Introduction: Congress on a UAP Island
Congress is engaged in a bureaucratic battle with the Department of Defense (DoD) and intelligence community (IC) about the implications of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). The four core national security committees [1] have listened to highly trained military pilots discuss rather disturbing aerial encounters, including dangerous near misses. Lately, the same disconnect between the Pentagon and elected officials has extended to local officials over unexplained “drone” incursions. Yet, the DoD/IC has been generally dismissive of these concerns, claiming no security risk exists, yet not knowing who is causing these incursions.[2] Testimony and sensor data show that many of these mysterious objects perform maneuvers that are impossible for our most advanced aircraft or state of the art drones.[3] These performance characteristics raise serious doubts that some of these objects are of terrestrial origin.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), among others, have raised alarm bells about the DoD/IC lack of transparency and, in a joint colloquy on the Senate floor, stated:
“The United States government has gathered a great deal of information about UAPs over many decades but has refused to share it with the American people. That is wrong and additionally breeds mistrust. We have also been notified by multiple credible sources that information on UAPs has also been withheld from Congress, which if true is a violation of laws requiring full notification to the legislative branch – especially as it relates to the four congressional leaders, the defense committees, and the intelligence committee.”[4]
The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, with the support of a key Republican member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), delivered this statement on the Senate floor after their 2023 UAP disclosure bill was rejected by House leadership. The UAP Disclosure Act of 2024 (UAPDA) is this year’s version of the 2023 bill. It also failed to get into annual defense bill.[5] Yet, each year since 2021, SSCI has unanimously referred increasingly stricter UAP legislation to the Senate floor.[6] In response, the DoD has either downplayed or largely ignored UAP-related legislative mandates.[7] Never has any subject had this kind of multi-year bipartisan determination in the face of bureaucratic intransigence. What does this bipartisan consensus know that academia, think tanks and other traditional public policy sources do not?
All the while, the DoD has continued to implement its longstanding policy of claimed disinterest in UAP.[8] As a federal policy debate, it is one of the most unusual, regardless of the subject matter. To help understand this policy dilemma, one must look at the past actions of the DoD/IC.
New Program, Old Playbook
Despite DoD/IC’s public-facing policy of ignorance about the phenomenon, declassified records tell a different story. AARO’s performance mirrors the study methods of the “swamp gas” Project Blue Book era. Yet today, according to trained military witnesses and the Navy’s UAP Task Force (UAPTF), the UAP issue presents a potential danger to the defense of the United States.[9] When you strip away already identified objects and unidentified ones with normal flight characteristics, you are left with a core of incidents that have a flight profile which cannot be duplicated by our most advanced aircraft.[10] These “core” UAP exhibit technological capabilities for which we have no defense. How big this risk poses remains to be seen. Even if one concedes that the risk of harm is low, the DoD and intelligence community treat it differently than other high risk/low probability scenarios. Traditionally, the DoD/IC recognize that “Black Swan” event risks, like COVID or nuclear armed terrorists, must be addressed because of their potential for catastrophic harm.[11] Core UAP capabilities, if coupled with a hostile intent, present an existential threat to humanity.
Faced with these potential risks, the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Research Office (AARO) has downplayed the evidence and ridiculed trained witnesses.[12] AARO has claimed they have uncovered “no credible evidence” of a non-terrestrial presence. Simultaneously, they ignore data presented to AARO by highly credible military witnesses, along with corroborating sensor data. [13] From its first public report, AARO has shown a disdain for the entire subject matter and the highly trained personnel who offer evidence that disputes the historic DoD UAP approach. Outwardly, the DoD does not even consider UAP as a potential threat that needs analysis.[14]
AARO’s approach appears lackadaisical at best. AARO’s first annual report was due on October 31, 2022. Yet, it was not filed until January 13, 2023. Even though it was over two months late, the extra time taken did not result in more data analysis. Instead, most of the details found in the first UAP report by the Navy’s UAPTF 2021 Preliminary Assessment were not present in AARO’s initial 2022 report. For example, there was no real breakdown of UAP characteristics, except a remarkable increase in the number of reports that had mundane explanations. A majority of the reports were attributed to natural or man-made objects, whereas the Navy’s UAP Task Force found only one out of 144 sightings had a conventional explanation. AARO’s first report had were 366 reports with 247 new reports and 119 holdover reports from the Navy’s 2021 Preliminary Assessment reporting period.
Unlike the UAPTF 2021 report, the raw AARO 2022 report numbers gave very few clues about the types of encounters. We do not know how many near misses occurred; how many incidents were sightings showing unusual flight characteristics; how many incidents demonstrated propulsion without chemical propellants; how many unidentified sightings were captured both visually and by sensors; and whether any sightings were tracked by sensors before or after any visual sighting. Instead, AARO focused on mundane cases that do not present any disturbing qualities.
In the 2022 AARO Annual Report, 195 reports had unremarkable explanations with 26 drones, 163 balloons and 6 reports of debris characterized as “clutter.” Out of 366 reports in the 2022 annual report, AARO was able to increase the identified rate of the 2021 UAPTF rate from 0.7% to 53%. Quite a change that was never explained. Apparently, AARO included 119 solved reports that its predecessor, UAPTF, quickly eliminated before doing its final analysis.
AARO’s 2022 annual report also gave virtually no data about the cases it listed as “unidentified.” In the 2021 UAPTF report, there were 80 out of 144 “unknown” reports that had sensor confirmation of visual pilot reports. No data in the AARO 2022 report was provided about the characteristics of the unknown 171 reports. An undefined number of these reports “demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities and require further analysis.” The UAPTF 2021 report mentioned 21 of 143 incidents listed as “unknown”, which displayed unusual flight characteristics. In the 2022 AARO annual report, all we are told is that some cases demonstrated extraordinary capabilities. However, the latest report showed that military aviators apparently failed to identify 162 more balloons than in the first report. Either military pilots were having more trouble identifying balloons, or AARO failed to disclose a drastic shift in how it analyzes UAP reports.
Without saying so, the initial AARO report reflects a change in how the military analyzes UAP. This change takes AARO further away from the intent of Congress. The UAPTF 2021 report discussed safety hazards found in 11 reported near misses out of 144 reports. The AARO 2022 annual report only mentions that there were no collisions between military aircraft and UAP. We are left to speculate as to how many aircraft had dangerously close passes. The 2022 AARO annual report is hardly reassuring for a Congress concerned about dangerous near misses.
The same reluctance to provide information contained in the 2021 report was true for UAP that exhibited “unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.” In the 2021 UAPTF Preliminary Assessment, there were 21 reports of 18 incidents where objects performed maneuvers impossible by advanced high-performance aircraft. The 2022 annual AARO report contained no breakdown of reports with unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. This concern was highlighted at the May 17, 2022 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence subcommittee hearing about UAP. AARO ignored the congressional request to concentrate on the most concerning cases. Instead, AARO emphasized the “low hanging fruit” with mundane explanations.[15]
Looking at the 2022 annual AARO report, it is difficult to figure out the reason for a 74-day delay. The 12-page report was short on analysis and filled with background information. The cover, table of contents and appendix made up six pages. The appendix contained generic program information, including a glossary and three pages of statutory language applicable to the UAP program. The actual analysis was limited to 555 words.
Since its first report, AARO has continued to stray from congressional intent for an accurate, science-based analysis of UAP. This policy conflict can be felt in the disfunction that continues between Congress and the DoD/IC over UAP issues. While Congress adopted a fourth straight year of UAP legislation[16], these laws have done little to change the course of the DoD/IC. As can be understood from declassified records, today’s intransigence appears to follow a standard playbook that has been in place since the late 1940s.[17]
Past Policies Are Controlling the Present
While the United States government now uses the term UAP, it appears to be the same phenomenon which has been seen for over 80 years. Whatever you call them, Foo Fighters, Swedish Ghost Rockets, Flying Saucers, Green Fireballs, Unidentified Flying Objects, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, they have interacted with our military since World War II. Yet, AARO’s first mandated report about the historic knowledge of our UAP efforts merely recites a laundry list of historic programs without any analysis of program methods or their biases. Rather, it accepts their historic conclusions without analysis, in direct contravention with congressional legal standards.[18] Each of these historic reports follow an assumption established in a 1949 report which refused to consider data of a non-terrestrial possibility for UAP until it had conclusively established that there was no possibility that the unknown objects were of terrestrial origin.[19] This presumption established that only terrestrial possibilities will be considered. To implement these assumptions, analytical methods were limited to decreasing “unknowns” to an acceptable level. AARO still follows these Project Sign, Project Grudge, and Project Blue Book methods. In AARO’s first press briefing, it’s Director commented on the impending release of AARO’s 2022 Annual Report as follows:
“I don’t want to get ahead of the next report when it comes out. So, when that comes out, you’ll get a better idea of what our batting average is.”[20]
As discussed above, AARO increased its solved rate from 0.7% (UAPTF rate) to 53%. In doing so, AARO reaffirms the 1949 public assumption that the phenomenon can only be caused by terrestrial sources, in spite of the significant gap in performance characteristics. Today’s UAP perform in the same manner as credible reports made as far back as World War II. Since 1949, the goal has been to only consider terrestrial sources of UAP. This creates a policy dilemma for Congress. One source of where data may lead is automatically ignored. The focus is, and has been, on eliminating as many “unknowns” as possible and blaming the rest on unspecified sensor malfunctions. This assumption ignores cases with multiple sensors giving consistent readings that show high performance characteristics that cannot be performed by terrestrial aircraft. This approach focuses only on the “batting averages” of solved cases.[21] It leaves many UAP cases as unexplained.
This longstanding data bias means that one possible source is never considered. It also means that Congress cannot rely on policy support it normally gets from departments in the Executive Branch. Evidence is only viewed from one perspective, despite credible sources of data to the contrary. Since other potential sources of policy analysis have left this subject to the DoD, Congress receives no help from organizations, inside or outside of government, that considers all possible areas of inquiry. There are no traditional policy groups in academia or the private sector to help guide it through this disfunction. Essentially, congressional national security oversight committees must set policy without help from these usually reliable sources. Considering what may come from learning that this planet faces a non-terrestrial presence, the implications are staggering. Assuming these national security committees conclude that there is a real possibility of a non-terrestrial presence, what should they do with that information? In addition to having to develop policies to deal with this phenomenon, Congress must also explain this situation to the public.
There are clear indicators that the public is divided on this subject. 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. Essentially, the public is evenly split, three different ways on the issue.
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. Regardless of what Congress determines, the question will be: why haven’t you told us sooner?
Planning a Coordinated Roll Out Process
Whether they find support for a non-terrestrial visitation theory, Congress must explain to the public its ultimate conclusions about the source of the most perplexing UAP sightings. Considering the public’s suspicion that the government is hiding something, these general conclusions must be made public. While there will be information that must be kept confidential, whatever the ultimate conclusions, their findings must be able to satisfy the public’s well-founded skepticism. A skepticism that has only worsened with the appearance of mysterious “drones” around the country from November 2024 onward.
To assure the public that all possible sources of UAP are investigated, an open and fair process must be utilized to regain the trust of our citizens. When and if Congress concludes that there are non-terrestrial sources of UAP, the next question will be what they will do about it. In a democracy, this kind of revelation must be disclosed to the public. How to disclose this information will be as important as the discovery itself.
Many, including Hollywood, believe that the White House should make a Presidential announcement 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, regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office. No matter how many members of the opposite party stand behind the President at the announcement, people who voted against the President will 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 to do it. While a presidential press announcement makes for the drama that Hollywood thrives upon, it raises the stakes and has many more downsides. From a public policy and political perspective, it would provide an abrupt method of conveying vital information to the public.
A televised presidential address that takes no questions would also be 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 loyal viewers, inclined to believe their favorite commentator. The political dynamics of any Presidential announcement inevitably lead to a divide along pre-existing fault lines, both domestically and across the globe.
The same skepticism shown in polling will follow, especially if announced by Congress after congressional efforts are mostly a closed-door process. Since national security issues are discussed in classified settings, the current process is typical for any 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.
The Need for a Unified Approach
A non-terrestrial source determination needs the broadest public support. There will be diplomatic, military, intelligence, cultural, religious and related questions, demanding our unity to confront, regardless of the intentions of non-terrestrial visitors. Normal inter-party or intra-governmental fault lines will hamper this process. The process must also consider the learning curve that the press, public, and foreign audiences must undergo.
Having an acclimatization period is imperative. Using an open, bipartisan public hearing process could address this new reality in a less abrupt manner. If a non-terrestrial finding is made, the focus of congressional and administration efforts should be on future policies and expenditures, not focused on blame games about who was at fault for intelligence failures. While past policies, 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 and keeping the public apprised. 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 even with no help from the DoD/IC.
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 DoD/IC manipulated UAP public opinion, 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 similar domestic psychological warfare policies, it will require the focus be on addressing the new challenges. This will require a forward-looking oversight process. The public must be privy to enough information that allows them to be informed citizens. Anything less will look more like another attempt to manipulate the public. It will betray our trust in the democratic process.
Bipartisanship in a Time of Division
The current bipartisan approach of most of the national security committees offers us some hope that a process can 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 that the public is presented with an accurate reflection of the data on hand. Any hint that there is a predetermined outcome, as done in the past, will undermine public confidence.
Leaders in the legislative and executive branches will need to coordinate more closely than they do in today’s highly adversarial environment. More direct oversight and policy-making responsibilities must reside in the hands of elected legislators assisting the President. Coordination between the White House and Congress can help mitigate bureaucratic intransigence. While other issues will likely continue along our typical partisan pathways, the stakes surrounding these revelations need bipartisanship to gain acceptance from a broad swath of the public. Choosing a partisan path for these revelations risk stoking fears and causing disruption. While much of the work could be selectively delegated to military branches and agencies, it will require more hands on supervision by White House staff and congressional oversight committees to help keep the service branches and involved agencies within the bounds of UAP legislative policies. Considering the history of UAP policy decisions made without the involvement of our elected officials, a bipartisan political consensus on a general course of action will significantly increase the chances that the public will support the process.
A Coordinated Process
Most of this early process will look the same as the normal legislative oversight model. The difference should include more coordination between the administration and the legislative branch to make sure there is a diligent effort by civilian agencies and the military to follow this new direction. Increased bipartisan congressional coordination will boost support from the party not controlling the White House.
Much of this process could remain the same. White House or State Department staff could still give regular briefings about the progress of various investigatory, diplomatic and other implementing programs. Congressional oversight committees would still have open and closed hearings on issues where they have subject matter responsibility. However, the purpose of many of these hearings would be to delve into the day-to-day management of the UAP issue, working under an administration/legislative oversight shared management approach. There will need to be a robust feedback loop between congressional oversight committees and the White House to make sure that both are receiving the same level of cooperation from the bureaucracy. Regardless of which party holds the White House, the legislators from the other party must feel comfortable that they are receiving the same information as members from the party holding the White House.
Controlling Partisanship
One must assume that there will be some policy disagreements along the way. Considering that the performance characteristics of core UAP show a capability to harm us, whether they have an intent to harm us will be the most likely early disagreement.
If there is a breakdown in the consensus between the legislative and executive, Congress has the ability to approve legislative changes to match its concerns. The normal legislative process, especially in cases of policy disagreements, will still be important. However, both political parties need to realize that departures from a unified approach will reduce the chances for a broad public consensus. This means that, if possible, initial disagreements should be worked out behind closed doors.
As divisions arise, they may not break down along party lines. Disagreements will be between those who have been exposed to new UAP evidence that sets them apart from those who are not yet privy to this evidence. These divides will be similar to committee members who first saw the naval videos and had heard from the pilots about close encounters by naval aviators in 2004 and 2014-2015.[22] This firsthand knowledge reshaped their perspective literally overnight. Legislators who lacked this knowledge did not have the same perspective. So, it is very likely that policy disagreements may be based on what is learned and by whom, not by party affiliation. Much of the knowledge gained will challenge basic assumptions which may cause differing reactions among our elected leaders. The information may lead some to reject data that does not fit with their pre-existing worldview. A key element to this shared governance approach will be to ensure that, as new information is discovered, it must be shared among elected officials in a coordinated manner. From party leadership, appropriate oversight committees and eventually to rank and file membership, a briefing process must follow a consistent pattern on both sides of the aisle.
Bridging the Partisan Gulf
Regardless of who is President, there will always be an opposing party. Shared responsibilities between the legislative branch and the executive will lower the chances of partisan bickering. No political party has a pre-existing UAP platform. The more people learn, the more their views evolve. At each stage, new information must flow from leadership and the appropriate oversight committees to the general membership using the same process for the party in power and the opposition. A demonstrated need to keep highly sensitive defense information classified should be the only information that is not shared with the rank-and-file members. Restriction of classified information should also be equally applied to legislators of both parties who are not cleared for such access.
Trying to take partisan advantage of this issue will be risky. While the occasional parochial issue may succeed over this broad subject matter, it will be hard to ignore, in the long run, what they learn about UAP. Since this new information may fall outside of their past learned experiences, it is far safer to join a large consensus and follow where the facts and the phenomenon’s behavior leads. For both personal and very public reasons, this consensus will give political cover that should insulate rank and file members on both sides of the aisle. A legislator is unlikely to be attacked if they are on the same side of an issue as the vast majority of the opposition. There will be strength in numbers for both sides who will still be defined by longstanding partisan divisions on other subjects. A strong bipartisan consensus will take the UAP disclosure off the partisan table. Sticking together is a much safer political option than trying to take partisan advantage.
Politicians who break away from a broad based consensus risk taking the blame for obstacles or negative consequences. A President who tries to take exclusive control of the process risks legislative backlash that will break apart any broad based consensus. Considering that congressional UAP progress has been bipartisan, normal party loyalty cannot be expected in this unique circumstance. Members who break away cannot rely on their party with a large bipartisan coalition supporting reform. Injecting partisanship into this process will have long term negative implications and further confuse the public.
The House of Representatives will be the most likely source of dissention. House members come from a wider variety of districts and generally hold more diverse views. While those in favor of disclosure routinely call for more transparency, some secrecy may actually help move the process along. Right now, there are twelve committees in Congress who can receive classified briefings about UAP.[23] These committees make up a substantial portion of congressional membership. So, a related task will be to keep other members in the loop without violating the confidentiality of the investigation.
Some secrecy will give Congress a chance to digest the information they are receiving without the normal political back and forth under the glare of media interest. This information starts in the national security committees where members are almost in unanimous agreement. Other members who aren’t on these cleared committees are still largely unaware of the specifics of these efforts. For them, the UAP portions of legislation that were brought forward in the last four years left many of them in a dilemma. If they do not have the information necessary to understand the significance of the UAP provisions, they must trust the judgement of the cleared committees or vote against an entire defense or intelligence bill. They could propose an amendment to strip these bills of their UAP provisions. However, this would pit them against members of their own party whom they regularly trust for guidance because of their subject matter expertise gained in classified settings. This type of trust is necessary since no member ever has enough knowledge of all subjects before Congress. Picking a fight because you are unsure of the evidence supporting the need for legislation could have a ripple effect. It would harm any member’s ability to gain approval for matters within their own particular expertise. Breaking off from a bipartisan consensus during the investigation phase will cause the particular member to be isolated by those intimately involved in the process. Discipline will likely be needed to prevent premature and uncoordinated disclosure of still classified evidence. The membership must understand that following an agreed process will result in fuller disclosure in the long run as long as both party’s stick to the same process. This will be a difficult process, especially in our social media age. Discipline for members who violate security oaths or disclose sensitive information before consensus is reached should be an option that everyone understands going into the process.
A Congressional Briefing Process
There will come a point when national security committees arrive at conclusions about core UAP origins and intentions. When this point is reached, classified briefings will need to be held with rank-and-file members to give them a general understanding of the evidentiary foundation for each conclusion. Classified briefings would need to be held on an individual basis or in small groups. Rank and file members who receive these briefings will need time to digest the broader implications of what they have learned. Revelations that may be difficult to process but cannot be unlearned. While unanimity will never be achieved, a careful behind the scenes briefing process will give Congress the best chance to present a unified front to the public. Once a broad-based consensus is reached, Congress, with the help of the White House, can begin implementing a process that informs the citizenry of the revelatory information needed for understanding UAP and their broader implications.
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 select committee made up of members who have special expertise based on their relevant committee experience. Congress could also use 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.
A New Hearing Model
The traditional uncoordinated, five minutes per member hearing will not hold the attention of the public and could raise more questions than answers. Committee hearings that ping pong back and forth between the parties, looking for partisan divides, will end up confusing the public. Instead, each hearing should have a specific bipartisan goal to explain to the public a single, identifiable conclusion drawn from the 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.
Perhaps the recent January 6th Hearings could provide some guidance. While the factual findings of the January 6th hearings are still the subject of intense partisan debate, the actual procedures used could be a guide. 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 for the public to follow. However, this presentation method could only occur in a truly bipartisan/collaborative process with White House participation in the 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. By investigating 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 these discoveries. Better to hear it from a bipartisan group rather than leaving disclosure to our adversaries or to chance.
Clarity in the Hearing Process
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 conclusions reached by the committee. Modern incidents with documentation by trained eyewitnesses and supporting sensor data would tell a compelling narrative. Conclusions could be reinforced by live witnesses to help the audience judge witness veracity 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 model but cover related topics to understand the government’s response and 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. This would require NASA cooperation to re-task more satellite time to look at planets that are within habitable zones. Revelations could be made during the hearing process. The same could be said for other possible locations that could show a non-terrestrial presence, such as high resolution data from Artemis flights showing possible activity on the far side of the Moon.
Leaving these disclosures to chance could damage the government’s credibility going forward. There are many other ways that this discovery could come to light. First, from our space-based sensors, we will soon know if there is other intelligent life in the Universe. The probable discovery of non-terrestrial life visiting Earth would likely soon follow. Leaked material, foreign disclosure, undeniable UAP public displays are all possibilities. This may already have begun, but is now categorized as the “drones” over New Jersey, but mostly ignoring similar sightings now occurring around the world. The downside to allowing this issue to emerge haphazardly is our inability to predict public reaction or the demigods that would arise to profit from an uncoordinated revelation. An unprepared release, at a minimum, would create uncertainty in global financial markets and put militaries on high alert.[24] Gradual openness at the front end of the first serious UAP/UFO inquiry in eighty years will substantially lessen negative public reaction.
Opening the SCIF
For general conclusions to be made public, the House and Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees must step out their safe, classified environment, and include the public in the process. A process that remains behind closed doors will leave the public uninformed and suspicious of legitimate factual determinations. On the other hand, an open, bipartisan process can bring along the citizenry to help them adjust. A well-constructed public hearing process, with support from the President, could bring data before the public that support the conclusions of Congress. Also, it adds regular Americans to the process. Hardly a novel concept in a democracy.
A move to open up the process also reaffirms our bedrock constitutional principles.[25] Even if the chances of a non-terrestrial presence are low, the consequences of a chaotic release of a terrestrial-based conclusion could also be damaging, especially considering the demonstrated belief that the truth has been hidden for decades. In a democracy, there are two main problems at issue. A Congress that is not part of the constitutional process in military/intelligence policy-making decisions. Or, possibly learning there is a highly evolved non-terrestrial presence on Earth. Both have serious ramifications, which should unite political parties into a unique political consensus during a time of disunity.
Presidential Leadership and the Executive Branch
As the DoD drags its feet implementing UAP laws, leadership is sorely needed from the Executive. The role of the President in this process is vital. In addition to cooperating with a strong, bipartisan coalition in Congress, public buy-in by the President aids in both gaining public acceptance and getting DoD/IC cooperation. To date, no President has truly taken a public position supporting the congressional UAP efforts. Management has been left solely to the DoD and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and may continue into the next administration. The result of this hands-off approach has been to leave the management of these issues to lower-level appointed officials. While the DoD has consistently adhered to its “no credible evidence” stance, its own officers and enlisted personnel have been telling Congress and the public a different story.[26] Much like Agent Orange, Havana Syndrome, and burn pit cancer exposures, the DoD has sometimes been late to recognize serious problems. UAP are only the latest of these policy failures.
Currently, President Biden is in a unique position to require more cooperation from the Executive Branch. Since he near the end of his term, it could be easier for the President to support a bipartisan congressional UAP investigation. Either through an Executive Order (EO), a Presidential Policy Directive (PPD), or similar policy format, Biden could give direction to the Executive Branch to implement current UAP legislation.[27] A policy to implement current law on the books would show the White House intends to actively support bipartisan efforts in Congress to study a potential threat. Adopting this policy does not require the President to endorse any particular potential outcome of the inquiry. Its purpose would be to give firm policy direction to executive agencies and service branches to cooperate with congressional inquiries.
Regardless of the officeholder, the declassification authority of the President could be helpful to free up materials for Congress to assist its review and the briefing process for rank-and-file members. This authority could also be used to declassify materials for the public hearing process. This would put the White House on the side of transparency, regardless of the possible outcomes. Polling clearly demonstrates that a majority of the public do not trust the government to be honest about this issue. Any bipartisan factual determination could help to regain public trust in government. Addressing lack of trust in government has been one of the goals of the outgoing Biden Administration. Making any policy announcement to support this bipartisan effort would help support long-term bipartisanship on this issue. This process would likely not be reversed by the incoming Trump Administration, given incoming President Trump’s comments on recent drone/UAP incursions.
Likewise, President-elect Trump could support congressional disclosure efforts. Taking any of the steps listed below would show his support for the congressional oversight process on the UAP issue. Personnel appointments to his incoming administration could highlight his change of emphasis. Giving authority to a new White House appointed staff with necessary classified access authority to seek out information that has been improperly withheld. Working with the congressional committees, a White House effort could accelerate disclosure of information that has been withheld from the public for generations.
Presidential policy support could be a mix of general and specific UAP legal mandates. Generally, the Presidential order could incorporate the legal mandates listed under UAP laws (50 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§3373-3373b). Referencing them would put the imprimatur of the White House on the implementation of these laws. For instance, AARO is required to submit a full report about the history of the government’s effort to study UAP and to report upon efforts to mislead the public. While a short interim report was filed months before the June 2024 deadline, the report did not reference any efforts to mislead the public, despite declassified evidence to the contrary.[28] President Biden started his Senate career while the Senate’s Church Committee was investigating other instances of rogue policies.[29] President-elect Trump could also position himself as the Disclosure President. Regardless of the officeholder, presidential directives could specifically be used to mandate certain elements be included in future AARO reports, review procedures, and establish other performance standards.
The presidential UAP policy could also specifically address DoD/IC refusal to give access to properly cleared congressional committees. For example, the twelve “appropriate committees” in Congress were given legal authority to receive information about all UAP-related programs.[30] However, despite this current authority, many programs are still refusing to cooperate.[31] A White House directive aimed at uncooperative programs would show determination in the face of intransigence.
Managing UAP Disclosure in Uncertain Times
We are in one of the most contentious political periods in American history. It seems like the most unlikely time to rely upon bipartisanship to carry the day. Although, if recent history is a guide, a bipartisan coalition of national security specialists has already maintained comity during their joint venture into this perilous subject. The question is whether they can duplicate this cooperation at scale.
Expanding bipartisan support will require significant effort. To get broader bipartisan support, the national security committees will have to convince a large majority of rank-and-file members to understand both the issues and the need for unity on this issue. Unity on the Senate side is very possible. But on the House side, the Speaker of the House, the Chair of the Armed Services Committee and Chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, along with the current ranking Intel Committee member, have become impediments to UAP progress, preventing the Schumer-Rounds Disclosure bill from getting a floor vote in the 118th Congress. It is a bill that would have passed the House, if it had gotten a stand-alone floor vote.
Previously, the House Armed Services Committee and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, under a Democratic majority in the 117th Congress, supported the first two rounds of UAP legislation. Current House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies has indicated his continued support for UAP transparency. House bipartisan support would put the House in alignment with a bipartisan Senate on UAP transparency. A House controlled by the same Republican leadership group may continue to block serious UAP legislation, unless its rank-and-file members and/or the incoming administration break away to support UAP transparency. As has been seen in Senate national security committees, party loyalty may be outweighed by classified UAP knowledge. Core House UAP study proponents are an eclectic group made up, in large part, of Democratic leadership and scattered House Republican Freedom Caucus members. A curious combination of partisan players that could upend strict party line votes on this issue in the 119th Congress. Since 2020, it has become apparent, that the more one learns about UAP, the more it increases the member’s support of UAP legislation.
While the UAP subject is hardly one to predict that normally partisan politicians would reach across a wide partisan divide, there are other policy issues at stake that could make this cooperation more probable. It is about more than discovering Flying Saucers. After reviewing the evidence, Senators on national security committees already believe that the DoD/IC, along with private contractors, are hiding the ball from Congress. This belief has led to four rounds of legislation. They believe that the bureaucracy is hiding funding sources; running reverse-engineering programs; using exotic materials; and studying biologics without constitutional oversight.[32] The subject matter at issue, according to sworn testimony of experienced military pilots, are objects with the capability to cause us harm. Whether that capability is coupled with an intent to harm is still an open question. Both a military concern and a separation of powers concern are at issue.
The implications of an off-the books program without congressional oversight raise both national security and constitutional issues. Article One of the Constitution vests funding authority in Congress. Funding requires the ability to conduct oversight. Regardless of the subject matter, core congressional authority is at issue. Unless other parochial interests come into play, it would be highly likely that Congress would want to restore its oversight authority. There is a decent chance that once the public learns of the absence of oversight, even party loyalists would shy away from defending secrecy without oversight. The implications of any uncontrolled national security program elevates the risk of harm by any such program. An uncontrolled national security program, by definition, would have policies inconsistent with the will of the President and Congress.[33] If the secret policy was legal and proper, its key players would not need avoid to oversight. Discovery itself appears to be the greatest risk for those hiding these programs.
The risk is having unknown parties controlling has potentially catastrophic implications. Here, there is at least circumstantial evidence of recovered non-terrestrial technology. If true, Congress has been cut out of the loop for decades. It means policy decisions about game changing technologies are made without input from our civilian elected leaders. Such technology may already be outside the control of the United States government, solely in private hands. Congressional concerns about how unknown players will exploit this technology, and to what possible ends, is one of the most important bipartisan issues going forward. Non-terrestrial technology, at a minimum, must be tightly regulated as atomic materials have been for decades. Regulatory licenses should be a requirement of any oversight framework established.
National security committees have received testimony about the possibility of uncontrolled programs studying UAP or associated biologics. In response to evidence of these hidden programs, Congress has taken steps to ferret out this information. This oversight effort is driven, in large part, to restore proper control. In many ways, it is a jurisdictional issue more than a UAP-specific matter. Given other congressional concerns about the behavior and possible motives of UAP, this issue will likely become a top priority, regardless of party, especially if the “drone” incursions continue into 2025, keeping the issue in the national spotlight.
This constitutional concern is more important when considering the behavior of the mysterious objects. One element of UAP behavior is their apparent worldwide interest in nuclear weapons and facilities. Member concern on this issue has been shaped by former military personnel, not the DoD/IC. Congress has received better information from these private citizens than the Pentagon or intelligence community. Perhaps the best example of this came from retired military personnel.
On October 19, 2021, a press conference was hosted at the National Press Club by Air Force Captain (ret.) Robert Salas.[34] Salas spoke of his own 1967 encounter with a UFO that shut down a flight of 10 intercontinental ballistic missiles.[35] Also, several former Air Force personnel discussed similar experiences of ICBM interference by UAP.[36] Author Robert Hastings also spoke about several incidents from his groundbreaking book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites. Within two weeks of the press conference, a significant UAP amendment to the annual defense bill was filed. It included provisions to investigate nuclear-related UAP incidents like those discussed at the press conference.[37] This language was added days after the Salas Press Conference.
Surveillance of our nuclear assets is a disturbing development. These weapons may be our last defense against a technologically advanced non-terrestrial threat. Their interest could also affect our deterrence of terrestrial nuclear threats. As it stands, one cannot ignore a possible sinister motive behind this surveillance. If this surveillance were conducted by another nation, we would assume malintent. Yet, our military downplays this data while it cannot, or will not, identify the source. It has failed in this regard since World War II.
Even if one assumes that core UAP conduct, i.e. keeping an eye on our nuclear forces, is purely defensive in nature, how would the controllers of UAP react if we achieved a technological breakthrough from studying their crashed vehicles? Given the capabilities of core UAP, what would they do about an emerging threat from humanity? Developing these vehicles could, if coupled with our nuclear arsenal, pose a direct threat to these visiting civilizations, even if they never had the original intent to cause us harm.[38] Developing the ability to quickly travel great distances in space while having nuclear armaments would pose a direct threat to any nearby planetary civilization. Without bipartisan, civilian control of these programs, the United States could be plunged into warfare with a technologically advanced civilization without the President, Congress, or the public ever knowing why. A preemptive strike to eliminate a threat from Earth might be a viable option for those worried about a nuclear armed Earth, coupled with the technology to deliver it. For this possibility alone, proper oversight must be reestablished.
The main concern may not be learning other civilizations are visiting Earth. It may be caused by a successful hidden program learning the secrets of interstellar travel that is not controlled by our elected civilian leadership. This discovery, if not controlled, would be a dangerous escalation in an arms race that most of our government does not know about. In addition, one of the most likely reasons for the cover-up could be to hide from elected leaders and the public that our military cannot control our airspace. This inability is on public display around the country today. To hide this inadequacy, past leaders would have started these programs with the intent of preparing a defense against a non-terrestrial threat out of the reach of “temporary” occupants in elective office. This probable early response could raise the possibility of conflict if reverse-engineering programs succeed without proper oversight controls.
This scenario is one of many that would create unacceptable risks. Our Founders established civilian control of the military to prevent rogue elements from exposing our country to great risk. A combination of siloed secret government programs unaccountable to civilian leaders with the help of private defense contractors could lead to catastrophe. In fact, until 1988, the DoD had no method of tracing government-acquired materials transferred to defense contractors.[39] As a 1970s Senate investigation of intelligence abuses showed, the DoD/IC had a history of abuses under the cover of hidden programs.[40] Here, much of these materials would have been transferred prior to the government even have a tracking mechanism for these valuable materials. Secret programs are usually secret for a reason. In our system of checks and balances, congressional oversight is essential to prevent illegal conduct. At its core, the UAP investigation by Congress fulfills the important role of monitoring federal conduct. Conduct that strays too far from established policy goals needs oversight. A bipartisan approach to UAP programs and contractors will serve to reestablish constitutional order. Unity is essential to bring our system back into balance.
Dealing with the Past, Focusing on the Future
The biggest impediment to a public congressional role to identify core UAP is the government itself. DoD/IC roadblocks must be bypassed. It does not make sense to fail to investigate the source of core UAP because of lack of cooperation by those attempting to prevent transparency. In the long run, there should be a review of past activities tied to UAP/UFO investigation. To know what we have learned over the 80+ years of government interest can help us plan for the future. However, if this information is not forthcoming, it should not stop progress. Despite the lack of cooperation, once Congress reaches a strong consensus about the source of UAP, the process of disclosure to the public should begin.
Declassified records already show intense interest in a subject that was kept from the public.[41] UAP legislation has mandated that AARO file a comprehensive report on the history of their UAP/UFO programs.[42] In response, AARO issued a partial report on the day after President Biden’s State of the Union address, more than three months before the June 15, 2024 deadline.[43] This much criticized Report answered few of the questions asked by Congress, including failing to analyze “any efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide incorrect unclassified or classified information about unidentified anomalous phenomena or related activities.” [44] In addition to the latest Report’s failure to address mandatory elements of the UAP law, AARO used public relations tactics to minimize scrutiny. AARO briefed only supportive news outlets two days before its issuance.[45] It was made public on the day after the State of the Union address by President Biden, thereby burying it on a day when the nation’s attention was focused elsewhere. This combination of tactics hid the failure to address critical questions about past efforts to address UAP.
Since AARO succeeded the Navy UAP Task Force, its approach more closely tracks past methods to keep UAP/UFO information from Congress. A Senate investigatory panel in the 1970s found that rogue programs follow this pattern of deception.[46] One common element of hidden, unauthorized programs is a lack of documentation. To hide their efforts, these programs retained little or no paperwork.[47] Here, declassified records show that the Air Force and CIA both used this tactic in their joint UFO efforts.[48]
These tactics create a dilemma for the current Congress. First, AARO uses overtly political methods to “slow walk” data or just outright refuses to cooperate. Second, congressional efforts to seek information about the past will be difficult because of illegal policies that discouraged recordkeeping. Given the AARO roadblocks, intentionally shoddy recordkeeping, and classified programs refusing to cooperate with congressional oversight committees, the UFO/UAP programs are following the same trajectory as rogue programs discovered by the 1970s “Church Committee.”[49] The Church Committee’s findings led to the formation of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Leaving the investigation up to AARO will mean that no answers will be found. In its latest Historical Report in early 2024, AARO did not even review publicly available records. In one example, after two weekends in late July of UFO activity over Washington D.C., President Truman asked the CIA to investigate. It teamed up with the Air Force to set a new course for UFO study, one with an emphasis on misleading the public through the use of psychological warfare methods. The CIA/Air Force collaboration eventually established a small panel of military scientists at the end of the Truman Administration that reported to the new Eisenhower Administration. Using a still redacted report from the CIA’s Psychological Strategy Board requested by its Office of Scientific Intelligence in October 1952, the CIA’s Robertson Panel singled out certain UFO groups that should be “watched” because of their dangerous ideas.[50] Within two weeks, the Robertson Panel findings were reviewed by a small group of officials that included FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.[51] Days after the briefing, an FBI agent approached a rocket scientist at North American Aviation, causing him to quit Civilian Saucer Investigators-Los Angeles (CSI-LA). Other engineers and scientists who studied UFOs in their spare time got the message and also quit CSI-LA. By early 1954, CSI-LA was defunct. The FBI used the subtle threat of revoking security clearances to clear the field of opposing professional opinions.[52]
Documents in the current CIA archive show many other actions implementing a psychological warfare campaign against private citizens.[53] AARO had a legal obligation to look for incidents like this.[54] This series of events followed the recommendation of the Robertson Panel and led to the elimination of the best civilian UFO analysis group in the country. Its expertise was written about in Life Magazine, Time Magazine, Reader’s Digest, and numerous newspapers. However, with a few small steps, the CIA entered the domestic spying business and eliminated serious competition to the Air Force narrative that UFOs weren’t real. Yet, AARO could not be bothered to review these declassified records showing this illegal conduct.
Congress should not forget history. But seeking this history, however, should not delay the progress of its UAP current oversight efforts. Instead, AARO’s historical review should continue, but not at the cost of delaying today’s congressional investigations into potential sources of UAP. Delegation to a 911-style commission may be one route to take.[55] Another would be a continued effort by Congress to assign these oversight duties to a specially formed congressional committee. The key is to not let the past interfere with current investigatory steps towards finding out who controls core UAP.
Conclusion
Congress faces difficult choices on an issue that isn’t on the radar of most Americans. The phenomenon wasn’t an issue in the just concluded election cycle. It has been a subject seldom discussed and fraught with challenges, so most politicians shy away from it. There is little personal political benefit that attaches to it. Yet, it has arisen organically from the Navy pilot reports that cannot be explained through conventional means. These pilots came forward because the disturbing capabilities of core UAP that were ignored by their superiors. Academia, public policy think tanks, and other traditional policy sources have also marginalized the subject for decades.
Yet, the some of the most serious-minded Senators from both parties, on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have united to champion this cause. Despite their collective efforts, they have been routinely ignored by the agencies and service branches who are otherwise dedicated to protect the homeland. Highly trained pilots have given sworn testimony of maneuvers that cannot be performed by aircraft using traditional chemical propellants. Many of these core UAP sightings have been captured by multiple sensors each showing consistent data, making one question how multiple sensor platforms independently show the same mysterious phenomenon. Could they all be malfunctioning? They are showing the same objects from different angles while set in a variety of modes.
In the 2004 Nimitz “tic tac” case, this sensor data is no longer available. Former AARO Director Shawn Kirkpatrick claims this data was recycled shortly after these remarkable incidents.[56] Despite the extraordinary nature of these encounters, he claimed nobody saved the data. However, personnel who were present in the Nimitz Carrier Group have a different recollection.[57] These personnel explained how they were required to turn over the sensor data to unknown personnel and many have spoken about it prior to Kirkpatrick’s unverified claim. This disconnect between what the DoD claims and what soldiers, sailors, and airmen actually say, when they are free to talk, has been present since at least the 1940s. AARO’s take on the phenomenon is no different than Project Blue Book or other DoD public-facing programs that have looked into the subject. For these reasons, Congress should expect that it will either have to drop the subject altogether or just soldier on without DoD help.
This dilemma isn’t just about Flying Saucers. It is about who controls the government purse strings in a constitutional republic. It is about who is allowed to monitor government programs. It is also about the unintended consequences when unknown corporate executives and mid-level government employees have more control over sensitive issues than properly cleared oversight committees. Although through declassified records, we do see glimpses of these rogue elements acting without oversight or normal guardrails.
One place that Congress can seek help is the White House. While Congress can continue this battle with known and unknown forces in government and the private sector alone, having the President as a partner in the ultimate bureaucratic struggle would be a valuable asset. Through both leadership and bipartisan power-sharing, the President can assist with this congressional oversight effort. Our current President has always been a believer in reaching across the aisle. President Biden can boost this effort by partnering, before the end of his term, with Congress on a subject that has been bipartisan since Senators Reid, Stevens, and Inouye partnered in 2007. Our incoming President should do the same.
While UAP bipartisanship hasn’t always been smooth, it is the best hope for convincing the public that the ultimate conclusions reached by Congress will be accepted by a broad swath of the public. Polling shows that the public is equally divided on the subject. Most will have to be convinced, especially considering that the majority of the public believes the government has lied about the phenomenon. President Biden’s cooperation, prior to leaving office, would make the burden easier for Congress and the next President. The adoption of an Executive order or a Presidential Policy Directive, requiring compliance with adopted UAP laws will signal to the bureaucracy that greater legal compliance is a necessity.
A bipartisan approach that includes White House cooperation will make it easier for rank and file members to go through a pre-public release briefing process about the source of UAP. As long as the Administration shares information that the White House has shared equally with both parties, the implementation process will have a greater chance of succeeding.
Once the agreed upon hearing process begins, bipartisan participation in the process will be reassuring to the public. Minimizing defections from the process will be difficult, particularly in the House. As the process unfolds, dissidents will be harder to offer alternative reasons for what the public is seeing with their own eyes. A hearing process where the vast majority of congressional membership are working together will increase the odds of a successful transition.
This paper has outlined a difficult process to follow. It will not be easy. Yet, other scenarios will create more uncertainty. Whatever process is used, one of the key elements of a successful roll out will be having the truth on your side. This is usually the cornerstone of any successful public information strategy.[58] Congress must follow the evidence and make recommendations accordingly. Any hint of obfuscation will doom the process. This paper has assumed that the ultimate result will be a finding of a non-terrestrial presence on this planet. However, Congress must convince itself with testimony and supporting data. No outside source of information should be relied upon without diligent inquiry.
For the purposes of this paper, the non-terrestrial probability has been the main focus. So far, other possibilities have been found lacking, even according to the Navy’s UAPTF.[59] Core UAP have shown no evidence of being caused by a terrestrial foreign adversary, ally, or defense contractor.[60] Explanations of atmospheric phenomenon do not explain multiple sensor cases that also have multiple witnesses. With AARO replacing the UAPTF, these cases are now ignored, with sensor errors being their last hope for an explanation. It helps explain the exponential increase in mundane explanations when AARO changed the focus of inquiry after replacing UAPTF. The change in analysis methods helped AARO raise its “batting average.” However, using this Project Blue Book approach will not answer questions, when AARO continues to ignore core UAP cases.
From 1949 onwards, this has been the official approach of the Pentagon. Declassified records show that there has been an organized effort to ignore serious cases and use ridicule and other improper means to quash opposition to the 80+ year DoD narrative.[61] These clandestine efforts alone show that we must include a non-terrestrial possibility in the analysis.
Failing to prepare for a potential non-terrestrial source of UAP risks this discovery coming out in an uncoordinated manner, thereby risking severe consequences. Passing this “buck” onto future generations risks a catastrophic disclosure, which will heighten anxiety and risk the rise of Joseph McCarthy-like demigods to exploit the situation. Considering that future administrations will be focusing an increasing amount of their time and effort on climate change-related disasters and emerging military challenges, the future does not look like a more promising time to wait to announce a non-terrestrial presence. In fact, the current “drone” dilemma may speed these revelatory disclosures. This broad question has been with us for decades. As an example of how politicians have kicked the can down the road, the late Senator Richard Russell (D-Ga.) helped put this issue off. In 1955, he was part of an American delegation on a train traveling through the Soviet Union. According to staffers traveling with him, he saw two saucer-shaped objects pass over the countryside. Immediately thereafter, one of the Soviet officials rushed into the American delegation’s coach car and shut the curtains. Later, a reporter asked Senator Russell to comment on the incident and he responded:
“I have discussed this matter with the affected agencies, and they are of the opinion that it is not wise to publicize this matter at this time.”[62]
The question becomes when is the “time” to discuss this phenomenon? It has been 70 years since Senator Russell made this statement. The UFO/UAP phenomenon has not gone away, yet the policy remains the same. The public government policy is that all UFO/UAP reports are made by people who are mistaken, fabricating, or delusional. UFO/UAPs are unworthy of serious study. Yet, the same subject is classified at the highest levels and FOIA requests for information about 80-year-old events are still heavily redacted. It is a striking contradiction. The phenomenon is not real, but access to information is highly classified. Congressional inquiries have been rejected since World War II.
It will be difficult to cobble together a bipartisan coalition but consider the alternative. When a pilot can take a picture of a UAP and have it circulated the world wide web within hours, older tactics used to “kick the can down the road” are wearing thin. Calling UAP “drones” will not solve the problem. A revelation of the reality of UAP by an adversary will sow more distrust in our government. Our President and Congress have the ability to take control of this situation and limit disruption. UAP don’t seem to be going away so now is the time to act.
[1] The House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee have primary oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Defense. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have primary jurisdiction over the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the 18 intelligence agencies it oversees and directs.
[2] “AARO found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial technology.” Department of Defense All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), Volume I, p. 7, February 2024.
[3] Americans for Safe Aerospace; Elizondo, Luis, “Imminent” William Morrow (2024), pp. 151-169.
[4] Majority Leader Schumer And Republican S… | The Senate Democratic Caucus.
[5] https://www.congress.gov/118/crec/2024/07/11/170/115/CREC-2024-07-11-pt1-PgS4943.pdf.
[6] i.e. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report 117–132: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, Report together with additional views, July 22, 2022.
[7] Lawmakers investigating UAPs, or UFOs, remain frustrated after closed-door briefing with government watchdog – CBS News.
[8] Former senior defense official, Christopher Mellon, explains how AARO ignores the UAP laws that created it and has embarked on a continued cover-up of information sought by Congress. The Pentagon’s New UAP Report is Seriously Flawed – The Debrief.
[9] i.e. ‘UAP are in our airspace’: Former military personnel warn Congress of alien objects threatening national security | Stars and Stripes.
[10] Elizondo, Luis, “Imminent” William Morrow (2024), pp. 151-169.
[11] Improving DOD Adaptability and Capability to Survive Black Swan Events > National Defense University Press > News (ndu.edu)
[13] Lough, James P., “Threat to the Body Politic: Foo Fighters to UAP,” Ingram Spark (2024), Chapter Two.
[14] i.e. Director’s Strategic Intent- 2024-2027 (dtra.mil).
[15] https://www.c-span.org/video/?520133-1/hearing-government-investigation-ufos.
[16] 50 USC §§3373-3373b.
[17] Lough, James P., “Threat to the Body Politic: Foo Fighters to UAP”, Ingram Spark (2024).
[18] 50 U.S.C. §3373(j).
[19] “Another possibility is that these aerial objects are visitors from another planet…. Pending elimination of all other solutions or definite proof of the nature of these objects, this policy will not be explored.” https://archive.org/details/ProjectSIGN/mode/2up. Unidentified Aerial Objects: Project Sign, technical report no. F-TR-2274-IA, @ p. 9 (18 of 72).
[20] DoD, “Media Roundtable on the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office,” December 16, 2022, https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3249303/usdis-ronald-moultrie-and-dr-sean-kirkpatrick-media-roundtable-on-the-all-domai/.
[21] “Core” UAP cases are those that cannot be explained by natural or artificial terrestrial phenomenon. These truly “unknown” cases have exhibited anomalous qualities that are either difficult or impossible to duplicate. The Navy’s UAP Task Force limited its sample size by excluding those sightings with terrestrial explanations. The UAPTF broke down “unknown” sightings into sub-categories that included objects that had anomalous flight characteristics that are at the “core” of the phenomenon. AARO changed that policy and included under the category “UAP” to be objects that had been determined to have a terrestrial explanation.
[22] Americans for Safe Aerospace.
[23] 50 U.S.C. §3373(n)(1).
[24] Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Policy Implications for the Government of the United Kingdom – The Sol Foundation.
[25] Congressional Research Service, Congressional Research Manual, January 16, 2020 update.
[26] i.e. Kevin M. Day USN ret. Tracking the Tic Tac UAP on Military Radar USS Princeton, USS Nimitz (youtube.com); Pilots & Witnesses; Systematic UAP Reporting for Pilots – with Alex Dietrich | Merged Podcast EP 14 (youtube.com).
[27] i.e. https://thesolfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/PPD-19.pdf. President Obama’s PPD 19 protecting whistleblowers.
[28] Elizondo, Luis, “Imminent” William Morrow (2024).
[29] Church Committee (U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities Within the United States), “Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans: 1976 U.S. Senate Report on Illegal Wiretaps and Domestic Spying by the FBI, CIA and NSA”, Red and Black Publishers (2007).
[30] 50 U.S.C. §3373(n)(1).
[32] Congressional Research Service, Congressional Research Manual, January 16, 2020 update; Whistleblower testifies U.S. salvaged ‘non-human biologics’ from UFO crash sites .
[33] i.e., Report of the congressional committees investigating the Iran- Contra Affair : with supplemental, minority, and additional views : United States. Congress. House. Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran .
[34] National Press Club Event – UFO’s and Nukes [October 19, 2021] Live Stream [Contact Tour] (youtube.com).
[35] Salas, Robert & Klotz, James, “Faded Giant” Book Surge, LLC (2005).
[36] See, generally: Ibid; Hastings, Robert, “UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites” Author House (2008); Pope, Nick et. al., “Encounter in Rendlesham Forest” Thomas Dunne Books (2014).
[37] 50 U.S.C. §3373(k)(1)(B)(xiii)-(xv).
[38] Elizondo, Luis, “Imminent” William Morrow (2024), pp. 151-169.
[39] DOD’s Management of Government Property Furnished to Defense Contractors | U.S. GAO.
[40] Laird v. Tatum (1972) 408 U.S. 1 (A domestic spying program was conducted by the Air Force against Viet Nam anti-war protestors in Michigan); Church Committee (U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities Within the United States), “Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans: 1976 U.S. Senate Report on Illegal Wiretaps and Domestic Spying by the FBI, CIA and NSA”, Red and Black Publishers (2007).
[41] Lough, James P., “Threat to the Body Politic: Foo Fighters to UAP”, Ingram Spark (2024).
[42] 50 U.S.C. §3373(j).
[43] AARO, Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP),Volume I, February 2024, issued March 6, 2024; The Pentagon’s New UAP Report is Seriously Flawed – The Debrief.
[44] 50 U.S.C. §3373(j)(1)(B)(ii)(III).
[45] The Pentagon’s New UAP Report is Seriously Flawed – The Debrief.
[46] Church Committee (U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities Within the United States), “Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans: 1976 U.S. Senate Report on Illegal Wiretaps and Domestic Spying by the FBI, CIA and NSA”, Red and Black Publishers (2007).
[47] Ibid. @ pp. 17-18.
[48] The Air Force and CIA staffs agreed that their goal would be to minimize the amount of paperwork in this endeavor, i.e. “Flying Saucers Problem,” October 14, 1952, CIA-RDP81R00560R000100020010-9.pdf.
[49] 50 U.S.C. §3373(j)(2); 50 U.S.C. §3373(n)(1)-(4).
[50] “Report of Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects Convened by Office of Scientific Intelligence CIA,” January 14–18 (sic) 1953, Tab “A” NICAP Declassified Version: http://www.nicap.org/reports/1953_robertson_panel.htm.
[51] This memo was probably written by an FBI agent, while detailed to the Los Angeles FBI Field Office. The Robertson Panel Report had not been formally distributed outside of the CIA at this point. However, “Dr. Edgar Hoover” had attended the CIA Office of National Estimates (ONE) briefing on January 30, 1953. This must have been a reference to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. However, the contact memo is not in the FBI archives, but in the CIA archives. There is no separate record of Hoover formally receiving a copy of the Panel Report even though the FBI was to be kept apprised of UFO developments. Hoover must have authorized the contact after learning about the Panel’s recommendations at the ONE briefing; California Committee for Saucer Investigation, February 9, 1953, CIA-RDP81R00560R000100030023-4.
[52] The CIA archives are difficult to navigate. First, go to: Historical Collections | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov). Next, open the UFO: Fact or Fiction section: UFOs: Fact or Fiction? | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov). Under this subpart, enter a search for “California Committee for Saucer Investigation” to find the FBI report of the encounter with Rocket Scientist Dr. Walther Riedel encouraging him to quit Civilian Saucer Investigators-Los Angeles. The memo went directly to the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence with no other copies sent.
[53] The CIA “history” of its UFO involvement, still prominently featured on its website, denigrates Dr. Leon Davidson for his private efforts to seek UFO documents. Dr. Davidson, a Manhattan Project scientist and one of the pioneers of early computing, is still dismissed and demeaned today for asking for records about the 1953 Robertson Panel. https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/studies-in-intelligence-1997/cias-role-in-the-study-of-ufos-1947-1990/.
[54] 50 U.S.C. §3373(j)(1)(B)(ii)(III).
[55] The 9/11 Commission Report (9-11commission.gov).
[56] https://metro.co.uk/2023/11/09/pentagon-ufo-boss-steps-down-after-explosive-admission-19798857/; https://thedebrief.org/pentagon-confirms-retirement-of-aaro-director-sean-kirkpatrick-as-new-deputy-director-is-named/.
[57] Navy UFO | UFO Sightings | The Truth About the Navy’s UFOs (popularmechanics.com)
[58] i.e., In Case of Emergency | The New Yorker.
[59] Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf (dni.gov).
[60] Ibid @ pp. 3, 5-6.
[61] Lough, James P., Threat to the Body Politic: Foo Fighters to UAP, Ingram Spark (2024).