This is the second blog in a series about how government disclosure should occur. The initial blog covered structural issues as to how to go about investigating the enigma known as unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAP). This issue arose organically when national security committees began asking questions about disturbing incidents that affect national security. The more information they received; the more questions they had. One of the main questions was: “Why haven’t we heard of this before?
The House and Senate Armed Services and Select Committees on Intelligence were unaware of what was being done to understand this subject. Furthermore, these national security committees found that there were likely funded programs studying this mystery that are unknown to the oversight committees. Since all government programs must have their funding approved by Congress, learning of the existence of unauthorized programs added a constitutional dimension to the UAP inquiry.
Thus began a bipartisan quest to understand our history with the phenomenon and the threat posed by the phenomenon itself. Beginning in 2021, Congress adopted three straight rounds of UAP legislation. Despite the congressional effort, the Pentagon and intelligent community have resisted these efforts while claiming cooperation. This pushback and the level of secrecy around the subject combine to make it difficult to understand how the public can have confidence in Congress’ ultimate investigatory conclusions. In order to gain acceptance by a substantial majority of the public, Congress will have to figure out a way to introduce any revelations to the public while keeping a bipartisan majority necessary for broad based public acceptance.
Polling on this issue, although rare, indicates that the American people are evenly divided on the source of UAP. A YouGov poll taken between September 9-12, 2022, shows that 34% of the public believes UFOs are controlled by non-terrestrial entities; 32% believe they have natural explanations; and 34% do not know the source. Considering the polling margin of error, the public is evenly split on the issue. In a 1996 Newsweek poll, only 20% believed that UFOs are controlled by aliens. The 2022 poll is a significant increase in those who believe in a non-terrestrial source.
Another YouGov poll taken in July 2020 with over 8,000 respondents shows that 56% of the public believes that the government is hiding information about UFOs. 22% believed the government would tell the public if aliens were involved, while the same percentage (22%) did not know. In other words, more than half the public in a survey with a relatively large sample size and small margin of error (+/- 3%), do not trust the government to be honest about the subject. A similar poll by Redfield & Wilton Strategies found nearly similar results in July 2023. 57% believed in a government cover-up, with 21% not believing in a cover-up and 22% not knowing.
This blog assumes that there are non-terrestrial sources of UAP. But from the congressional perspective, all possible sources must be investigated. When Congress concludes that there are non-terrestrial sources of UAP, the next question is what they do about it. This kind of revelation, in a democracy, must be disclosed to the public. How to disclose this information will be as important as this discovery itself.
Many, including Hollywood, believe that the White House should make an announcement at a Presidential press conference about what has been hidden behind classified walls. However, this approach has many problems and will lead to more controversy and an unsettled response from the public. First of all, a presidential announcement would give the matter a partisan tinge. Members of the public that identify with the party out of power would automatically be skeptical. In this highly partisan time, a substantial portion of the public will be conditioned to automatically reject any White House pronouncement. No matter how many members of the opposite party stand behind the President at the announcement, people who voted against the President would have trouble accepting what the President says.
A press conference format would create its own impediments to acceptance. One person would have trouble responding to skeptical questioning, from a largely unprepared White House press corps. Every answer would be dissected worldwide by pundits and leadership from other countries that may not be friendly. Any real or perceived gaff would be amplified and create the need for clean-up statements by subordinates. This would automatically lower public acceptance. We need a better way of making these revelations. While a presidential announcement makes for the drama that Hollywood thrives upon, it raises the stakes and has many more downsides that can be listed in a single blog. From a public policy and political perspective, it would provide an abrupt method of conveying vital information to the public.
A presidential address that takes no questions could even be more counterproductive. Presidential pronouncements would also be viewed with a critical eye. The terms of the post-announcement debate would break along party lines by media outlets who have a loyal platform of viewers inclined to believe their favorite commentator and not the President. The political dynamics of any Presidential announcement inevitably lead to a divide in the world along pre-existing fault lines across the globe on political, diplomatic, and cultural/religious grounds.
The polling data shows the same skepticism if announced by Congress after most of the congressional efforts are a closed-door process. Since national security issues are discussed mostly in classified settings, the current process is typical for a military/intelligence issue. However, the UAP oversight process is about more than just a threat determination. It also touches on and concerns the possibility of non-terrestrial life visiting our planet.
A determination that the source of UAP is non-terrestrial needs the broadest public support to be accepted in most of the world. There will be diplomatic, military, intelligence, and related questions, demanding our unity to confront, regardless of the intentions of non-terrestrial visitors. Normal inter-party or inter-governmental skirmishes will hamper this process. The process must consider the learning curve that the press, public, and foreign audiences must undergo.
Having an acclimatization period, mainly through regular public hearings, would bring this new reality home in a less abrupt manner. Once a non-terrestrial finding is made, the focus of congressional and administration efforts should be on future policies and expenditures, not solely focused on blame games about who was at fault for intelligence failures. While past policies, be they de jure or de facto, can shed light on how to handle present issues, the main focus should be formulation of policy responses to deal with the sources of UAP with the public kept in the loop. This effort cannot be bogged down by partisan bickering, especially if some or all of these forces are deemed a threat. Public hearings, prepared in a bipartisan manner, must be held to acclimatize the public to this new reality.
Assuming the September 2022 YouGov poll about the source of UAP is roughly accurate, two-thirds of the American people will need to adapt their preconceptions about the phenomenon, regardless of the source. If there is evidence that the intelligence community manipulated public opinion about UAP, it is likely this will be first issue the public will want to address. While such conduct will need to be addressed to avoid future use of psychological warfare on the American people, the challenges presented will require the main focus be on addressing the new challenges we will face. This will require a forward-looking oversight process that includes respecting the right of citizens to understand the challenges we face. In a democratic republic, the public must be privy, to the extent it is feasible, to enough information that allows them to be informed citizens. Anything less will look more like another attempt to manipulate the public. It will also betray our trust in the democratic process.
The current approach of the core committees offers us hope that a process will be developed to help the public understand. While not all of the national security committee members come from the same perspective, the current bipartisan approach to the issue is the key element for reassuring the public that the evidence that is publicly presented is an accurate reflection of the data on hand. Any hint that there is a predetermined outcome, as has been done in the past, will undermine public confidence.
Based on the public member comments at the May 2022 House Intel subcommittee hearing, there is a wide variety of opinions about the phenomenon. This diversity of opinions is a positive development. Studies have shown that group decisions have a higher likelihood of success if a broader variety of opinions are included. Because of divergent opinions, the process may take longer, but studies show that the decision-making process will have a greater chance of success. The public will also have more confidence in the outcome when they see how divergent opinions from those who go through a rigorous investigation can lead to an agreed upon evidence-based determination. Decisions that are made on incomplete data or based on preconceived notions that do not match the data are more likely to fail.
The three consecutive rounds of UAP legislation will give Congress more control of the information that is relevant but currently being withheld. The gathering of UAP-related secrecy agreements will be a fertile source of information. Even prior to the “slow walking” that the DoD and IC take to gather this information, persons forced to sign these agreements can come forward, alerting their congressional representatives of the details that led to the signing of these agreements. If congressional oversight investigators learn from those who signed secrecy agreements, they can use that information to learn about incidents that have not been made available to Congress. The whistleblower protections will make it easier for those who are concerned about offering testimony that might affect their career or government pensions. After appropriate vetting by staff and committee members, those who come forward can serve as witnesses in private and public settings. Acceptance of this information from those directly affected by the secrecy policy will further incentivize the DoD and IC to comply with the legislative requirements to cooperate with the UAP program.
Whatever procedural vehicle is used needs to be designed to gain the trust of the public. Several models could be used. A bipartisan 911-style commission which includes trusted members of the public from each party is one possibility. Another is a combined House/Senate special committee made up of members who have special expertise based on their relevant committee experience. Congress could also use multiple existing committees, each having subject matter expertise on a particular aspect of the phenomenon. Regardless of which vehicle used, the traditional model for conducting oversight hearings must give way to a better model designed to hold the attention of the public.
The traditional uncoordinated, five minutes per member hearing will not hold the attention of the public and could raise more questions. Committee hearings that ping pong back and forth between the parties looking for partisan divides will end up confusing the public. Each hearing should have a specific bipartisan goal to explain to the American People a single, identifiable conclusion drawn from the classified investigation. Much like pealing back the layers of an onion, the hearings, held by the same or different committees could make presentations to a prime time audience that reveal the investigatory steps and the conclusions reached. Each hearing should have a central theme.
Perhaps the recent January 6th Hearings could provide some guidance. The theme of each hearing was well defined. The mixture of live and mixed media held the attention of the audience. The method of questioning was less adversarial than traditional congressional oversight hearings and would be easier to follow. This presentation method would be more likely to occur in a truly bipartisan/collaborative process.
The goal would be for each hearing to put together as many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle as is necessary to convey to the country, and perhaps the world, a sense of what is at issue. A well-designed public hearing process would be a vital element to a successful public discussion of the phenomenon, and its implications. Congressional interest in the UAP issue started when its members were doing their constitutional duty to protect the United States against all threats. It was not a course intended to gain political advantage, especially considering with the still lingering “stigma” about the subject matter. In pursuing a potential threat, Congress may reveal one of the most momentous discoveries of mankind. This is a revelation that is on the horizon regardless of whether Congress discloses the discoveries. Better to hear it from a bipartisan group of our elected leaders than leaving disclosure to our adversaries or to chance.
For instance, the initial hearing could explain how the matter came to the attention of Congress. Using UAP videos, live witness testimony, electronic sensor data, and snippets of taped interviews, committee members could lay out particular incidents, on a rotating bipartisan basis, that help the audience understand the conclusion reached by the committee. Modern incidents with documentation by trained eyewitnesses and supporting sensor data would tell compelling narrative. Conclusions could be reinforced by live witnesses to help the audience judge for themselves. After one or more hearings establishing the modern mystery and ruling out other potential causes, the hearings could turn to the past and demonstrate how today’s phenomenon is the same as incidents from the past, only with better sensor data.
Further hearings should follow the same general hearing model but branch out into related topics to understand the government’s response and related potential threat issues, showing how threats may or may not exist. NASA could play a part with at least one hearing dedicated to the search for non-terrestrial life. Since NASA’s current efforts seem to be aimed at looking for signs of life where it is unlikely to be found, this would require NASA cooperation with the Congress and the Administration to re-task satellite time to look at planets in nearby solar systems that are within habitable zones. Any revelations could be made as part of the hearing process. The same could be said for other locations found that show a non-terrestrial presence, such as data from the upcoming Artemis flights showing any activity on the far side of the Moon.
Leaving these disclosures to chance could damage the government’s credibility going forward. There are many ways that this discovery could come to light. First, from our space-based sensors, we will soon know if there is life in the Universe. The probable discovery of non-terrestrial life visiting Earth could also follow from these sensors. It could also become apparent through a variety of sources. Leaked material, foreign disclosure, an undeniable UAP display, or, because of our space program, an announcement by NASA itself are all possibilities. There are many more. The downside to allowing this issue emerging to an unprepared public is the true inability to predict public reaction or the demigods that could arise to profit from a haphazard revelation. Openness at the front end of the first serious UAP/UFO inquiry in the eighty years will substantially lessen negative public reaction.
Once general conclusions are made, the House and Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees must step out their safe, classified environment, and include the American people in the process. A process that remains behind closed doors on an issue of this potential magnitude will risk leaving the public uninformed and suspicious of legitimate factual determinations. On the other hand, an open, bipartisan process can bring along the citizenry and help them adjust. A well-constructed public hearing process could bring evidence into the public that reflect the evidence-based conclusions developed through vetting by national security congressional staff and committee members. Also, it adds regular Americans to the process. Hardly a novel concept in a democracy. The next blog in this series will discuss how to approach our past history and present efforts to keep classified knowledge about UAP away from the public.