Executive Summary

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability will conduct a joint hearing titled "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth" led by Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation Chairwoman Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Chairman Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.).

This hearing represents the second congressional examination of UAP and seeks to:

  • Investigate alleged classified UAP research programs conducted by the U.S. government

  • Examine previously undisclosed findings from these programs

  • Address the Department of Defense's approach to declassification of UAP-related materials

  • Evaluate methods for improving public transparency and access to UAP information

As stated by Chairwoman Mace and Chairman Grothman: "Americans deserve to understand what the government has learned about UAP sightings, and the nature of any potential threats these phenomena pose. We can only ensure that understanding by providing consistent, systemic transparency."

The hearing brings together four witnesses with diverse expertise in government operations, military aviation, and investigative reporting to address critical questions about UAP oversight, safety implications, and the balance between necessary security and public disclosure:

  • Luis Elizondo - Former Director of AATIP and Special Access Program manager

  • Tim Gallaudet - Former Naval Commander and Acting NOAA Administrator

  • Mike Gold - Former NASA Associate Administrator of Space Policy and Partnerships; Member of NASA UAP Independent Study Team

  • Michael Shellenberger - Investigative Journalist

This hearing builds upon previous congressional oversight efforts while focusing specifically on transparency, declassification, and the public's right to information about UAP within appropriate security boundaries.

Witness Overview

Luis Elizondo

  • Former Director, Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)

  • Managed Special Access Program on behalf of White House/NSC

  • Key Areas of Testimony:

    • UAP monitoring of sensitive military installations

    • Alleged possession of UAP technologies by U.S. and adversaries

    • Reported retaliation against UAP whistleblowers

    • Need for coordinated government response and whistleblower protections

Tim Gallaudet

  • Former Commander, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command

  • Former Acting NOAA Administrator

  • Key Areas of Testimony:

    • Direct experience with UAP safety incidents during military exercises

    • Concerns about over-classification and information suppression

    • Need for greater transparency and congressional oversight

    • Potential scientific/technological benefits of open UAP research

Mike Gold

• Former NASA Associate Administrator for Space Policy and Partnerships

  • Current Chief Growth Officer at Redwire Space

  • Member of NASA UAP Independent Study Team

  • Key Areas of Testimony:

    • Role of civil and commercial sectors in UAP research

    • NASA's potential contributions to UAP investigation

    • Need to combat stigma preventing scientific inquiry

    • Recommendations for improving data collection and analysis

    • Value of leveraging NASA's international partnerships

    • Importance of establishing clear civilian reporting processes

Michael Shellenberger

  • Investigative Journalist

  • Key Areas of Testimony:

    • Analysis of government transparency issues around UAP

    • Documentation of inconsistent DOD/IC responses

    • Congressional oversight challenges

    • Need for legislative action on disclosure

Priority Areas for Oversight

  1. Safety and National Security

  • UAP incursions near sensitive military installations

  • Impact on aviation safety

  • Potential technological advantages of adversaries

  • Adequacy of current detection/response capabilities

  1. Transparency and Classification

  • Appropriate balance between secrecy and disclosure

  • Potential over-classification of UAP information

  • Congressional access to UAP programs and data

  • Public right to know vs. legitimate security concerns

  1. Whistleblower Protection

  • Current status of UAP-related whistleblower protections

  • Reported retaliation against witnesses

  • Need for enhanced legal safeguards

  • Process for secure disclosure of classified information

  1. Governance and Oversight

  • Effectiveness of current UAP investigation structure

  • Role and performance of AARO

  • Interagency coordination challenges

  • Congressional oversight mechanisms

Suggested Lines of Inquiry

Classification and Disclosure

  1. What specific criteria justify continued classification of historical UAP records?

  2. How can Congress ensure appropriate access to UAP information while protecting legitimate sources and methods?

Safety and Operations

  1. What procedures exist for reporting UAP incidents near sensitive facilities?

  2. How are safety concerns balanced against classification requirements?

Whistleblower Protection

  1. What specific forms of retaliation have witnesses experienced?

  2. What additional protections would encourage more whistleblowers to come forward?

Oversight Structure

  1. How effective is the current UAP reporting system?

  2. What legislative changes would improve congressional oversight?


Public Questions

  1. Can the current sitting president or future president ask to declassify UAP documents or ask the Pentagon to come clean with the public?

  2. Does the US government possess high-fidelity imagery (e.g. photographs or videos from jet gun cameras, aerial surveillance platforms, satellites, government facilities' security systems, etc.) of craft operating on Earth, in its oceans, or in space, that do not originate from any known faction on Earth? And if yes, why is this imagery not sanitized of any classified content and disseminated to the public?

  3. LUE AND TIM: If you became president, and were wanting to gain access to detailed information in these programs, how would you go about doing that? Who would you talk to in order to get all of the information about our SAPs related to this or any topic?

  4. What evidence have you seen personally that substantiates the claims made?

  5. Do you have any primary (first hand) experience, or has everything you’ve learned been told to you by others that have seen the alleged evidence?

  6. Are there reports of USOs from the US Navy or other seagoing organizations? If so, how frequently are reports made? Do you have any first hand experience with these reports? Have you seen any evidence that substantiates these reports?

  7. Do we know if there is any consensus within the “Legacy Program” as to the nature or origin of the NHI?

  8. How far back does the American crash retrieval program go? 1930s, 20’s, earlier?

  9. Since the 1940's, how much tax payer money has been spent researching UFOs/UAP related inquiries while the US Government has publicly maintained the position that they do not exist? 

  10. Does the US have diplomatic relations with NHI? What is the nature of that relation? And how many different species of NHI are we in relation with. And what or who are the varying NHI species or groups?

  11. Knowing what you now know about UAP, who should be in front of us for the next hearing? 

  12. Shellenberger: Has the President been briefed about Immaculate Constellation?

  13. Lue and Tim: Are you aware of the program Immaculate Constellation?

  14. All: Have you personally witnessed UAP or engaged with NHI?

  15. All: Have you been intimidated or retaliated with regard to speaking out about the UAP subject? How long did the retaliation last? Are you able to tell us who orders the retaliation and who carries out such retaliation?

  16. In your opinion, what needs to happen legislatively to enact proper whistleblower protections so that first hand whistleblowers, people who have worked in the legacy program, feel safe to publicly testify without fear of reprisal? Do you think a special committee dedicated to UAP would be appropriate, such as a Church Committee but for UAP?

  17. Former AARO Leadership have stated that they have not found credible evidence of objects that defy the known laws of physics, were they telling the truth?

  18. Lue: Are you aware of recent UAP activity near nuclear powered facilities, ships, or areas storing nuclear weapons?

  19. All: Have you met with folks working in the Legacy UAP Program(s)?

  20. Lue/Tim/Shellenberger: Who are the officials at the top of the alleged coverup? 

This website (uapcaucus.com) is an independent community-driven platform and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or representative of any official government entity, including the UAP Caucus within the House of Representatives, or any other official body. The views, frameworks, and content expressed on this site are those of the contributors and do not reflect the official stance or endorsement of any governmental organization.

This website (uapcaucus.com) is an independent community-driven platform and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or representative of any official government entity, including the UAP Caucus within the House of Representatives, or any other official body. The views, frameworks, and content expressed on this site are those of the contributors and do not reflect the official stance or endorsement of any governmental organization.

This website (uapcaucus.com) is an independent community-driven platform and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or representative of any official government entity, including the UAP Caucus within the House of Representatives, or any other official body. The views, frameworks, and content expressed on this site are those of the contributors and do not reflect the official stance or endorsement of any governmental organization.