U.S. Senators Express Frustration Over Weakened UFO Disclosure Language
Written by Christopher Sharp - 14 December 2023
Yesterday, on 13 December 2023, U.S. Senate Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Mike Rounds engaged in a colloquy to voice their dissatisfaction with the dilution of language concerning Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) in the finalized National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024.
Senator Schumer attributed the weakening of the UAP Disclosure Act contained within the Senate’s version of the NDAA to resistance from the House of Representatives, stating:
“It's beyond disappointing that the House has refused to work with us on all the important elements of the UAP Disclosure Act during the NDAA conference.”
An integral component eliminated from the Senate's version of the NDAA was the Independent Review Board. Once again, Senator Schumer pointed to the House as responsible for its removal:
“It is really an outrage the House didn't work with us on adopting our proposal for the Review Board, which of course by definition is bipartisan in the Senate.”
Speaking earlier this month to Liberation Times, former Watergate and Pentagon Papers lawyer Daniel Sheehan pinned the blame mainly on Representatives Mike Rogers and Mike Turner, Chairs of the House Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee. Other Liberation Times sources have backed up Sheehan.
Moreover, Christopher Mellon, the Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, conveyed on X:
‘Hopes of forming a distinguished panel of experts on a Presidential Commission to review all U.S. government UAP records were dashed by Rep. Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The reasons for his opposition are unclear.’
However, other sources familiar with the NDAA process have told Liberation Times that it was Representative Turner who resisted UAP language and not Rogers. Furthermore, Representative Matt Gaetz, who fought for the inclusion of UAP language, has called Rogers ‘an ally in the efforts to expedite the disclosure of information on UAPs.’
Other Liberation Times sources have cited new House Speaker Mike Johnson as a point of resistance to passing comprehensive UAP language. Josh Hodges, Speaker Johnson’s new national security advisor, has been characterized by sources as a strong influence that led to Johnson’s alleged opposition to UAP language. Hodges was previously director of congressional affairs at the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration and was a policy Director in the National Security Council. Despite repeated attempts, Liberation Times was unable to engage Speaker Johnson’s office for comment.
Liberation Times sources have also highlighted Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, stating that his lack of public engagement on the UAP NDAA language was noteworthy. Liberation Times has contacted Senator Warner’s office for comment on the finalized UAP language, but no response has been received.
Information Allegedly Withheld From Congress
Senator Schumer, in the colloquy, added that multiple credible sources notified him and Senator Rounds that information on UAP has been withheld from Congress:
"We've 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 defence committees, and the intelligence committees."
In response to those comments, Susan Gough, a spokesperson from the Department of Defense told Liberation Times:
“The department is fully committed to openness and accountability to Congress and the American people.”
Liberation Times also contacted Representative Mike Turner’s Office, asking whether he believed information on UAP is being withheld from Congress.
Representative Turner’s office did not respond to the question, however, a spokesperson did provide the following statement:
“Below is a video of Chairman Turner being asked similar questions to what you were emailing about. He responds:
‘Well, I spoke to Senator Rounds directly, and I’m not holding up his provision at all.’
He goes on to say this about the Members of Congress who are pushing UAP legislation and have not spoken to him about any of these issues:
‘No one has even raised it. Perhaps you might want to ask them why they haven’t.’"
For reference, the video cited was an interview with Representative Turner conducted by Joe Khalil of Newsnation.
Liberation Times has sought comment from members of the House’s UAP Caucus to respond to the statements made by Representative Turner.
UAP Material And Biological Remains
Senator Rounds in the colloquy referenced, “UAP material or biological remains that may have been provided to private entities in the past and thereby hidden from Congress and the American people.”
A source familiar with Senator Rounds’ efforts to increase transparency has told Liberation Times that the Senator and his staff are fully engaged, and in the interest of the American people, are pursuing the UAP issue doggedly.
The source added that the real issue is how much information should be told to the American people and where the line is drawn between full disclosure and revealing sensitive military equities.
The source told Liberation Times:
“Senator Rounds is a patriot and understands that we must find a way, to tell the truth to the American people while protecting critical U.S. technologies that we don't want in the hands of our adversaries"
In July 2023, UAP whistleblower David Grusch, a former intelligence officer who served with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, made a sworn statement in the Senate about a covert, multi-decade crash retrieval and reverse engineering program involving non-human intelligence.
Liberation Times understands that major technological advancements have been made by reverse engineering such craft.
Furthermore, reliable intelligence and defense sources have told Liberation Times that some of the alleged crashed non-human craft were caused by “dogfights” with other unknown craft.
Where Does Congress Go From Here?
Commenting on the path ahead following the removal of key parts of the UAP Disclosure Act (UAPDA), Matthew Pines, a civilian intelligence analyst, provided the following commentary.
Schumer and Rounds taking to the floor for such an unusual colloquy was a signal to their colleagues in the Senate and across the Capitol that they aren’t satisfied with the compromise watered-down UAP provisions of the NDAA.
They specifically raised the loss of the UAP Records Review Board and the eminent domain provisions as critical transparency and oversight gaps that need to be filled, and enjoined their colleagues to work with them on further investigations and legislation to that effect.
There seem to be two broad paths ahead, though these not necessarily mutually exclusive:
First, the Senate could draft and pass a standalone bill. While this seems unlikely at the moment, it’s possible they could gather enough bipartisan momentum to push such provisions on their own. Alternatively, they could look to incorporate stronger UAP provisions into another package of legislation up for consideration—the most likely vehicle would be the next FY25 NDAA, which would be drafted in each chamber over the spring and summer, before going through a similar conference process next November/December.
Given the implacability of House leadership, it’s hard to see how this would lead to a materially different outcome unless more public pressure is brought to bear and/or the political incentives in the House change on this issue. That said, the rising salience of the topic, as evidenced by the bipartisan and forceful colloquy in the Senate, may bring more media attention and uncomfortable questions regarding the underlying rationale for the Senate’s insistence and the House’s opposition.
A second track runs through the White House—note that both of the UAPDA sticking points (an independent review board and eminent domain) can be executed via unilateral executive authority, though with important qualifications and limitations.
For example, the President could establish (with the stroke of a pen on an Executive Order) a “Presidential UAP Advisory Board” and “UAP Oversight Board” modeled after the existing, executive-originated President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) and Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB).
The PIAB consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors. The Board is a nonpartisan body, independent of the Intelligence Community, free from day-to-day management or operational responsibilities, and with full access to the complete range of intelligence-related information.
The President also appoints an Executive Director, who reports to the Chairman and manages the professional staff which is selected and detailed from Intelligence Community agencies. As a component element of the PIAB, the IOB’s mission is to oversee the Intelligence Community’s compliance with the Constitution and all applicable laws, Executive Orders, and Presidential Directives. In reviewing the legality and propriety of intelligence activities, the IOB advises the President on intelligence activities that the IOB believes may be unlawful or not adequately addressed. For those who have read the UAPDA, this language would sound familiar.
One could imagine the President (if so inclined) constituting a UAP board charged with some of the mandate and powers of the UAPDA’s UAP Records Review Board (URRB), drawing from the existing constitutional authority of the President as the ultimate declassification authority and commander in chief. Of course, this body wouldn’t be nearly as legally or politically independent as the UAPDA’s envisioned board and would owe no obligation to keep Congress apprised of its findings, recommendations, or deliberations. But the sum and substance of its membership and mission could be very similar to that envisioned by the UAPDA.
It may also allow the President to claim some semblance of “hands-off” this extremely fraught process as the Board conducts its work, which he may feel is more properly overseen by non-government employees (e.g., not on the National Security Council staff or the White House UAP Working Group, if it still exists). In addition, while nominally independent of the Executive Agencies it’s overseeing, it would still operate at the pleasure of the President.
Given the potentially explosive geopolitical, social, political, economic, and other cascading implications of the Board’s disclosure activities (which would need to be conducted with the highest levels of operational and cybersecurity), one could imagine the Executive desiring more tight control and discretion over its activities than the UAPDA potentially would have provided.
To the other key sticking point, it is important to remember that eminent domain is an inherent sovereign power of the federal government—while the UAPDA’s eminent domain provisions would certainly have given more political teeth to their wielding, there is no constitutional restriction on the President invoking those powers to demand private aerospace firms turnover possession of any technologies of unknown origin or biological materials. There is the risk of litigation of course, which may get very legally and politically messy, so I’m sure they’d prefer to work out some deal rather than fight it out in public (while dealing with the larger issues attending any “disclosure”.).
Lastly, any presidential action in 2024 will be intimately tied up in the hotly contested US election, which makes any related disclosures fraught with political peril and could jeopardize national (and global) ingestion of novel and bracing facts.
That said, the risk of an uncontrolled or “catastrophic disclosure”–via first-hand witnesses and dispositive evidence leaking or via an adversary moving first–may give national leadership concern that the clock is ticking.