director, overseeing grants for

space tech, advanced energy systems, did you ever encounter proposals that explicitly or

implicitly benchmarked systems or benchmarked against UAP flight characteristics,

things like extreme acceleration, transmedium travel, anti-gravity? And, and how did the peer

review process handle such unconventional ideas if that did happen?

So, I'm actually not able to speak to specifics of individual proposals, but where we did make

an effort to do that was bring forth some of those really interesting projects because while I

couldn't speak, you're actually in government, you're not able to speak to information that comes

through review process. But, what we were instead able to do was have entrepreneurs come forward

with their own work. So, and what I would say, you know, as I've said many times and said this

while in government is it's very important with the most disruptive technologies to really have

the ability to put forth for recommendation for funding technologies where there is not consensus,

because where you're more likely to get consensus is something that is the status quo,

whereas when there's something deeply disruptive, it is quite common that that there won't be

agreement amongst reviewers. Is the reason why you can't speak to that issue about whether there

were any UAP flag characteristics? Is it classified or what was the reason?

No, no, it's just that when you're not authorized to speak to confidential work, you know,

so if a business presents you their proposal, you're not authorized to speak to the contents of

the proposal. You know, it's like, like I can say your social security number. If you gave me your

social security number, I wouldn't be able to state it, right? Okay, but would you be able to say,

for example, whether anybody's ever approached you with a proposal before the science foundation

that talked about perhaps, say, anti-gravity or some dramatic breakthrough in energy systems?

I think the way those are framed, you know, something like directional force, so things like

directional force. So these are active fields, you know, and these are things that I,

you know, I was happy to recommend for funding.

So that kind of research is going on?

Yes, yes, of course. Yeah, as a senior executive.

Or, you know, in terms of the importance of this, you know, because sometimes the thought

of gravitational control, you know, is one, you know, that people don't think is important or

can make them a bit queasy. But as we go off planet, we find that the ability to control gravity

in terms of what you can do with biological solutions, advanced materials, it's very important.

And as we look to have an ongoing base on the moon, or if we look to human civilization on

Mars, the biological impact of different, grubatic environments, my view is the importance that you

have asked me as a woman, the importance of supporting gestation and space, the importance of

having healthy babies, gravitational control goes from a nice to have, to perhaps a need to have

in terms of supporting life at all stages. So I think that, um, completely there, I want babies

in space, absolutely, absolutely. As a, as a senior executive, though, inside the National Science

Foundation, because it's great to talk to you about this stuff, because you've worked at the

absolute apex of science in America. Were there any formal or informal policies, compartmentalisation

practices or guidance, interagency, guidance that created barriers to openly funding research

that touched on things like UAP technology? Not that I'm aware of. But essentially what you,

but if somebody did come with a proposal such as an anti-gravity device, it would be better

for them to describe it as a directional force propulsion system, rather than talking about anti-gravity.

Well, you know, it really can be written either way, you know, so, I mean, what's visible on these

is the abstracts. So, you know, it can be, people can write it, how they want to write it,

and the entrepreneurs can put it forth. And then the entrepreneurs themselves can always

on an NSF word, they can always decide to, you know, state whatever they want to state about how

they want to frame their work. And that's not something at the foundation. So the foundation doesn't,

it's the entrepreneur who determines what they put forth in their abstract. Sure.

If, as you've indicated, you do believe that there is, on the basis of people that you've spoken

to numerous people that have described to you, the likelihood that there is some kind of reverse

engineering program going on with NHITEC. And you've seen for yourself, you've said advanced craft

that appear to defy the known conventional physics explanations for how something might

propel itself, essentially the five observables, it's displaying the five observables.

It suggests that there is some type of covert program that's going on inside either government

or inside private contractors that is working on this technology. Has anyone ever explained to you

or given any speculation to you about why this might be being kept secret?

Well, I mean, I think there's a lot of speculation, but, you know, as you've said, I mean,

I would just highlight, you know, and through my work with the Disclosure Foundation, I mean,

there's been a lot of disclosure to Congress, you know, people under oath, you know, stating that

these programs exist. So, besides it just being natural, I think, to as scientists, as engineers

to reverse engineers. So I do believe that to the extent there's a technology, engineers will

always reverse engineer it. In terms of, I mean, the hypothesis in terms of why some of these things

have been more hidden that, you know, I think it's been stated publicly many times is national

security interests. Okay, so how, let's assume then that we know that there is a technology out there

that's being worked on in the black. A firm like yours deep tech is basically going around looking

for those opportunities. What are you looking for? Like what are the signals that you're looking to

invest in? Well, so we're in, so the way we came into, and the way I initially came into UAP,

so Ross, I don't think I'm not sure, you know, how much of this we really want to do sequentially,

but I thought that I saw the first UAP phenomena that I was exposed to back in 2010. Subsequently,

I realized that some of the energetic phenomena, which I later saw, you know, in, you know,

when, when some of these anomalous phenomena were present, that I had seen those as early as the 90s.

So I think that at that time, you know, even in 2010, like many Americans, I saw it, but there was a

so what, or oh, you know, many more than half of Americans believe there's life off planet,

you know, more than half of Americans believe that there's UAPs, UFOs,

under surface objects as well. But the question about, so what are you supposed to do with it?

So the way I got brought back into this was my work was really pushing for the most advanced

energy, space, and other materials and other technologies and digital assets technologies.

So the point of, you know, so if an anti-gravity proposal came in, it was, oh, that makes sense,

we should be looking into that. It was less about, here's this UFO, or is there a hidden program

somewhere and more, we should be pursuing all fronts. So I think the, just the importance of

really pushing for all these areas of technology, it's, from our firm standpoint, it's

less that it's because it's UFO and UAP, and it's more because there's a performance advantage

versus what's available. So if there is something, you know, that is exhibiting lift or

anti-gravity or directional force without visible propulsion, that has utility, right? If there's,

if there's more efficient energy solutions, that has utility. If there's something that can have

beneficial health effects, so I guess it's just, we're looking for what is, what is a solution

that's being offered? What's the problem that's being solved? So if we see something that promises,

you know, to deliver, you know, more energy to people in new ways, that's highly compelling,

get to, get to other planets faster. I mean, that's, these are things that we're looking for the

solution and why it might work. What do you think then of claims that have been made repeatedly

by purported insiders that anytime anyone gets close to a breakthrough like that? Let's talk about,

for example, alternative energy systems or anti-gravity. They get shut down. Have you heard

of these allegations of individual breakthroughs being shut down inside different scientific

institutions? Well, I never heard of that at NSF, to be honest, and I never heard about that at

SBA. So, I mean, those were the two agencies that I worked at. That doesn't, that doesn't mean that

I wouldn't have been aware of everything going on and, you know, what are, what are large

agencies? But, you know, I think that people are interested in working in these things, you know,

in spite of those assertions. So you've transitioned from the science foundation to

founding American deep tech. What specific insights or developments regarding UAPs and potential

reverse engineering technology prompted your firm to announce an investment focus on UAP related

or UAP derived innovations? Like, what inspired you? Well, so I think it was, it was really seeing

that this is an area that so many people have experience with. I mean, so I was, I was really,

I think many times when people have experience with phenomena of any type that is non-acknowledge,

you know, they might feel lonely, it might feel exotic or special. And what we found was these were

common occurrences that many people were working through, but because there wasn't the infrastructure

and the structure that it was, it had been harder for people to, perhaps, work to advance it openly,

because there wasn't, there weren't even the conversations openly taking place. So for us, you

know, back to, there are a lot of this really need, we really need to figure out as always with

early stage innovation, what's actually possible? I mean, some of these, these companies succeed,

some of them fail, but we always listen to the innovators. So if innovators say, you know, we think

there's something that can be harnessed that is going to be helpful in curing disease, we listen

to that. And as part of a portfolio approach, we say, well, we want to find out about if that's

really a thing or not. We've heard people talk about enhancements in agricultural yield. So

the potential to, if that bears out or if it's scalable, you're just any potential to provide food

at a greater scale or resilience. I mean, that's a, we view that as a responsibility to see what's

possible there. And honestly, sometimes to get to the real advances, you need to support 20 to 40

entities, sometimes more. So we just really believe that, you know, in any area of advance,

you need to support it. So UAP is a part of what we do. It's, we're active in all areas of deep

technology, AI, quantum, energy, space tech. And much of that is not UAP focused, but that said,

in most of these fields, there are also scientists or entrepreneurs that believe there are points

of connection or advantage that do to under acknowledge or acknowledge phenomena, some of which

would align. One of the biggest limits that I get from scientists who've contacted me, who

tell me that they have worked in or they've worked parallel with the legacy UAP technology retrieval

program is that we have a lost decade. In fact, lost decades. They, they, they cite the fact that

there's technologies that have been in the position of the US government since at least the 1940s

that potentially if open peer review public science had been able to engage with it,

we would have made breakthroughs, particularly in material science a lot faster than has happened

today. People like, for example, Dr Eric Davis have said that in their investigations into the

legacy program, there's been a lot of people complaining that there's been very limited breakthroughs

in material science, largely because of the compartmentalization, the intense secrecy attached

to this program. Are we cutting off our nose to spite our face? Are we losing decades in what is

after all where America can do it best with its exceptionalism in science by imposing this incredible

secrecy on this covert program? Well, so a number of people who have worked, you know, long-sign

or adjacent leading those programs have certainly said so. So their, their view is that more openness

in certain areas would have used to move faster. You know, so and I guess it's it's hard to imagine

how what it's what it must be like to be a scientist who if you've achieved these great things that

you're not able to to see them come to fruition or if or you're constrained, I mean, you know,

sometimes just imagine, you know, not having the access to the other experts, not having the

access, you know, to the information on the internet, you know, all these different tools. So

depending on how siloed it is, it's just much harder to make progress from what I understand from

some people have worked in, you know, say they've worked in such environments or like aligned programs.

I mean, I was reading about your job in NSF, the National Science Foundation. You really did,

you had the most extraordinary discretion to allocate hundreds of millions, potentially billions

of dollars to breakthrough science and technologies, high risk, high reward grants that I think

catalog catalyzed as much as 17 plus billion dollars in company valuations. If UAP inspired physics,

for example, novel energy breakthroughs or propulsion breakthroughs were declassified as the

president is indicating he's mind to do. What kind of funding mechanisms would you be recommending

to the science foundation today? You know, well, if the president is going to declassify something

about UAPs, what effect could that have on the work that you're doing investing in breakthrough

technologies? Well, I think it's really a full speed ahead approach. So, I mean, to the extent that

you, so I guess one thing is getting, you know, to the extent there are things to get out of

programs, you know, whatever is the appropriate or possible path for that, that's great. But also

starting from the ground up, I would say as well and getting many things going in parallel, but

I would say the approach is really to get as many people as possible aligned on, at NSF there's

both problem solving applied research, you know, so you kind of say, all right, here is a disease

to mitigate or here is a propulsion system to design. There's also curiosity inspired research,

you know, maybe you don't know where this is going, but try to see what's possible. So just

the ability to network scientists and engineers to share information, you know, I think there's just

the scale that would be beneficial here, because you know, as we look at some of the largest programs,

you know, whether it was, you know, Apollo was hundreds of billions. The ISS was 150 billion,

that the highway system was, you know, well over half trillion dollars. So when we're talking about

the ability to just to bring such solutions, you know, I would say that the importance of really

investing at the level to get to those, to those world changing beneficial outcomes, you know,

is really what I would suggest. And I would say, I would also say competition, because the issue is,

so I do not appreciate the idea of a bottleneck entity that kind of is a clearinghouse or

under scrutiny, as opposed to make the agencies compete, make the program directors compete, see

who gets what done, as opposed to having it be one bottleneck. When we, in the US space economy

interagency, and I recognize it can be hard. I had some other roles in the federal government,

including looking at digital currency, who chaired with the White House, the digital assets are in

D agenda. And so sometimes it can be hard to get things to come out of a consensus based process.

In the space economy interagency, you know, at the very beginning, you know, we structured it out,

saying, you know, if you can, if, if everybody has consensus, that's interesting. Maybe not,

right? If there's consensus, maybe it's not a good idea. But when three agencies agree great,

when two agencies agree great, when one agency agrees great, and then when there's an individual

person that can do something, I mean, sometimes that's the way things happen. So just that push for

performance and results and seeing who can get what done, both not just in the government, but in

the private sector. You've described the potential revelations of UAP or alien technology as a

potential Apollo program on steroids. Can you explain what you mean there? Why do you say that?

Well, so I mean a program that has tremendous benefits for humanity and bringing people together,

you know, and I think that there, you know, people can understand major national programs that

have led to major outcomes. I mean, one of the ones that people use, you know, is the Manhattan

program on steroids. But, you know, the outcomes of that, you know, we're both nuclear energy,

but also nuclear weapons. So I think the Apollo program with its emphasis on, you know, really,

you know, peaceful exploration and advancement of humanity and the understanding that a lot

can be accomplished in a very short time and also that, you know, there's just tremendous things

that can come out of programs like that. How do you reconcile, though, something like, for example,

the National Science Foundation statutory commitment to open merit-based science with the, I think,

likelihood that there are classified programs that have already achieved breakthroughs using

non-human technology breakthroughs that frankly, you could have helped fund and study openly

under your portfolio at the National Science Foundation. Isn't that frustrating?

Well, I don't know that frustration is really helpful. You know, I think that to the extent people,

what are people going to take action on? So I see, I see scientists and entrepreneurs who really

want to work on the most advanced science and engineering. So when we say to them, would you help

out with UAP technologies? They say absolutely. So, you know, I think that for companies and for

investors, they have a choice, you know, in terms of whether they support such technologies or

whether they look the other way. And Congress has the choice, you know, both to investigate, you know,

what might have been done previously. They also hold, they recommend the budget. So they can,

they can basically say that they want to put $100 billion into UAP technologies. And why,

why wouldn't they say that? Haven't they committed to having the most advanced quantum, having the

most advanced energy and space technology? So everybody has their accountability. So, you know,

and individuals who have seen, I think we are at a stage today, where so many people, maybe,

maybe a third, maybe half of the people have their own personal experience. So it's not something

that being told something doesn't exist holds any water for them. So it's really what do we create

and what do we ask for? So in our case, we're saying that we take it seriously and that we do believe

resources should be dedicated, you know, based on some of the advantages and positive outcomes

that can come from us. So really, would you like to see an Apollo style program with the UAP research

that President Trump is at least on social media, at least talking about declassifying? Would you

like to see an innovative program that embraces public science engaging with UAP technology?

I would love to see that. I mean, I think anything but, as you said, you know, a lost opportunity.

So, you know, as we look at the highest performing, you know, so, you know, by comparison,

when you look at these observables and the performance, we are accountable to whether we try to

to build these out and to what extent we utilize the gains that come out of it.

So we're talking at a time when there's just been an announcement by Jared Isaacman,

the new NASA boss that they're amending the proposed lunar orbital station. They're going to have

a lunar base now. I think there's a $20 billion investment, which doesn't sound like a lot,

really, when you think about what was spent in terms of equivalence on the Apollo program.

Is this jump change? Are we putting enough money into expanding on good science and technology

in the same way that we did back in the 60s on the Apollo program? Or are we deluding ourselves?

Well, one of the things that we've really been trying to advocate for both

while in government and something that American deep tech is really trying to push is,

it's great that the government is doing these things. We are at a different point in history,

and some of this is not going to come from the public purse. But there is, when there's an ROI

on these investments, there's real solutions, and so these have potential to be well done,

some of the highest performing programs. So like you were saying, so the NSF and some of these

numbers are going to be a little bit estimated, but I pulled the data, which is pitch book public data

before I left and I could pull it again today. But basically, something like under $5 billion

that the NSF's SBIR program put out over the course of five decades, much of that in the last decade,

to be honest. Those, just the publicly visible, I want to say it's the top, I don't know,

1,000 or however many companies, which is where a lot of the value is. And the reason I'm giving

a wide range here for the market cap of say $370.5 trillion is some of those large companies,

like the chip manufacturers, their share price with tariffs and things can really swing

by tremendous amounts of money. But you're talking 5 billion out, market capitalization,

without even counting a lot of it, because you're not talking about what happens when a company

gets acquired and then it grows inside a SpaceX, for instance. It's tremendous output. My quarter

billion is now those companies are worth over 20 billion today. So quarter billion out of grants.

So these are the investments that really create so many jobs, create so many solutions,

and pay for themselves. And so the private sector can take that on. The other thing is

terrestrially, when you buy a house, I mean, a small percentage of people probably buy it cash.

Most people, they're putting down, they might put down 3.5% if it's their first time home, FHA,

5%, they put down 20% to buy a house. If you're financing a power plant, it's 20% equity

terrestrially and 80% debt. So if you're building a stadium, you do municipal bonds. There's

billions of dollars going into stadium construction. So what we need to have in space is

all the terrestrial financial tools so that 20 billion dollars in space doesn't just unlock 20

billion for a moon base. It can be leveraged preferably at 80% so that creates 100 billion dollars.

So debt that can be backed to unlock five times the space budget.

How significant is the potential competition from foreign adversaries, Russia, China? There's a

lot of talk that Russia and China are secretly working on their own technologies derived from

non-human, recovered non-human tech. How big a threat is that, do you think? Is there a risk

that we could be able to take it? Well, there's certainly active in it and there are smart people

all over the world. So I mean, assume that people who are actively working things are going to be

trying to make as much progress as possible. So looking ahead, how might full transparency about

US knowledge of UAP's alien technology, non-human tech? How might that reshape the whole landscape

for deep tech VC funds like yours, particularly in beating those international rivals in next-generation

energy and propulsion? Well, I think that some of the performance characteristics that people

are going to be going after are going to be very different performance characteristics. So it'll

probably continue to be a portfolio approach where there are going to be the things that we know

we can achieve, but I think it'll really push out the boundaries of what's acknowledged as possible.

And it could unlock amazing renaissance. I mean, just the levels of, I mean, we lived

decently, but the potential in terms of what we could achieve as a civilization, I mean, just

beyond really, for many people, imagination considering these conversations haven't been broadly

held. Is there a credulity gap when you've been having these discussions, both as a deep tech

investor and as somebody who's been allocating funds in government? Is there still that taboo,

that stigma attached to the subject of NHI, non-human technology? Or, I mean, the thing I find

fascinating is that we've got this silly game at the moment where the official Pentagon

position still is that there is no evidence of extraterrestrial engagement with this planet.

Congress is officially assured by the Pentagon and by the intelligence community that there's

nothing that's being concealed about non-human intelligence. And yet here are you and I having a

conversation about non-human technology that both of us strongly believe is in the position of the

United States government and that is being secretly reverse engineered in the black. Isn't this

an absurd situation and how much does that stigma frustrate the kind of conversations that you're

very keen to have? Well, so in deep technology, you know, non-specific to UAP, usually the most

advanced technologies, there's not consensus on. So this is really, if anything, UAP UFO has been

favored. I think people have been more open-minded about it than advanced batteries. So I've gone

through advanced batteries. We know that we all use batteries and people are very tough on just

something that is different from their work and more incremental or it's created by a competitor.

So from what I've viewed, UAP UFO, if anything, operates at an advantage, not a disadvantage compared

to other technologies. Because as you've said, I mean, there are people that might not be open-minded

or might not know about it. But we don't need people to know about every area of technology.

Usually, there's groups of scientists, groups of companies that build out a new field. It

doesn't take many, right? You really just need one company to be successful and openly being

able to demonstrate these things and then it's we're in a new paradigm. So I don't,

so once it becomes meaningful from the standpoint that you can go home, turn one on, utilize one,

you know, then it's a different stage. And that's when it becomes meaningful to most people.

And so for new or not existing technologies, so many, many, many more people care about this

than typically care about a technology that isn't commercially something that they can buy off the

shelf. It is kind of funny, though, isn't it? Because here are you and I talking about alien

tech, technology developed by another civilization from somewhere else. And we're talking quite openly

and candidly about it. And yet the official position of government and the intelligence community

is that this is all nonsense, spacious nonsense. It's absurd, isn't it? Well, we're talking about

well, what I told the NSF was to be credible. I mean, our communities know this is a thing, right?

So I mean, we just, I mean, I don't want to call it laughable to, you know, but I think it's kind

of funny that entities are putting out being put out as experts on things that they say don't

exist because I've never heard of another situation where somebody can be an expert in something

they don't believe it. So it's crazy. So entities that say it's not a thing, we say you're not an

expert. Like why would we listen to you? Yeah. But Dr. Anna Brady asked of is before we go,

how convinced are you that there is a non-human intelligence that's engaging with this planet

and that the United States has reverse engineer or is attempting to reverse engineer their technology?

Well, you know, I always want to, you know, have humility for anything being possible. But,

yeah, I would put it 95%. So, you know, we could always be wrong. But, you know, I've just seen,

I've seen a lot, I've heard a lot and just logically, it doesn't really, it doesn't really make sense

that there wouldn't be life in other places or exotic, you know, forms on this planet. So it's

certainly possible that that's not the case. But, you know, we see enough indications and very

credible people, you know, asserting, you know, amongst having seen a wide range of things as well.

And how far are we away enough from getting any kind of public disclosure of the fact of the

position of that technology? Do you think we're getting any closer? I think we've already had a lot

of it, you know, and thank you for your leaving work in this roster. I mean, I, so it's interesting

to me that there's such a hunger for disclosure. I mean, I feel like there's so much more material

on this than I could ever hope or want to consume. So I don't actually think that the issue is

a disclosure issue. And one of the things that I would say is, because oftentimes there's the question

about the government, what I've seen is that sometimes these, this anomalous phenomena actually

presents in ambiguous ways. I've seen it present, you know, and really, you know, so say it's these

orbs, for instance, you know, they can move around in a really blatant, shocking fashion and then

you see somebody in front of a group and then you'll see somebody walk down the beach and they'll

they'll tighten up the behavior and they'll just move a little bit. So I don't think that the

goal here is to, I think the goal is actually to be respectful of people. So the fact that, you know,

we don't, we don't need the president to tell us, you know, about our religion, our favorite music,

you know, how to run our families. So, you know, I think the government's actually said a lot

while still being respectful of not trying to force people into accepting something that

might not be within there, that they might not be interested in engaging with or accepting. I mean,

it's rare that more than 50% of people agree on anything. So I think, you know, 50% were already

there. I mean, what do, what do 50% of Americans agree on? You know, it's fine to have differences

in terms of what you want to focus your time and attention on. So I think we're, but I also think

that to the extent that there is non-human intelligence that building more of a respect for that,

because one of the possible things in terms of limitation on disclosure is, you know,

is there a bit of this that is more protective and respectful? Because certain entities do not

want to be, you know, pulled out of wherever they are. You know, and if it's known, okay, these types

of entities are in this location. I mean, are they going to be treated with respect, you know,

in appreciation? Or are they going to be harassed? So I mean, I would like to see the respected

appreciation. So I would say that, you know, a lot of people have said that we've benefited,

you know, from what are not crashes. They are, I mean, they, some people would say they've been

gifted, technology transfers and gifts. So that's the point where you say thank you. And could you

please keep transfer from wherever that's coming from? You know, that's been really meaningful.

So the culture of respect and appreciation and protection, I'm not hearing enough about that yet.

I do think to to be able to move this forward, you know, that appreciation and respect is probably

a big part of it. Before we go, one of the things you would

say, by the way, because these people who've served in program to a scientist, you know, or, or

in these companies that, you know, some would say they've had these agreements that, you know, they

don't, they don't necessarily have the ability or the flexibility to determine what they can do

depending on what's contracted there. So to really show, you know, I think there's going to be an

opportunity for some grace here and some goodwill to try to, somebody was saying,

root with the grades is something else, like without, without, like, there's no progress without

peace, you know, or something or there's no, you know, there's, there's got to be, there's got to

be coming to terms with whatever's happened to be able to move forward, you know, in a positive

beneficial way. So I do also worry that rather than focusing on vindictiveness, focusing on

solutions, I mean, we choose to focus on the solutions and, and what, what great positivity could

come from all of this. I completely agree. And it's interesting to me that you were saying that

you've had experiences, possibly for a long, a lot longer than you and I have previously discussed

right back into the 90s. It makes me wonder, do you sometimes suspect that the phenomenon

is trying to tweak the awareness of people like yourself who are in leadership roles in government

different times and also now in a leadership role in an investment company making decisions about

how to allocate capital. Do you think perhaps that there is a possibility that the phenomenon

itself is trying to guide humanity into a careful decision about how to embrace and use the kind

of technologies that you're interested in investing in? Well, it seems like this is really widespread.

So I don't think it's a, and you're so special type situation. I think it's that, you know,

they, you know, people, people will say, well, you know, do you believe in life off planet?

And, you know, one of the responses is it's nice that it looks like they believe in us type thing.

So the, there have been times where I've been showing somebody, you know, an orb video or something,

you know, and then they come back with, you know, a being that they saw, you know, really,

a really in-depth experience with it being. So it does seem, and I've also spoken to people that

they didn't remember having ever seen something. And then they'll say, oh, there was that time

that was an orb or a football field that, you know, was huge. And we're thinking, yeah, that counts.

But so it's so, it almost seems like this is there for anybody who wants to be open to it. So I

don't, and I do believe we're at probably well over 50%. And it's not always, it's not always a

craft. It's not always a being, you know, it's, it's, you know, it can be energetic phenomena.

There's such a wide range of ways that anomalous phenomena presents. But it's an opportunity

for us to have humility. And it's a little bit of a show and tell, you know, to kind of advance

our understanding. So I think it's, I think everybody has ability to really learn and access

different things. So it said they want to. And I didn't want to for a long time.

Yeah, it kind of begs, it begs the question, though, doesn't it? Because it begs the question is,

is it the non human intelligence beings that are actually trying to control the narratives,

the other ones that decide whether or not they disclose?

I mean, it seems like the balls in a lot of courts here. So I mean, if, if anything's being

controlled on the experience side, it's, there's a lot of experience happening. So, so it seems,

it seems we're getting to a point where this is fairly ubiquitous. Dr. Anna Brady,

Estevis, thank you so much for joining us. And I wish you the very best. I'm looking forward to

the day when you can unveil your future investment in, I don't know, an anti-gravity drive or some

massive. I hope it's useful for people. We don't want to just say we supported

this technology. We hope that it brings real advantage to people, whether that's improving

gestation, food, you know, improved energy sources. I mean, we really hope that these are

meaningful solutions for people. Well, I hope we're close. Thank you very, very much. Dr. Anna

Brady, Estevis, for coming to reality check. Good luck. Thank you.