The archive, now available through The Black Vault’s custom-built search engine platform, includes searchable PDFs, videos, images, transcripts, and supporting records connected to the Department of War’s Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) document release last week.

The original release presented several challenges for researchers and the public alike. Many of the PDF files were password protected, limiting accessibility and preventing standard optical character recognition (OCR) processing. Numerous files were also either poorly searchable or entirely unsearchable in their original form.

To address those issues, The Black Vault processed the files into a more usable format wherever possible. Password restrictions were removed when necessary to allow OCR processing, and searchable text was generated from the documents to improve discoverability across the archive. While OCR quality varies depending on the condition and quality of the original files, every effort was made to maximize searchability and functionality.

The search engine was designed with simplicity and utility in mind. Rather than focusing on excessive visual effects, unnecessary statistics, or overly complicated interfaces, the platform emphasizes speed, organization, and direct access to the underlying records. Users can search document text, titles, agencies, locations, filenames, and related metadata through a streamlined interface intended to support both casual readers and serious researchers.

The archive currently contains:

• Searchable government PDF documents
• Video records associated with the release
• OCR-generated text files
• Transcript and subtitle support for available videos
• Agency categorization
• Related-record linking
• Direct PDF highlighting support

The Black Vault also offers the entire processed UFO Files Release #1 collection as a downloadable ZIP archive for researchers who wish to work with the files offline.

As additional UFO/UAP records are released publicly, the archive will continue to expand. Future releases will be processed and integrated into the search engine as they become available, with ongoing improvements planned for metadata, transcripts, OCR quality, and organizational tools.

The UFO Files Release #1 Search Engine can be accessed here:

The bulk 2.0GB downloadable archive is available here:

https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/UFOFiles/UFOFiles-Release1.zip

###

The post The Black Vault Launches Searchable UFO Files Release Archive first appeared on The Black Vault.

The post Newly Released Documents Show UAP “Space Tiger Team” Built Around Space and Transmedium Cases first appeared on The Black Vault.

A newly released series of Pentagon emails from May 2019 reveals an internal contradiction at the center of the Department of Defense’s narrative on the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) and Luis Elizondo.

At the center of the records is a May 7, 2019, email from senior Pentagon official Neill Tipton, former Director of Defense Intelligence for Collection and Special Programs, which states in clear terms that Elizondo “had no assigned responsibilities” related to AATIP during his time under Tipton within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).

Yet the same batch of emails, along with previously released records published by The Black Vault as released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), shows Tipton was directly communicating with Elizondo about AATIP, reviewing a memo to assume responsibilities tied to it, and participating in internal discussions about how the Department should respond to inquiries on the subject.

The newly uncovered email chain also shows that Tipton’s statement did not stand uncontested internally. Instead, it prompted immediate concern among Pentagon officials about contradictions, prior statements, and the need to keep messaging consistent.

Tipton’s Core Statement

In the May 7, 2019, email, Tipton wrote:

“Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for this program… Elizondo worked for me from 2010 to early 2012.”

He added:

“At the time he was assigned to me, he brought with him no responsibilities for AATIP (and I was unaware of its existence).”

The language is precise and limited in scope, focusing specifically on Elizondo’s time under Tipton within OSD.

Immediate Internal Reaction

A follow-up email sent later that day by an individuals name that was redacted reflects concern about how the statement could be interpreted:

“Neill raises an important issue here—the Department may be putting itself in an awkward position of both contradicting previous ‘statements’ (however they may have been misconstrued) and potential statements from Senator Reid…”

The message continues:

“As for other, more recent history, I am happy to discuss in person or in another venue/media.”

This indicates that additional context existed but was not being fully revealed in the written response. It also suggests that further discussion was being moved to another setting, outside the documented email exchange, which would limit what is preserved in the official record and subject to a future FOIA disclosure.

Defining the Scope of the Pentagon’s Answer

Another email in the chain further clarifies the Department’s internal reasoning:

“The issue for us… is that when we answer, we’re answering for all of DoD, for all of Elizondo’s time in DoD, not just his time in OUSD(I).”

It continues:

“So while he may not have had any assigned responsibilities for these programs while in OUSD(I), if he did work on these programs while assigned to a different DoD organization… we have to confirm that—or confirm that he didn’t work on them at any time while assigned to DoD, whichever is true.”

This internal discussion highlights why the Pentagon’s statement was narrowly framed. It addressed only a specific period and organizational context, rather than Elizondo’s entire time within the Department of Defense. What remains unclear is why the broader context was not included, particularly given the existence of other documented exchanges. Whether additional information influenced how the statement was constructed is not addressed in the available records.

Messaging Coordination

By May 8, 2019, the email chain shows awareness that the issue extended beyond a single response:

“I was asked this afternoon to discuss a FOIA issue which I can only imagine is related to this… we will have to keep our messages in synch.”

That same email introduces an important distinction:

“There is also a distinction to be made between old, wound-down programs and normal coordination/facilitation within DoD and the IC…”

This suggests that internally, officials were grappling with how to define AATIP itself, Elizondo’s role, if any, and how to respond to the public in a unified, synchronized, way.

Documented Exchanges With Elizondo

The significance of these internal discussions becomes clearer when compared to previously released records obtained by The Black Vault.

In a September 25, 2017, email, Elizondo wrote to Tipton:

“Per SECDEF’s Front Office guidance to you and me, I took the liberty of drafting a memo… that helps you better assume the new responsibilities for AATIP.”

Tipton responded days later:

“Getting spun back up. Will read and get thoughts back today or tomorrow…”

These exchanges show that Tipton and Elizondo were in direct communication about AATIP, including a draft memorandum outlining responsibilities.

Those exchanges are not referenced in Tipton’s May 7, 2019, email.

The omission is notable because it shows that Tipton was, at minimum, aware of AATIP discussions and had been directly engaged in communications about it.

It should also be noted that efforts by The Black Vault to confirm direct communication between Neill Tipton and Luis Elizondo regarding AATIP responsibilities were neither immediate nor straightforward. The process began with FOIA case 21-F-0964, filed on May 5, 2021, which specifically sought emails between the two officials containing terms such as “AATIP,” “UAP,” and related keywords. Despite the targeted nature of the request, the Department of Defense responded on December 14, 2021, stating that “no records” were found. This response stood in direct conflict with prior research and information indicating that such communications did, in fact, exist.

In response, The Black Vault filed an appeal within one day, citing a specific known email dated September 25, 2017, in which Elizondo contacted Tipton and referenced AATIP directly. That appeal argued that “this fact alone should have yielded at least one responsive document,” and challenged the adequacy of the search conducted. The appeal was ultimately granted in February 2022, forcing the case to be remanded for further processing. However, even after the appeal was approved, procedural issues persisted, including the Department of Defense failing to acknowledge the reopened case until August 2023, which it later stated had been “overlooked.”

When records were eventually produced under the remanded case (21-FR-0964), they confirmed that responsive communications did exist. However, even within those records, key details were initially obscured. In a related FOIA production (case 21-F-1154), portions of the same email chain had previously been released with critical language redacted, including the specific reference to “AATIP” in the context of transferring responsibilities. Only after continued pressure and the appeal process did the unredacted version reveal that Elizondo had written to Tipton that he had drafted a memo “that helps [Tipton] better assume the new responsibilities for AATIP.” This progression from “no records,” to partially redacted records, to eventual disclosure… demonstrates the extent to which confirming even basic facts about these exchanges required sustained effort and formal challenge through the FOIA process.

This does not establish that Elizondo formally led AATIP. It also does not confirm the exact structure or status of the program within the Department of Defense.

However, it does demonstrate that AATIP was being discussed between Tipton and Elizondo, including a transfer of responsibilities, which was not reflected in the 2019 internal conversation that led to the public statement. Tipton emphasized that he was “unaware of AATIP’s existence,” a statement tied to an earlier period when Elizondo worked under him. Yet documented emails from 2017 show Tipton was later engaged in direct discussions about AATIP, raising questions about why that context was not included in his 2019 account.

Speculation on What Was Left Unsaid

It is not explained in the documents why this context was omitted. If AATIP was considered an informal effort, a limited initiative, or a responsibility outside formal assignment structures, that context could have been articulated within the public statement to provide greater clarity.

Similarly, if AATIP was viewed as a minor or secondary activity, that distinction could have been conveyed using established Pentagon terminology, as well.

However, the absence of any reference to documented exchanges between Tipton and Elizondo adds to the existing uncertainty and raises additional questions that are not addressed in the available records, nor is any of it addressed in any official statements by the Pentagon.

Statement From Luis Elizondo

Luis Elizondo, in a statement provided to The Black Vault for this article, disputes Tipton’s characterization and asserts that the documentary record reflects a different reality.

Elizondo stated:

“There exists several emails and documents that illustrate as a matter of fact that Neill not only knew about my involvement in AATIP, but that he had agreed to replace me and assume my responsibilities.

It’s disappointing to see senior leaders outwardly lie to their chain of command to save their own butts, but given Neill’s new role at the time, and the massive witch hunt Garry Reid had initiated to tear me down and erase me, I understand why Neil wrote what he did. But it still does not make it right.

There are numerous witnesses that also briefed Neil WITH ME present. I think this email by Neill proves once and for all how they attempted to change the narrative. However, I sure wish someone would ask him the same question under oath. I guarantee to you his statement would not be the same if he knows the consequences for lying.

This is yet another example of the tremendously unjust efforts by my former leadership to try and cover their butts while throwing me to the wolves. I am relieved that people are now seeing the truth for what it really is.

AATIP was real, I was the senior ranking official, and since my departure the Pentagon has tried every way to change the narrative. It’s shameful but I am not the last bit surprised; business as usual I guess…and they wonder why our citizens have lost all faith and confidence at the Pentagon. If Hegseth were to read this, I sure hope he would fire some people.”

These claims are presented as Elizondo’s position and are not independently and/or fully verified within the scope of the released documents. Elizondo’s comments are published here, in full, and unedited.

Neill Tipton did not respond to a request for comment.

A Record Still Taking Shape, Nearly 10 Years Later

The May 2019 email chain does not resolve the longstanding questions surrounding AATIP or Elizondo’s role. It does not confirm that Elizondo led a formal program, nor does it define the full scope or structure of AATIP.

What it does show is that Pentagon officials were actively discussing how to respond, how to align messaging, and how to avoid potential contradictions.

It also shows that known communications between key individuals were not reflected in at least one official internal explanation that led to the DoD’s publish statements about Elizondo and AATIP.

Whether that omission reflects incomplete knowledge, narrow framing, or other factors is not addressed in the available record, thus far.

As additional documents continue to emerge, the historical record surrounding AATIP and the roles of those involved remains incomplete and continues to evolve.

The Black Vault has numerous outstanding FOIA requests on this specific issue, many of which have been pending for more than six years, which may yield additional records that further clarify these unresolved questions.

The full batch of 400+ pages of records containing the above email thread is currently under appeal, as The Black Vault is challenging the extensive redactions in key portions of the conversations. The outcome of that appeal will be reported when available.

###

Document Archive

 20-F-0163 Full Release Package [418 Pages, 17MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [16.84 MB]

The post New Emails Reveal Pentagon Effort to Align Messaging on AATIP and Luis Elizondo first appeared on The Black Vault.

A newly released collection of Department of Defense records centers on internal email communications tied to Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood and references to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). The material stems from a targeted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking insight into how UAP-related terminology and issues were discussed within the Pentagon’s public affairs apparatus.

The request specifically sought “a copy of all emails, sent to and/or from (bcc’d and cc’d) Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood… with the following keywords/phrases,” including “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,” “Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon,” “UAP,” and “UAPs” . The scope was narrowly defined, focusing on a single individual and a set of keywords that became increasingly prominent within Department of Defense communications in the late 2010s. Sherwood primarily responded to UAP related questions from the media, even those from The Black Vault, back around this time frame. He was later replaced in those duties by Susan Gough, for reasons unknown.

Sherwood served as a Pentagon spokesperson within the Department of Defense’s public affairs structure. In that role, communications involving Sherwood typically relate to media inquiries, official messaging, and coordination of public statements on defense-related topics.

According to the Department of Defense response, a search conducted by the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs located “416 pages determined to be responsive” to the request . These records were reviewed by multiple entities across the defense and intelligence community, including the

Defense Intelligence Agency, Office of General Counsel, and the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General .

Portions of the material were withheld under several FOIA exemptions, including protections for intelligence-related information, internal deliberations, and personal privacy. Specifically, the Department cited exemptions covering “information pertaining to… the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,” as well as “inter- and intra-agency memoranda… contain[ing]subjective evaluations, opinions and recommendations” .

This overview serves as an introduction to the archive. Subsequent analysis will examine the emails in detail, including their chronology, participants, and substantive content. For now, the entire archive is below.

An appeal was filed by The Black Vault to argue the extensive redactions.

###

Document Archive

20-F-0163 Release Package [418 Pages, 17MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [16.84 MB]

 

The post Pentagon Spokesperson Christopher Sherwood Emails on UFOs, UAP, and more first appeared on The Black Vault.

In an unprecedented revelation, The Black Vault was the first to report that the Department of Defense (DoD) had destroyed Elizondo’s emails, a move that surprised many and intensified the scrutiny surrounding the government’s handling of this sensitive subject. It also hindered efforts to verify many of Elizondo’s claims, with the use of what would likely reside in these emails. Therefore, this presented a significant barrier to the standard Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process while investigating his claims.

Yet, where one door closed, another opened.

Recognizing that communication is a two-way process, The Black Vault initiated a strategic approach. By targeting FOIA requests on the email archives of DoD personnel who had likely corresponded with Elizondo, it was possible to indirectly recover portions of Elizondo’s email exchanges. This indirect method, albeit unorthodox, proved to be a way to shed light on conversations that would have otherwise remained obscured.

The archive below, which is still being added to due to the fact that numerous FOIA requests are still open, is a collection of emails offering a glimpse into the world of Luis Elizondo and his interactions within the Department of Defense. In addition, it also logs those that may have communicated with Elizondo, but according to the FOIA final response, ‘no records’ were found. That is archived here as the inability to find records can be used to fact check claims in the past made.

Document Archive

Records Released Archive:

Name Withheld [10 Pages, 1MB] – The Black Vault has opted to keep the identity of this particular person anonymous. The name, discovered by The Black Vault, was one that the DoD aimed to not reveal in the FOIA release, and the DoD opted to remove the name in their FOIA case logs that referenced The Black Vault’s request. As a courtesy, and in the interest in privacy, the name is withheld. However, the documents are here for research and reference. This person was likely a subordinate who, as you can see from the emails, did various tasks for Elizondo. Notably, this was the person that got DOPSR’s email address that Elizondo utilized to coordinate a review of the FLIR, Gimbal and GoFast videos for use in an internal DoD database.

Marcel Lettre [3 Pages, 1MB] – Marcel Lettre served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) from December 2015 to January 2017. In this role, he was the principal intelligence advisor to the Secretary of Defense. Lettre’s tenure at the DoD intersected with the time frame during which Luis Elizondo claims he was involved with the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). Given the overlapping periods of their service, a request was filed for communications.

McKernan, Brennan [28 Pages, 0.8MB] – Brennan McKernan is a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst who served as director of the Pentagon’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF), the unit responsible for collecting and analyzing military UFO/UAP sightings prior to its replacement by newer offices like AARO. The request, filed by The Black Vault in June of 2021, asked for all communications between McKernan and Elizondo for all dates available.

“No Records” or Other Records Destroyed Archive:

James Clapper [3 Pages, 1MB] – James Clapper served as the U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) from 2010 to 2017, overseeing the country’s 17 intelligence agencies. Before his tenure as DNI, Clapper held various key positions within the U.S. intelligence community, including the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from 1992 to 1995 and the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence from 2007 to 2010. During Clapper’s time in the Department of Defense (DoD), particularly his stint as the Undersecretary, Luis Elizondo was also affiliated with the DoD, so their paths in the sprawling DoD apparatus may have intersected. A FOIA request which had combined a few names did not yield communications between Elizondo and Clapper. However, above, you will see the release relating to Marcel Lettre, which was in the same combined request as this one.

Mark Sanders [3 Pages, 1MB] – It is likely that Mr. Mark Sanders was the Director of the Foreign Material Program at the time Luis Elizondo stated he briefed him on AATIP, as claimed by Elizondo’s IG complaint, as published by the NY Post. Although the name was redacted, a DoD resource indicates Sanders was likely in that position. A request was filed, but it was determined through the processing of the FOIA case that Sanders’ emails were destroyed after he left the DoD in 2017. Therefore, a “no records” determination was given.

Patrick Shanahan – Patrick Shanahan served as the 33rd Deputy Secretary of Defense from July 2017 until January 2019 and then as the Acting Secretary of Defense from January 2019 to June 2019. Prior to his time in the Pentagon, Shanahan had a distinguished career at Boeing. During his tenure at the Department of Defense (DoD), Luis Elizondo claimed to have headed the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) until he resigned from the DoD in 2017. Given their overlapping time at the Pentagon and the significant attention AATIP and related UAP issues have received, it’s plausible that Shanahan and Elizondo may have had some level of interaction or awareness of each other’s work, however, FOIA case 20-F-0049 showed “no records” were found in regards to communications.

The post Archive of Luis Elizondo’s “Deleted” Emails first appeared on The Black Vault.

A newly released Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provides limited insight into internal communications involving unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), despite a broad request targeting multiple keywords tied to the subject.

The request, submitted on May 23, 2024, sought all emails to, from, or copied to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm containing terms such as “UAP,” “UFO,” “AARO,” and “Grusch,” among others. It also explicitly requested any associated attachments and directed the agency to search both classified and unclassified systems.

According to the DOE’s final response, the search, which was conducted by the Office of the Secretary, identified just two responsive documents. Both were released in part, with significant portions withheld under multiple FOIA exemptions.

During the course of processing, the scope of the request was amended to exclude news bulletins and later limited the search specifically to emails referencing “Luis” Elizondo vs. just “Elizondo”. This narrowing likely contributed to the relatively small number of responsive records, but omitted a lengthy review time of either already publicly available material, or responsive records that include name irrelevant to the topic requested.

The two responsive documents consist of internal DOE emails dated May 22–23, 2024, sent by a staff member to Secretary Granholm in preparation for an oversight hearing.

Both emails reference attached materials that include “UFO and UPA (sic) talking points,” indicating that UAP-related subject matter was included as part of briefing materials prepared for congressional engagement.

One attachment, partially visible in the release, specifically notes that Rep. Tim Burchett, and possibly Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, may raise issues related to “unidentified anomalous phenomena, aka UAPs or UFOs.”

The same document references the July 2023 House Oversight Committee hearing on UAPs and reiterates the Department of Defense’s public position that it has found no verifiable evidence supporting claims of recovered extraterrestrial materials or reverse-engineering programs.

While the presence of UAP-related briefing material is confirmed, the majority of substantive content is withheld which totals more than half the page. The content or context of the information withheld is unknown.

The DOE relied heavily on Exemption (b)(5), which protects “pre-decisional” and “deliberative” communications within agencies. The agency stated that the withheld material consists of internal discussions and recommendations that are part of its decision-making process, and that release “would compromise the deliberative process.”

Despite the original request spanning multiple UAP-related keywords and covering more than three years of potential correspondence, the resulting production consists solely of two emails tied to a single event: preparation for a May 2024 oversight hearing.

No standalone discussions, investigative material, or substantive internal analysis related to UAP topics were released. Additionally, while attachments were included, much of their content remains withheld or unrelated to UAP, focusing instead on energy policy topics such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The release ultimately confirms that UAP-related references did exist within DOE briefing materials at the Secretary level, but provides little additional detail due to the extensive application of FOIA exemptions.

The Black Vault has filed an appeal to argue the extensive (b)(5) redactions. Those results will be posted, when available.

###

Document Archive

HQ-2024-01974-F Release Package [14 Pages, 1.3MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.38 MB]

The post FOIA Request on UAP Keywords Produces Minimal Results, Heavy Redactions, from Energy Department first appeared on The Black Vault.

The outcome raises questions not only about the scope of the Navy’s search, but also about the content and context of the briefing itself.

The names of the individuals who participated in the briefings are fully redacted from the released records.

The first request, assigned case number DON-NAVY-2021-007791, sought:

“A copy of all emails, sent to and/or from and/or cc’d and/or bcc’d Brennan P Mckernan (CIV USN DCNO N2N6), which contain the following keywords/phrases: ELIZONDO.”

The second request, DON-NAVY-2022-007539, broadened the scope. It requested:

“A copy of all emails, sent to and/or from and/or cc’d and/or bcc’d Brennan P Mckernan (CIV USN DCNO N2N6) and Luis Elizondo (as a private citizen)…”

(Note: Luis Elizondo’s personal emails addresses have been redacted by The Black Vault to protect his privacy. Although listed in the FOIA, The Black Vault is not publishing them in this article, and has redacted them in red in the FOIA response letter below.)

Both requests instructed the Navy to search across classified and unclassified systems, including SIPRNET, NIPRNET, and JWICS.

In both cases, the Navy responded that “one responsive record was found.”

That single responsive record, which is identical in each release, is an email chain arranging and confirming attendance for a March 23, 2022, presentation at Roosevelt Hall on the National Defense University campus at Fort McNair.

The subject line of the email chain reads:

The fact that the email chain originates from a message labeled “[Non-DoD Source]” is significant because it establishes that the initial outreach for the AATIP/AOIMSG presentation did not begin from within an official Department of Defense email system. Instead, it was forwarded into DoD channels from an external account, indicating coordination between government personnel and at least one non-DoD entity.

Although the sender’s identity and email address are fully redacted under Exemption (b)(6), the record’s responsiveness to both FOIA requests strongly suggests that the redacted header fields contained names central to the scope of the searches. The combination of a non-DoD originator, redacted recipient lines, and subsequent TS-SCI-level scheduling inside a SCIF at Roosevelt Hall demonstrates that external actors were engaged in arranging or participating in classified briefings involving AATIP and AOIMSG. While the redactions prevent identification of the individuals involved, the structure of the chain confirms that communications spanning government and non-government systems were directly connected to the secure sessions. Even though the scope of the original requests may offer a likely hint on who this was, it can not definitively be proven.

The event was scheduled for March 23, 2022, and structured into three sessions:

The classified sessions were explicitly described as TS-SCI (Top Secret-Sensitive Compartmented Information) level briefings:

The unclassified session would run approximately 50–55 minutes, followed by a 15-minute Q&A.

The invitation email stated that:

Brennan P. McKernan’s name, who was reported to be the director of the Pentagon’s UAP task force by Politico, does not appear anywhere in the released emails. Yet, both FOIA requests were explicitly scoped to emails “sent to and/or from and/or cc’d and/or bcc’d” him.

The fact that the email chain was deemed responsive strongly suggests that his name appears in a header field, which includes the To, From, Cc, or Bcc lines, and was redacted under FOIA Exemption (b)(6), which protects personal privacy.

Similarly, because the first request required the presence of the keyword “ELIZONDO,” and the second explicitly sought emails involving both McKernan and Luis Elizondo as a private citizen, the record’s responsiveness indicates that the term “Elizondo” appears within the email metadata or body. It is most plausibly located in a recipient or sender field, given the structure of the chain.

All personally identifying details, including email addresses, were redacted under (b)(6).

Although the released version does not visibly display Elizondo’s name in the body text, the document met the scope of both requests. That fact alone demonstrates that communications involving him likely were circulating in connection with this AATIP/AOIMSG briefing at the TS-SCI level. These documents do not prove he was in attendance, or played a role, in those briefings, but do indicate a mention, at the very least.

The Department of Defense has long maintained that AATIP had limited scope and was not a broad-based UAP investigative program, though later admitted it researched a wide variety of information channels, “from a wide variety of sources, including reports of UAPs”. At times, officials have stated that Luis Elizondo had “no assigned responsibilities” within AATIP, which has yet to be walked back or changed since they first issued the statement.

Yet this March 2022 briefing, years after AATIP’s reported 2012 end and Elizondo’s resignation from the DoD in 2017, was explicitly framed as an “AATIP/AOISMG Presentation.”

AOIMSG, established in 2021 as a successor UAP effort, was tasked with synchronizing the Department’s approach to airborne object identification. The presentation appears to have linked AATIP’s legacy activities with AOIMSG’s ongoing mission, discussing congressional reports and the “Tic-Tac” incidents, while emphasizing “adversary overmatch.”

The reference to “Tic-Tac” incidents, plural, is also notable. Public discourse has largely centered on a single 2004 USS Nimitz encounter. The email language suggests that multiple such events were discussed in the briefing itself. (Note: The Black Vault reported on a released NRO document involving a “tic-tac” incident in 2023, after this 2022 briefing. There is no other “tic-tac” incidents that are known to have been reported by any outlet beyond the Nimitz encounter at the time of the briefing, so it is unclear if it being plural was a typo, or a reference to other related “tic tac” incidents beyond the Nimitz encounter that were being discussed at the briefing.)

The use of a SCIF at the TS-SCI level for two of the three sessions clearly emphasises the classified nature of at least part of the material presented. The location, Roosevelt Hall at the National War College on the Fort McNair campus, places the event within a senior-level military academic and policy environment. However, without the recipient list which would lend hints to at least some of those who attended, it’s near impossible to determine.

None of this definitively and ultimately disproves the Department’s prior characterizations of AATIP or Elizondo’s role. However, it complicates them. A former program described as limited in scope was presented alongside its successor office in a 2022 briefing that included congressional staffers and required TS-SCI clearances.

Whether additional records exist in other offices or components about this briefing, or others, remains an open question. The releases demonstrate that communications tying together AATIP, AOIMSG, and classified briefings involving redacted participants did occur, and were documented.

They also show that even years after AATIP’s reported closure, its name continued to appear in formal presentations delivered in secure facilities to government and/or military personnel.

A request has been filed for information relating to this briefing specifically. Those results, if any, will be posted when available.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [684.80 KB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [683.24 KB]

The post AATIP Resurfaces in 2022 TS-SCI Briefing, According to Navy FOIA Release first appeared on The Black Vault.

The decision, dated February 24, 2026, upholds a prior full denial of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by The Black Vault in September 2022 under case number DON-NAVY-2022-012661. The appeal was assigned tracking number 2026-NavyAppeal-000123.

The original request sought “all photographs with the designation of ‘unidentified aerial phenomena or ‘UAP’ as archived by the U.S. Navy.” In November 2024, the Navy’s initial denial authority determined that 78 responsive photographs existed but withheld them in full under FOIA Exemption (b)(1), citing classification under Executive Order 13526 and the UAP Classification Guide.

Appeal Denied in Full

In its appeal response, the Office of the Judge Advocate General confirmed that all 78 photographs remain classified.

“The IDA confirmed that as of today, these records are still classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526,” the letter states.

The decision further concludes that “given the nature of the requested documents, segregation was not possible,” meaning that no portion of the photographs could be released in redacted form.

The Navy emphasized that when information is properly classified under FOIA Exemption (b)(1), there is effectively no discretion to release it. Citing federal regulations, the letter states: “If potentially responsive information qualifies as exemption (b)(1) information, there is ‘no discretion’ regarding its release.”

The appeal authority added that it must defer to the Original Classification Authority (OCA), explaining: “I am satisfied that the OCA’s classification of the records responsive to your request satisfies the requirements under FOIA exemption (b)(1)… Therefore, as the DON appellate authority for FOIA appeals, I have no authority to tell the OCA otherwise.”

Accordingly, the appeal was denied.

Executive Order at the Center of Secrecy

The legal foundation for the continued withholding is Executive Order 13526, which governs the classification of national security information. The Navy’s letter reiterates that under FOIA Exemption (b)(1), agencies must withhold information that is “properly and currently classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, as specifically authorized under the criteria established by Executive Order.”

Executive Order 13526 permits classification of information concerning “military plans, weapons systems, or operations,” and once deemed properly classified, courts traditionally grant agencies broad deference.

The irony is difficult to overlook. The same executive authority that enables a president to order declassification is also the mechanism currently cited to block release of UAP imagery. While public rhetoric has increasingly emphasized transparency, the binding legal structure of Executive Order-based classification continues to prevail inside the FOIA process.

Public Calls for UAP Transparency

The appeal submitted in November 2025 argued that there is substantial public interest in the photographs, particularly in light of recent Congressional scrutiny over alleged UAP overclassification. It cited testimony from the November 13, 2024, congressional hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth,” where witnesses raised concerns about excessive secrecy surrounding UAP-related material.

For now, the photographs remain classified, and the tension between calls for transparency and entrenched classification authority remains unresolved, despite the words of a sitting U.S. President and calls from Congress for the release of records.

###

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [632.52 KB]

The post Despite Trump’s Call to Release UAP Files, Navy Denies Appeal for 78 Classified UAP Photographs first appeared on The Black Vault.

A recent Freedom of Information Act response issued by the Department of War raises significant questions about the government’s obligations under FOIA, after officials declined to conduct even a basic email search tied to allegations surrounding the so-called “Immaculate Constellation” program.

The request, filed by The Black Vault and assigned case number 25-F-3827, sought a search of emails sent to or from Maj. Gen. Derek J. O’Malley, Director of Special Programs and Director of the Department of Defense Special Access Program Central Office, for communications containing the phrase “Immaculate Constellation.” The request explicitly asked for both classified and unclassified records.

In its final response dated January 26, 2026, the Office of the Secretary of War/Joint Staff stated that no search would be conducted at all. According to the letter, “a search was not conducted as they confirmed the subject matter itself does not exist, and an extensive email search on the custodian would not yield responsive records.”

The rationale offered by the Department of War hinges entirely on the premise that because the alleged Special Access Program does not exist, records discussing it cannot exist either. That position stands out as unusual within FOIA practice, where agencies are generally expected to conduct searches for records responsive to the wording of a request, regardless of whether the subject matter later proves to be inaccurate, unsubstantiated, or false.

Allegations, Denials, and Congressional Attention

The phrase “Immaculate Constellation” entered the public record in late 2024 following the submission of a document by Congresswoman Nancy Mace, during the “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth” hearing held on November 13, 2024. The document was later revealed to have been authored by Matthew Brown, who was subsequently profiled in a NewsNation investigation examining claims that his whistleblower allegations regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena were ignored by government agencies.

Journalist Michael Shellenberger, who testified at the UAP hearing in November 2024, also submitted extensive testimony about Immaculate Constellation and the UAP topic in general.

In parallel, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a one-page, unclassified document under FOIA case DF-2025-00021, explicitly addressing the allegation. That document summarized press reporting on the purported unacknowledged SAP and included an unequivocal denial from the Department of Defense.

“The Department of Defense has no record, present or historical, of any type of SAP called ‘IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION’,” DoD spokesperson Sue Gough stated in the document.

The ODNI record itself exists precisely because the allegation was circulating publicly and required internal documentation and assessment. The document also noted that the press had reported the issue would be raised during open hearings with the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office in November 2024.

Government Denial of Existence Does Not Eliminate FOIA Obligations

A central issue raised by FOIA case 25-F-3827 is not whether the alleged “Immaculate Constellation” program exists, but whether the government may decline to process a FOIA request based solely on its own assertion that the subject matter is fictitious.

In its response, the Department of War asserted that because the alleged Special Access Program “does not exist,” an email search would not yield responsive records and therefore was not conducted. That reasoning conflates the government’s position on the validity of an allegation with its separate obligation under FOIA to search for records responsive to the language of a request.

FOIA does not require a requester to prove that an allegation is true, nor does it allow agencies to decline a search simply because they believe a claim to be false. Federal agencies routinely create and retain records discussing inaccurate reports, rumors, hoaxes, or media-driven allegations, even when those allegations are ultimately rejected. Those records may include internal emails responding to press coverage, coordinating official denials, briefing senior leadership, or assessing whether an allegation requires follow-up. The potential falsity of an underlying claim does not negate the existence of records discussing the claim itself, nor does it relieve an agency of its obligation to search for them.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s one-page release on “Immaculate Constellation” illustrates this distinction. While the document explicitly denied the existence of the alleged SAP, it nonetheless documented internal awareness of the allegation, summarized press reporting, and recorded official responses. The existence of that record demonstrates that even when a program is denied, responsive records discussing the allegation itself can and do exist.

That distinction is directly implicated in the Department of War’s handling of case 25-F-3827. The request did not seek confirmation that “Immaculate Constellation” is real. It sought emails containing a specific phrase, which is language that had already entered official government documentation, congressional submissions, press reporting, and interagency discourse. Declining to conduct a search on the grounds that the subject matter is alleged to be nonexistent sidesteps the core procedural requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.

Contrasting FOIA Responses Across Agencies

The Department of War’s refusal to conduct a search also contrasts sharply with how other agencies have handled similar requests.

In December 2024, The Black Vault received a response from the National Security Agency to a FOIA request seeking records related to the “alleged USAP ‘Immaculate Constellation.’” Rather than asserting that no search was necessary, the NSA issued a Glomar response, stating it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of responsive records.

“For reasons described below, we are not able to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of these records,” the NSA wrote, adding that “the fact of the existence or non-existence of the materials you request is a currently and properly classified matter.”

The NSA further noted that this was its “standard response to all requests where we reasonably believe that the request seeks intelligence records or records revealing intelligence related activity involving UFOs/UAP.”

While Glomar responses are themselves controversial, they nonetheless reflect acknowledgment of FOIA’s requirement to address the request through established exemption frameworks. The Department of War’s approach, by contrast, bypassed the search process entirely based on an assertion about subject matter non-existence.

Why the Distinction Matters

The core issue raised by FOIA case 25-F-3827 is not whether “Immaculate Constellation” is real. It is whether an agency may refuse to search records simply because it believes an allegation is false.

FOIA does not permit agencies to pre-judge the outcome of a search and decline to conduct it on that basis alone. Records discussing false claims, responding to media narratives, or coordinating official denials are still records. Some may be classified, some exempt, and some releasable, but the search itself is a foundational requirement.

By asserting that “an extensive email search on the custodian would not yield responsive records,” without conducting that search, the Department of War effectively substituted an assumption for a records determination. That approach risks undermining the transparency mechanisms FOIA is designed to enforce, particularly in areas involving secrecy, special access programs, and public controversy.

The response letter does leave the door open for further action, inviting additional “event or file-related information” that might justify a search. Yet the existence of ODNI records, NSA correspondence, congressional submissions, and widespread press coverage already demonstrates that “Immaculate Constellation” was discussed at senior levels of government, regardless of its factual basis, thus has paved the way for The Black Vault to file an appeal on their initial decision to not honor the request.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [225.26 KB]

The post Pentagon Refuses to Search for ‘Immaculate Constellation’ Emails first appeared on The Black Vault.

The responsive document, released under FOIA case number 24-F-0895, consists of the email invitation sent by Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough to a limited list of media recipients, outlining the terms, restrictions, and conditions for participation in the briefing with Acting All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) Director Tim Phillips.

According to the invitation email, the briefing was described as an “embargoed invited-media roundtable” focused on “AARO’s Historical Record Report Volume 1 (HRRV1), the initial volume of the congressionally directed historical record report on U.S. government UAP-related programs”.

The report itself was required by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which directed the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to produce a comprehensive historical review of U.S. government involvement with unidentified anomalous phenomena dating back decades. The March 6, 2024, briefing was held two days before the public release of the unclassified version of the report.

The invitation imposed strict conditions. It was marked:

“OFF THE RECORD / FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY / NOT FOR DAYBOOKS”

While the roundtable itself was described as “on-record and off-camera,” participation was contingent upon agreeing to an embargo until the Department of Defense announced the public release of the report on March 8. Invitees were instructed:

“To receive an embargoed copy of HRRV1 and be allowed into the roundtable, please respond with an email that states: ‘I agree to the embargo.’”

Only one representative per outlet was permitted to attend, and the invitation was explicitly “not transferable” without prior approval from the Pentagon press office.

Who Was Invited and Who Was Not

The FOIA-released email reveals by name a small group of journalists and outlets that were granted access. Among those listed in the invitation or BCC fields were representatives from The New York Times, CNN, Politico, Task & Purpose, and The Washington Post, including Kayla Guo, Jeff Schogol, David Martin, Oren Liebermann, Lara Seligman, and Dan Lamothe.

Several of these names were already known publicly due to their participation in the briefing itself. In March 2024, The Black Vault published the full transcript of the roundtable, in which some reporters identified themselves by name and outlet when asking questions. That transcript provided partial insight into who had access, but not a complete accounting of all invitees.

The newly released invitation fills in additional details, but also raises new questions.

At least two individuals listed in the BCC field of the email were redacted by the Department of Defense under FOIA Exemption (b)(6), which protects against what the agency described as “a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of individuals”.

The redactions obscure whether those recipients were additional journalists, staff members from major outlets, or other media-affiliated personnel who were included quietly on the distribution list. The possibility that these names were possibly other military or government personnel rather than media invitees also can’t be ruled out.

The presence of redacted BCC recipients underscores that the publicly known list of participants, which was from the derived previously from the transcript, was incomplete. It remains unknown which outlets, if any, were represented by those redacted names, or whether additional media voices were given access without being publicly identifiable.

Unlike more typical Pentagon press engagements, which often allow larger pools of credentialed media to listen in remotely or submit written questions, this roundtable was tightly controlled. Attendance was limited, listening access was restricted, and participation was conditional on advance agreement to an embargo.

The email emphasized that the event was “an invited-media roundtable only,” reinforcing that access was selectively granted rather than broadly available.

This stands in contrast to many background or senior-level briefings, where dozens of outlets may be allowed to listen in even if only a subset are called upon to ask questions. In this case, even passive access was limited to those specifically chosen by the Department of Defense.

Transparency Concerns Around UAP Disclosure

The subject of the briefing, which highlighted the government’s historical accounting of UAP programs, has been the focus of sustained public, congressional, and media interest. The NDAA mandate reflected bipartisan concern over secrecy, oversight gaps, and inconsistent public disclosures related to unidentified objects and alleged legacy programs.

Against that backdrop, the decision to brief only a small group of journalists, under embargo, before public release has drawn scrutiny. While embargoed briefings are a common practice across government agencies, the narrow scope of this invitation, combined with the classified history and ongoing public debate surrounding UAP transparency, has amplified questions about information control and selective access.

The FOIA response letter confirms that the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs located only this single responsive document, and that no additional invitation records were released beyond the email itself.

Taken together with the previously published transcript, the FOIA-released invitation provides a clearer, albeit still incomplete, picture of how the Department of Defense managed media access to the release of Volume 1 of their UAP report.

It confirms that only a handful of outlets were selected, that participation required adherence to strict conditions, and that at least some invitees remain unidentified due to privacy redactions. As debates over UAP transparency continue, the records illustrate how access to information about the government’s historical review was carefully controlled even as the report itself was framed as a step toward openness.

The documents released in FOIA case 24-F-0895 are now part of the public record, offering a rare look behind the scenes at how the Pentagon curated press engagement on a topic Congress has explicitly directed it to clarify for the American public.

###

Document Archive

 24-F-0895 Release Package [3 Pages, 0.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [593.18 KB]

The post Closed-Door 2024 UAP Briefing: FOIA Discloses Select Media Invitees first appeared on The Black Vault.

A heavily redacted Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) release made public on January 7, 2026, reveals a UAP-related whistleblower reprisal investigation centered on the revocation of classified access that was closed in February 2025. The records do not identify the complainant by name, but the chronology and subject matter overlap with publicly documented whistleblower filings that have been associated with former intelligence official David Grusch. The documents do not confirm that connection, but with the dates and information publicly available, the connection seems highly likely.

(Note: Grusch has repeatedly ignored past attempts by The Black Vault to contact him both via his attorney and close associates, so no additional attempts were made for this story. He is always welcome to contact The Black Vault to respond to a number of open questions.)

This document release was in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by The Black Vault in April 2025 seeking DoD/IG complaints and reprisal investigations involving whistleblowers who reported UAP-related programs or technologies.

What the DoD IG Investigated

The DoD OIG report describes a reprisal complaint alleging that officials revoked the complainant’s eligibility for access to classified information and refused access to compartmented programs because of UAP-related reporting to the Inspector General.

The Executive Summary states:

“We conducted this investigation in response to a reprisal complaint alleging that officials at the [REDACTED] revoked [REDACTED] (the Complainant) eligibility for access to classified information and refused to grant him access to [REDACTED] compartmented programs. The complaint alleged that this was done in reprisal for reporting Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)-related matters to the DoD Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG).”

The DoD OIG found the complainant “made four protected disclosures,” including one “to the DoD OIG,” with additional recipients redacted.

The Adverse Actions at the Center of the Complaint

The released report ties the reprisal allegation to specific clearance-related actions handled through the Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF), including the initial proposal to revoke access and the final revocation.

The report documents an August 29, 2022, notice:

“On August 29, 2022, the [REDACTED] CAF provided the Complainant an LOI and an SOR notifying him that it intended to revoke his eligibility for access to classified information… The notice also removed the Complainant’s access to classified systems and facilities and required him to relinquish his access badges and be placed on paid administrative leave pending the adjudication process.”

It further records the final revocation:

“On December 12, 2022, [REDACTED] signed the final letter of revocation, and on December 13, 2022, emailed the letter to the Complainant notifying him that the CAF revoked his eligibility for access to classified information.”

While the report confirms the existence of UAP-related protected disclosures, the substance of those disclosures is largely obscured by redactions.

The Bottom Line: “Not a Contributing Factor” and “No Recommendations”

The DoD OIG concluded that the protected disclosures were not a contributing factor to the initial intent to revoke and that the final decision would have been the same even if the disclosures had not occurred.

The report states:

“Therefore, we concluded that the Complainant’s protected disclosures were not a contributing factor in the CAF’s initial intent to revoke the Complainant’s eligibility for access to classified information.”

It adds that even after CAF personnel later learned the complainant was claiming whistleblower status, the outcome would not have changed:

“However, clear and convincing evidence established that [REDACTED] would have taken the same action absent the Complainant’s protected disclosures.”

What the Inspector General found was a contributing factor were substantiated findings of misconduct, which the report describes as independent of any whistleblower activity and sufficient, on their own, to justify adverse action. After those findings were developed, the investigation states that CAF was formally notified and conducted its own assessment. According to the report, “on receiving [REDACTED] findings, [REDACTED] reviewed the derogatory information, as well as the Complainant’s history, and felt a revocation was warranted in accordance with DoDM 5200.02.” The report further explains that this determination “was based on a pattern of misconduct,” and referencing a “pattern of behavior issues” underscoring that the decision was not tied to a single event or disclosure, but to cumulative conduct evaluated under established adjudicative standards.

The Inspector General also addressed whether the complainant was treated differently because of his whistleblower status and found no evidence to support that claim. In a section titled Disparate Treatment of the Complainant, the report states plainly, “We found no indication that [REDACTED] CAF personnel treated the Complainant disparately during their review and adjudication.” Testimony from CAF personnel and a review of comparable cases, the report continues, “indicated that nothing was unusual about the Complainant’s case or that he was treated disparately from any other [REDACTED] employee who was not a whistleblower.”

The investigation adds that “On receiving [REDACTED] findings, [REDACTED] reviewed the derogatory information, as well as the Complainants history, and felt a revocation was warranted in accordance with DoDM 5200.02.” It goes on to state that, “This was based on a pattern of misconduct, including the Complainants [REDACTED].”

While much of the underlying conduct and history remains obscured by redactions, the report repeatedly signals that additional, sensitive factors informed the outcome. Large portions of the analysis referring to the complainant’s conduct and history are withheld under privacy and national security exemptions, indicating that information materially relevant to the adjudication could not be publicly released without identifying the individual. Based on the totality of the evidence reviewed, including those redacted elements, the Inspector General concluded the disclosures themselves did not drive the decision, and the complaint was ultimately not substantiated.

Internal Messages Show Confusion Over the Whistleblower Claim and Optics Concerns

One of the more revealing windows into the case appears in redacted internal messages summarized in the findings. Those communications show CAF personnel questioning what, exactly, constituted whistleblowing in the first place, suggesting a disconnect between the clearance adjudication process and the reprisal allegation being asserted.

The report recounts an exchange dated September 29, 2022, including the following:

“On what grounds does [the Complainant]have for a whistleblower case. He didn’t blow any whistle or bring to light any info. What’s his grounds?”

A reply followed:

“I have no idea I have no information about any of that.”

Then came the line that underscores the uncertainty:

“[W]here is whistle blowing?!!! … [I]s there more out there we just don’t know about[?]”

Later communications reflect hesitation about timing and “optics,” including instructions to delay sending the revocation letter:

“[W]e haven’t gotten the OK … to do that[.] … [H]e’s claiming whistleblower status … and [REDACTED] doesn’t want the optics to be terrible[.]”

The report also notes a “stand down” directive tied to concerns about how the action could be perceived.

Those passages do not change the DoD OIG’s final conclusion, but they do document uncertainty and communication gaps inside the process at the time key steps were unfolding.

Return to Work and Restoration of Clearance

While the DoD Inspector General ultimately rejected the reprisal allegation, the report documents that the complainant’s security clearance was later restored through a formal appeals process and that he returned to work. According to the findings, after CAF revoked the complainant’s eligibility for access to classified information, he appealed the decision to the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB). The report states: “On January 9, 2023, after the CAF revoked his clearance, the Complainant appeared before a Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) and presented his appeal to the revocation.” The following day, the outcome changed. As the report records, “the PSAB overturned the original determination to revoke his eligibility for access to SCI, and that his TS/SCI was reinstated this date.”

The investigation further explains that the board’s decision was based on mitigation presented by the complainant rather than any whistleblower considerations. According to the report, during the PSAB hearing the complainant “provided compelling information on each of the other factors outlined in the SOR, which the board felt mitigated the security concerns.” As a result, “the board… voted unanimously to restore the Complainant’s security clearance.” The report also notes that appeals boards overturn revocations with some regularity, with one official estimating that reversals occur “one third of the time,” and stating that there was “nothing unusual about the Complainant’s case.”

Following the restoration of his clearance, the report documents the complainant’s return to duty. Under a section titled The Complainant’s Return to Work, investigators write that “after the Complainant returned to work with his restored security clearance,” officials resubmitted him for compartmented accesses in February 2023. The report states that while those submissions did not result in immediate access, supervisors attempted to reintegrate him into his position. One official told investigators that after the complainant returned to work in January 2023, he “tried to integrate the Complainant back into meaningful work.” The report also notes that the complainant was later formally debriefed on his security clearance status on March 22, 2023.

Taken together, the DoD OIG record shows that although the reprisal complaint was not substantiated and the clearance revocation was deemed justified at the time, the complainant ultimately regained his clearance through the established appeals process and returned to work. The report treats these events as procedurally separate from the whistleblower reprisal analysis, reinforcing the Inspector General’s conclusion that the protected disclosures themselves were not the driving factor behind the original adverse action.

Heavy Redactions and What the FOIA Exemptions Mean

The DoD OIG letter accompanying the release states that “an additional 44 pages are exempt from release in their entirety” and that the withheld material was determined in coordination with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

Among the exemptions cited:

The DoD OIG invoked FOIA Exemption (b)(3) for information “exempted from release by statute,” citing 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1) for intelligence “sources and methods,” 50 U.S.C. § 3024(m) for ODNI personnel identifying information, and 5 U.S.C. § 407 for “the confidentiality of employee complaints to the Inspector General.”

The release also relied on (b)(5) for deliberative process material, (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) for personal privacy, (b)(7)(D) for confidential sources, and (b)(7)(E) for sensitive law enforcement information that could risk circumvention of the law.

The combined effect of these exemptions is substantial: identities, offices, and much of the UAP-related content are removed, limiting independent verification of the complainant’s narrative beyond the broad framework described by the DoD OIG.

The Grusch Question: What Can Be Proven From Public Sources and This Report

The released DoD OIG report confirms a UAP-related reprisal allegation tied to clearance access, investigated under a whistleblower reprisal framework, involving protected disclosures to the DoD OIG and subsequent adverse security clearance actions in 2022.

Public records and reporting associated with David Grusch describe a notably similar structure, but the available evidence does not conclusively establish that this DoD OIG case is his, mainly due to the name being redacted.

Despite that, there is supporting evidence suggesting this case directly relates to Grusch.

An unclassified procedural filing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General  associated with Grusch is dated May 25, 2022, and reflects a “DISCLOSURE OF URGENT CONCERN(S); COMPLAINT OF REPRISAL,” signed under penalty of perjury by “DAVID C. GRUSCH.”

The same filing states that Grusch “confidentially provided UAP-related classified information to the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG)” and describes alleged retaliation and “numerous adverse security clearance actions” after those protected disclosures.

A 2023 report by The Debrief stated the Intelligence Community Inspector General found Grusch’s complaint “credible and urgent” in July 2022.

In sworn congressional context, a hearing document published on Congress.gov reflects Grusch describing reprisals and reporting the matter to an inspector general before filing a whistleblower complaint. Congress.gov

The Black Vault has also previously documented the May 25, 2022, date of the procedural filing and its general allegation of “adverse security clearance actions.”

The FOIA request that this case tied to, as filed by The Black Vault, did not specifically ask for, nor even mention, Grusch in any way. The exact wording of the request was:

“I respectfully request a copy of the following records: all Inspector General complaints, reprisal investigations, threat assessments, or disciplinary communications created from January 1, 2021, to present referencing whistleblowers within the Department of Defense or Intelligence Community who reported UAP-related programs or technologies. This includes, but is not limited to, complaints referencing retaliation for disclosures made to Congress or the media.”

In the responsive records, only one case came up, which indicates given the timeline above, this is most likely Grusch’s case he has made reference to in the past.

But beyond all that, what is arguably the most convincing evidence, though still not definitive proof, is the comparison of the redacted report just released by the DoD OIG, and the previously released, unclassified and un-redacted, “Disclosure of Urgent Concern(s) Complaint of Reprisal” submitted to the Intelligence Community Inspector General. The signature block comparison is below, which indicates it was likely the same law firm that drafted both documents, with a similar signature block structure, length, phrasing choices, and use of fonts.

The released DoD OIG records strongly indicate a UAP-related whistleblower reprisal dispute involving clearance access and protected disclosures. The public timeline and subject matter overlap with publicly available filings and testimony associated with David Grusch. However, the documents released by DoD OIG do not provide enough verifiable information to prove the complainant is Grusch, and the identity cannot be confirmed from this release alone.

Why This Release Still Matters

Even with heavy redactions, the report provides a rare, document-based look at how a UAP-related reprisal allegation moved through an internal national security adjudication and investigative pipeline. It also documents internal confusion about the whistleblower allegation and explicit concern about “optics” while clearance actions were pending.

The DoD OIG’s final position is unambiguous: the complaint was not sustained, and the clearance revocation would have occurred regardless of the protected disclosures.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Case DODOIG-2025-000932 [66 Pages, 8MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [7.81 MB]

The post DoD IG Releases Final UAP Whistleblower Reprisal Report first appeared on The Black Vault.

In June 2009, then–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to the Department of Defense requesting heightened protection for what he described as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). The four-page letter, addressed to then–Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn III, argued that portions of the program warranted Restricted Special Access Program (SAP) status due to sensitivity involving “unconventional aerospace-related findings,” advanced technologies, and national security implications.

The letter itself is no longer in dispute. After years of denials, confusion, and contradictory statements, the Department of Defense ultimately acknowledged its authenticity, and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released the document publicly. What remains unresolved, even after more than six and a half years after a Freedom of Information Act request first sought it, is the Department of Defense’s response to Reid’s request.

A final FOIA response issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff on December 15, 2025, under case number 19-F-0948, again produced only Reid’s original letter, directing The Black Vault to the same DIA-hosted copy previously released years earlier. The response asserted that this constituted a “full grant” of the request and stated that no additional responsive records were found.

That conclusion directly conflicts with prior on-the-record statements from the Pentagon.

A Confirmed Response—But Still Missing

In 2021, Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough confirmed to The Black Vault that the Department of Defense did, in fact, respond to Senator Reid’s 2009 memo.

“I can confirm that the memo you’re referring to is authentic. DOD received it and responded to Sen. Reid,” Gough stated at the time. She added that her office could not release the response because “the Public Affairs office does not release Congressional correspondence.”

The statement strongly implied that a tangible written response existed and had been located. Yet, when specifically requested under FOIA, and after the scope of the request was amended to remove any ambiguity, the Department of Defense now maintains that no such response can be found.

That amendment was formally submitted in April 2020, explicitly asking that all responses to Senator Reid be included in the search. The Department acknowledged receipt of that amendment and confirmed it was incorporated into the case file.

Despite this, the final determination issued in 2025 claims that no response letter exists within the scope of records searched.

Procedures That Require a Written Answer

The unresolved absence of a response raises procedural questions that extend beyond AATIP itself.

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5400.04 governs the provision of information to Congress and requires that inquiries be answered in a “responsive and expeditious” manner, generally within 30 days. Additionally, DoD Manual (DoDM) 5110.04-M outlines the internal handling of congressional correspondence and requires that an initial reply or draft be prepared within 14 calendar days for leadership review.

Taken together, these procedures make clear that a written response to a sitting Senate Majority Leader, especially one requesting Special Access Program consideration, would not be optional or informal. At minimum, a written reply or draft response would normally be generated, staffed, and preserved.

The Department of Defense has not explained how such a response could have been sent, as confirmed by its spokesperson, yet leave no recoverable record across multiple offices years later.

A Program Still in Dispute

The missing response letter adds another layer to the long-running controversy surrounding AATIP itself.

On one side of the debate, Reid’s 2009 letter explicitly refers to AATIP as an existing program, describes work already underway, and requests additional security protections. The attached “Attachment 1” lists AATIP as an unclassified nickname, identifies preliminary funding periods, and names both government and contractor personnel associated with the effort.

On the other side, the Department of Defense has repeatedly stated that AATIP was not an official, standalone program and that Luis Elizondo, often described publicly as its director, “had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP while he was in OUSD(I).” That language was reiterated by Gough even while confirming Reid received a response.

The Department has characterized AATIP references as administrative or informal, while critics argue that such explanations do not reconcile with the detailed content of Reid’s memo or the apparent need for a formal Pentagon reply.

A Pattern of Difficulty

Compounding the issue is the unusual history of locating Reid’s original letter itself. For years, the Department of Defense stated it could not be found. It was later located and released by the DIA. Now, after more than six years of FOIA processing, the Pentagon again claims it cannot locate a closely related record that its own spokesperson has acknowledged exists.

Other correspondence between Senator Reid and the Department of Defense has been located and released without comparable difficulty. Only the response to the 2009 AATIP letter appears to fall into a category of persistent absence.

An Unanswered Question

Whether AATIP existed as a formal program, an informal effort, or something in between remains a matter of ongoing dispute. What is no longer speculative is that Senator Reid requested action, and the Department of Defense has stated it responded.

What remains unanswered is why, under procedures that require written congressional correspondence, no response can now be produced. It also begs the question on why this particular document continues to elude release long after the original request was filed.

Until that question is resolved, the 2009 AATIP letter remains not just a controversial document, but part of an incomplete paper trail at the center of one of the Pentagon’s most debated modern mysteries.

###

19-F-0948 FOIA Release Package [6 Pages, 0.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [574.24 KB]

The post Six and a Half Years Later, the DoD’s Reply to Harry Reid’s AATIP Memo Remains Missing first appeared on The Black Vault.

The DoW originally stated that no such memorandum was found, but the appeal has now been granted, and the case remanded for a new search.

An Unverified Claim and a Growing Controversy

In June 2023, the Wall Street Journal published claims that a directive from the Secretary of Defense’s office had been circulated across the military services “ordering the practice to stop immediately.” The article tied the alleged directive to a hazing ritual in which service members were falsely told that they were working on operations involving retrieved non-human craft.

The WSJ did not publish the memo, identify its specific date, or provide sourcing for the claim. Following publication, no document surfaced publicly, and no military component acknowledged knowledge of the directive.

In September 2025, the DoW stated in a formal FOIA response to The Black Vault that it had located no such memorandum. On October 1, when asked again about the WSJ claim, Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough stated, “Regarding the alleged memo: I cannot confirm the existence of any department-level memo as described in the article. You may want to ask the Air Force or other military services whether they put out such a memo to their personnel.” In the original email, the word “alleged” appeared underlined for emphasis.

The Air Force did not respond after a request for comment, and the FOIA case seeking information on the alleged “Yankee Blue” ritual is still open.

A FOIA Challenge to the Pentagon’s “No Records” Determination

The Black Vault’s FOIA request filed with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) on June 17, 2025, sought a copy of any directive issued in spring 2023 ordering the halt of “Yankee Blue”-related practices or other activities involving fabricated claims of reverse-engineering non-human technology.

OSD searched solely within the Correspondence Management Division (CMD) and reported no responsive records.

A formal appeal was filed on September 17, 2025, arguing that the search was inadequate and not legally sufficient under FOIA. The appeal emphasized that:

• The Wall Street Journal presented the alleged memo as fact, not speculation, and attributed some related details to DoD spokesperson Susan Gough.

• FOIA requires agencies to conduct a search “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents,” as established in Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

• Limiting the search to CMD failed to meet that standard because a Secretary-level directive could reasonably reside in multiple offices, including policy directorates or the OSD Executive Secretariat.

• Agencies must pursue logical leads that emerge during the inquiry, under Campbell v. DOJ, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

• Any such memorandum from 2023 would fall under mandatory federal records retention, and its absence would raise records management concerns.

The appeal requested either a broadened search across all appropriate OSD components or a formal clarification as to whether the directive was ever issued at all.

The Appeal Decision: A Full Remand for New Searches

On December 12, 2025, the Acting Chief of the FOIA Division issued a written decision:

“After carefully considering your appeal, and as a result of discussions between FOID personnel and this office, I am remanding your request to FOID for a search for responsive records.”

The letter states that if any releasable records are found, they will be provided, and that the requester may appeal again should a future adverse determination occur.

The appeal victory does not confirm that the memo exists, will be found, or will be released. The decision establishes only that the prior search was insufficient under FOIA and that a renewed, expanded search is now required.

However, in the broader context, the remand highlights several unresolved inconsistencies:

• The WSJ reported a memo as fact, but has not addressed follow-up reporting by The Black Vault, provided a copy of the memorandum, or clarified sourcing.

• The DoW stated to The Black Vault in two separate channels through their FOIA office and Public Affairs office, that it could not confirm the memo’s existence, emphasizing the word “alleged” in their response from the latter.

• The appeal determination directly contradicts the prior FOIA conclusion that no responsive records existed, ordering a new search despite earlier categorical statements.

The result places the question back with the Pentagon: either locate the memo described by the WSJ, or formally resolve whether it was never issued at all.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [290.04 KB]

The post Pentagon Reopens Search for Alleged “Yankee Blue” Memo After Initial Denial first appeared on The Black Vault.

A newly released set of Defense Department documents reveals how the Pentagon handled former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon’s request to publish a message he said referenced an alleged effort to exploit “recovered off-world technology.” The records also reveal that Mellon’s first attempt to submit the material was returned to him after a DOPSR employee deemed his three-page mailed package a “security threat,” a detail he did not disclose in his public article.

The documents, sent to The Black Vault under FOIA case 24-F-1134, include Mellon’s original submission to the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR), internal emails, coordination records, and the March 1, 2024 approval that cleared him to release the message.

The 17 pages released by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) document DOPSR’s handling of Mellon’s submission from January through March 2024. The records show repeated delays, escalating internal pressure, and direct involvement from the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), which was tasked with coordinating on the review.

Mellon’s Submission: A Message Alleging Access to a Recovery Program

The FOIA file begins with Mellon’s January 19, 2024, email to DOPSR, in which he submitted the text message screenshot he later published publicly. Mellon wrote that he was seeking confirmation “to confirm it is not classified,” and noted that a submission mailed earlier had been returned “because some employee deemed it a security threat.”

In that letter, Mellon explained that the message was sent to him “some years ago” by a former DoD employee alleging they were “being read into a program involving the exploitation of recovered off-world technology”. Mellon also indicated he had “redacted the name of the alleged ‘gatekeeper’” and emphasized that he respected the confidentiality of the source.

He informed DOPSR that his intent in releasing the material was to show “why I have taken such extraordinary claims seriously,” but also  adding that he did “not have a position on the validity of the allegations” as he hears “credible claims, but also credible denials.”

Internal Confusion, Delays, and Pressure

The released emails show that by late February 2024, DOPSR was struggling to obtain required reviews from AARO and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (I&S). On February 20, a DOPSR official wrote: “These cases need to be completed ASAP. Not only is DOPSR under a lot of pressure from [ redacted ], but [ redacted ] has complained publicly about how long reviews are taking and DOPSR is now receiving emails from ‘concerned citizens’ all around the world (including Norway) about the matter.” It goes on to state that, “Further delay is simply not ok.”

The delays also appear to reflect procedural issues. One email states that DOPSR staff were “attempting to assign down for USI review” because the system “isn’t currently cooperating,” while other messages note that AARO responses were “not there” from CATMS, the DoD’s coordination tracking system.

AARO and I&S Ultimately Approve the Release

Despite the coordination issues, both reviewing authorities ultimately issued “NO OBJECTION” determinations.

The released SD Form 403 shows the official worksheet signed on March 1, 2024. AARO’s confirmation, according to a memorandum for the record included in the FOIA release, states that “AARO response coordinated with his leadership and is for AARO.” I&S also returned a “NO OBJECTION as Received” notice on February 9, 2024.

The approval stamp, dated March 1, 2024, appears on the version later published by Mellon in April 2024, when Mellon published the message and an accompanying explanation. In it, he emphasized that he received the text years earlier from “a senior government official” who he said “had plausible access and was high-ranking,” and whose claim of access to a crash retrieval program was why he believed at least some allegations merited attention.

He also acknowledged that the sender later told him they were denied access to the alleged program and had not seen any recovered craft.

The newly released FOIA documents do not validate or contradict Mellon’s claims or the claims within the Signal messages. Instead, they reveal the internal pathway through which the Pentagon processed and ultimately approved his request to release the material.

While the content of the message Mellon sought to publish had already been public since April 2024, this FOIA release marks the first time the government’s internal handling of his submission has been documented.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Case 24-F-1134 Release Package [19 Pages, 2.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.73 MB]

The post Inside the Pentagon’s Review of Christopher Mellon’s Alleged UFO Crash Retrieval Text first appeared on The Black Vault.

A newly released Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has revealed that no records exist for an August 28, 2017, meeting listed on the official calendar of Neill Tipton, then Director for Defense Intelligence, Collection and Special Programs.

The finding stands in contrast to an earlier FOIA-released calendar showing the meeting was scheduled as an UNCLASSIFIED “SAP Coordination Meeting,” with a point-of-contact phone number matching one found on Luis Elizondo’s DD Form 1910 request to release three Navy UFO videos back in 2017.

OSD’s “no records” determination, issued today to The Black Vault under FOIA case 24-F-0839, asserts that a search of OUSD(I&S) systems “could reasonably be expected to produce the requested records if they existed,” but that none were identified when it came to seeking out records relating to the meeting.

The Black Vault immediately appealed the decision, arguing that the agency overlooked evidence already released under FOIA case 20-F-1026, as filed by Lt. Tim McMillan, co-founder of The Debrief, which documented the meeting on Tipton’s official schedule.

That release to McMillan showed:

“SAP Coordination Meeting (UNCLASSIFIED) — Luis, 571-2393.”

The same phone number appears on Elizondo’s DD Form 1910 as his Pentagon office line at the time he submitted UFO videos known today as “FLIR1,” “Gimbal,” and “GoFast.”

The presence of the phone number in both documents, combined with a claim in Elizondo’s DoD IG complaint that he briefed Tipton in the July–October 2017 period, has fueled long-standing questions about whether the meeting took place, what it was about, and now, why OSD says no records exist.

The Tipton calendar released in FOIA case 20-F-1026 spans August 2017 and includes a clear entry at 12:55 p.m. on August 28, 2017, indicating a meeting took place between Tipton, and likely Elizondo himself.

These types of calendar entries are government records typically retained within OUSD(I&S) systems, which generally indicate that related materials exist such as:

• Scheduling emails

• Briefing papers

• Read-ahead materials

• Meeting notes or summaries

• Follow-up taskings

The FOIA appeal filed by The Black Vault argues that federal case law establishes that agencies must search all locations where related records are likely to be found, especially when an existing record points directly to their existence, like this calendar entry does.

OSD stated it could locate no responsive materials, even though this official calendar entry clearly confirms the meeting was at least scheduled at one time. Under normal circumstances, even a cancelled or preliminary meeting would generate minimal administrative records, all of which would be responsive to The Black Vault’s request.

In Elizondo’s May 2021 complaint to the Department of Defense Inspector General, he states that between July and 3 October 2017, senior Pentagon officials directed him and a colleague to brief Neill Tipton on the status of AATIP and to transition responsibilities to him. Elizondo states:

“From July to late September, Mr. [Brennan] McKernan and I had several personal meetings with Mr. Tipton to brief him on the nuances of AATIP.”

“Mr. Tipton agreed to assume the management role of AATIP…”

The complaint frames these meetings as part of a coordinated handoff of AATIP responsibilities, which has become a central element in Elizondo’s public claim that he led the program. But the Pentagon has consistently stated:

“Luis Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP.”

The Pentagon’s position has remained unchanged for years, and to date, no document has been released that places Elizondo within any official program titled, or nicknamed, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). The Tipton calendar entry has been one of the few government-generated materials cited as potential evidence of interaction between Elizondo and senior OUSD(I&S) leadership on UAP-related matters, but still does not definitively prove that the meeting was AATIP, or even UAP, related.

But additional context to this meeting may emerge from email exchanges between Tipton and Elizondo, as published in Elizondo’s DoD/IG complaint. These messages, dated August 22–25, 2017, fall just days before the August 28 calendar entry and depict active communication about a planned meeting, efforts to schedule it, and discussions of an unspecified portfolio Elizondo described as “nuanced.”

In a message sent on August 22, 2017, Elizondo informed a Navy counterpart that he had spoken with Tipton “about our collective efforts” and recommended an in-person meeting once staff returned from leave. Tipton was copied and described as “amicable for a discussion” in his role as Acting Director for Defense Intelligence, Technical Collection and Special Programs. This message, which explicitly references coordination among OUSD(I), the Navy, and others, demonstrates that meeting preparations were already underway.

Tipton replied the following morning, August 23, adding a staff member to assist with scheduling. Elizondo responded on August 25, thanking Tipton “as discussed” and asserting that Tipton, as the “principal SES” in his directorate, was the appropriate figure “to help take our effort to a new level.” Elizondo further stated he had been managing another “nuanced effort within the Department for some time,” and that he had already “laid the foundations with SECDEF’s front office” to transfer this portfolio under Tipton’s oversight. He referenced meetings at the “front office,” partners in industry and other agencies, and the need to analyze and exploit material, an apparent reference to ongoing technical or operational work. Tipton replied the same morning: “Thanks Lue. All good – although, at some point I need to know what this actually ‘is’…”

Additional insight comes from a September 11, 2017, email, where Elizondo informed Tipton that “the front office is aware that you are now part of this endeavor and they are happy with the decision,” then proposed meeting the following Wednesday for a one-hour discussion. He also referenced a colleague as “a friend of the program,” noting Tipton would be speaking with him the next day.

Tipton’s reply, positioned directly above Elizondo’s email in the FOIA release and evidently written within the same timeframe, stated: “Thanks Lue. I’m around next week… For specific date/time, just work with [redacted]. I’m not allowed to muck around with my calendar.” He added that he had “a discussion with [redacted]tomorrow,” which suggests he was already engaged on issues connected to the effort Elizondo was attempting to advance.

When read alongside the August emails, the September 11 exchange reflects a notable shift. In late August, Tipton had asked Elizondo, “at some point I need to know what this actually ‘is’…,” indicating uncertainty about the nature of the portfolio. By September, Elizondo was telling Tipton that senior leadership, aka the “front office”, supported his involvement. The progression documented in these emails does not identify AATIP explicitly, but it does show an evolving effort in which Tipton was being brought into a role with responsibilities Elizondo believed were being aligned under him.

Then, in a communication dated September 25, 2017, released via FOIA to The Black Vault, Elizondo sent Tipton a “DRAFT DepSECDEF letter” written “at the unclassified level” so Tipton could “better assume the new responsibilities for AATIP.”

Elizondo wrote that the memo had been drafted “per SECDEF’s Front Office guidance to you and me,” and asked Tipton for edits. Tipton replied on October 3, 2017, saying he would review and provide comments.

The attached draft memorandum, the now-public AATIP memo, is one of the only official DoD documents ever released that refers directly to AATIP. It outlines congressional funding for the program in 2008, describes its focus on “beyond next generation technologies,” and directs all DoD elements to provide reporting on “unexplained or unknown aerial systems” to the Director of Defense Intelligence for Technical Collection and Special Programs, the office Tipton held at the time.

Although the memo remains heavily debated in terms of its status and was clearly written by Elizondo and not the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the emails show that Elizondo was transmitting the draft to Tipton in late September 2017 as part of what he described as a transfer of responsibilities “to you and me” per guidance from senior leadership. Combined with Tipton’s acknowledgment on October 3 that he was “getting spun back up” and would review the document, the records finally demonstrate that AATIP was explicitly referenced in correspondence between the two men during this period.

Elizondo resigned later that same day.

Taken all together, these communications do not establish whether the August 28 meeting took place or what its precise subject was. They do, however, document an active dialogue from late August through early October, involving scheduling, follow-up discussions, and the transmission of a memo directly labeled “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.” The presence of these records strengthens the central question raised by the FOIA “no records” determination: if emails exist showing coordination between Elizondo and Tipton on a portfolio as directed by senior offices, why does the Department of Defense report that it can locate no material whatsoever associated with a meeting that appears on Tipton’s official calendar between him and Elizondo within that timeframe?

OSD’s letter states that its search would have found records “if they existed.” But the calendar entry, which the authenticity of is not in dispute, suggests they did, at one time, likely did exist. So where are they?

The documentation presents several possibilities about the August 28th meeting:

If the meeting occurred
Then associated records should exist somewhere within OUSD(I&S) or SAP coordination channels.

If the meeting was cancelled
There is still no explanation for why no scheduling emails or cancellation notices were located during the search.

If the meeting occurred but involved no Elizondo-related content
Responsive materials would still be expected under a FOIA request for all records “pertaining to” the event.

If records once existed but were later deleted or misplaced
That issue is not addressed in the FOIA response, and the appeal argues that OSD must examine alternative systems or archives.

This calendar entry remains one of the few official documents linking Elizondo to a senior Pentagon intelligence official during the period when he says he was transitioning AATIP responsibilities. The government’s position, reiterated for years, is that he had no assigned role in AATIP. The calendar entry does not resolve that contradiction, but it does establish that a meeting involving “Luis” at Elizondo’s known office number was officially recorded at a time it is confirmed Elizondo was talking to Tipton about transferring a portfolio.

With OSD’s latest FOIA search producing no related documents, the question becomes not just whether the meeting occurred, but how an official record of a scheduled SAP-related meeting can exist with no underlying materials preserved in any system searched by the Department of Defense.

The Black Vault’s appeal seeks clarity on all this, and requests a new search based on evidence and established case law requiring a proper one be conducted. Until that search is fully completed, the August 28, 2017, “SAP Coordination Meeting” remains a documented but unexplained artifact in one of the most debated chapters of the Elizondo/AATIP saga.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Response Letter

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [299.84 KB]

FOIA Release of Calendar to Lt. Tim McMillan

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.34 MB]

The post Pentagon Calendar Lists an AATIP-Era Meeting — But All Supporting Records Are Missing first appeared on The Black Vault.

The update was issued under FAA Notice N 7110.800, effective October 26, 2025, and applies to all Air Traffic Organization (ATO) personnel. The notice modifies two key sections of FAA Order JO 7110.65, the governing document for air traffic control procedures. Specifically, it updates paragraph 1-2-6, “Abbreviations,” and paragraph 9-8-1, “General,” to remove the word UFO and introduce UAP in its place.

(Editor’s Note: As of publication, the FAA’s online version of Order JO 7110.65 does not yet reflect the revisions outlined in Notice N 7110.800. The updated language appears only in the notice itself, pending formal incorporation into the manual.)

FAA’s Revised Directive

The updated manual instructs that controllers must now:

“Inform the operations supervisor/CIC of any reported or observed unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP)/unexplained phenomena activity.”

The section also references FAA Order JO 7210.3, paragraph 4-7-4, which addresses formal reporting channels for such incidents. The change, while procedural, reflects a broader institutional recognition of UAPs as a legitimate aviation safety and national security concern.

The FAA explained the reasoning behind the update in the “Background” section of the notice:

“On December 22, 2022, Title 50 United States Code (50 U.S.C.) section 3373, Establishment of All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, created and defined the term unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) which effectively, for governmental purposes, replaced the term unidentified flying object (UFO).”

“As a result, the FAA will require air traffic control (ATC) to notify the National Tactical Security Operations (NTSO) Air Traffic Security Coordinator (ATSC) team on the Domestic Events Network (DEN) of any pilot reports or air traffic personnel observations of UAP activity.”

A Quiet but Notable Shift

While the change primarily involves terminology and reporting clarification, it marks the first time the FAA has explicitly tied UAP procedures to the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) framework created under federal law. The acknowledgment of UAPs as “a potential national security concern” represents a subtle but significant shift in how the agency treats such reports.

Kevin Cortes, writing for Americans for Safe Aerospace, described the change as “a quiet but important” development that “places UAP reporting within [the FAA’s]core safety framework,” adding that “when pilots and controllers can document what they have seen without fear or stigma, that information becomes data.”

Graves and ASA have consistently advocated for standardized UAP reporting channels to ensure that safety and national security implications are taken seriously. The organization called the update “a meaningful step forward,” noting that it helps normalize transparent reporting across the aviation community.

Historical Context: The FAA and UFO Reports

The Black Vault has tracked FAA policy on UFO and UAP reporting for more than two decades. Earlier FAA documentation referenced “unidentified flying objects,” with reports sometimes routed through nontraditional channels, which included Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS), during the same period the Defense Intelligence Agency operated the Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Applications Program (AAWSAP), in which BAASS was the contractor awarded the program at the time.

In 2019, The Black Vault published an investigation into the FAA’s earlier handling of UFO sightings and the agency’s acknowledgment of maintaining a database containing such reports. That reporting can be reviewed here:

• FAA Denies Tracking UFOs, Publishes Database Containing UFO Sightings
• The Bigelow Aerospace, NIDS and BAASS UFO Connection with the FAA

Those earlier FAA relationships were significant because they marked the only period in which a private aerospace entity, which has been reported by some media outlets as having links to government-funded UFO research, were explicitly named in FAA reporting instructions.

Toward Standardized and Safe Reporting

ASA emphasized that the FAA’s 2025 update should be seen as part of a larger movement toward openness, bolstered by pending legislation. The Safe Airspace for Americans Act, introduced in Congress in September 2025, seeks to establish a standardized, national system for UAP reporting by aviation professionals, protect employees from retaliation, and ensure transparency in the data collection process.

According to ASA, the FAA’s policy change “is not the end goal” but a foundational step toward a “culture of transparency” in U.S. airspace safety.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [215.50 KB]

The post FAA Updates Controller Manual to Reflect New UAP Reporting Policy first appeared on The Black Vault.

On December 17, 2022, a Cessna 172 pilot approaching Tucson, Arizona, reported an unusual airborne object to air traffic controllers. Now, following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by The  Black Vault, the FAA has released official documents and audio transcripts detailing the encounter.

The FOIA case, filed January 19, 2023, was prompted by a comment on Reddit in response to a Black Vault posting about pilot sightings. A user referenced a recording of air traffic control communications and mentioned a pilot describing a strange red and silver object. That tip led directly to the FOIA request, which the FAA confirmed in a February 28, 2023 disclosure letter responding to “records pertaining to the Red and Silver Ironman Unmanned Aircraft Systems on December 17, 2022, near Tucson, Arizona”.

The Encounter

The official FAA Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) states that Cessna N21272 “reported a red and silver drone at 80 at the TUS091006 moving east bound. N21272 advised drone looked like Iron Man. Possibly a balloon. No other sightings of drone”.

A Quality Assurance review further noted that “while descending through 8,400 feet, N21272 reported passing a silver and red drone that was off of their left side and slightly below them. No evasive action was reported”.

Air Traffic Control Audio

The released air traffic control audio provides a clearer picture of what the pilot described in real time. At 12:06 p.m. local time, the pilot transmitted:

“There was something strange that just flew by off the left side. It looks like some type of drone, but it was like red and silver. I couldn’t really tell the altitude, just a little bit below me”.

Controllers later followed up to clarify the report:

“And the drone, you said at 8,000 feet?”

The pilot responded:

“It was a little bit below me, I was at 8,000, and it wasn’t like a normal looking drone. It looked more vertical than like the quadcopter type and it was silver and red”.

When asked again to describe the object, the pilot elaborated:

“Yeah, it was silver and red. It almost reminded me of, like, an Iron Man suit, although not exactly like that, but like a silvery red color. It was pretty weird”.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Case 2023-03232 Release Package [5 Pages, 0.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [650.98 KB]

The post “Looked Like Iron Man”: Tucson Pilot’s “Drone” Report and Audio Recording Revealed in FAA Records first appeared on The Black Vault.

The FBI has released a detailed set of investigative files on the so-called “Jetpack Man” sightings near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The release on October 1, 2025, followed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by The Black Vault first filed August 3, 2021 and resubmitted November 27, 2021 after an initial denial. The Bureau originally withheld all the records under FOIA exemption (b)(7)(A) for ongoing investigations but reversed its position with the second request after nearly four years.

When the sightings first made headlines in 2020 and 2021, they were widely portrayed as encounters with a person flying a jetpack near commercial aircraft. Yet the FBI’s files show that at least one pilot later walked back that description. In one case, the China Airlines captain who initially thought he saw a “jetpack” told investigators on reflection that “he did not believe it resembled the shape and size of a human” and noted that “there were no propellers or jet propulsion devices attached to the object.”

The records released mark the first “interim” disclosure for this case which remains open, indicating that additional material may still be forthcoming. For this release, 250 pages were reviewed, bit only 130 were released. It is unclear what is in the 120 pages completely withheld.

How the Investigation Began

The FBI’s first reference to the case appears in an internal summary of the August 30, 2020 incident, when pilots on American Airlines flight 1997 reported seeing “a person with a jet pack flying approximately 300 yards to the left of them” as they descended to land at LAX at about 3,000 feet. According to the records, “approximately one minute later, JetBlue flight 23 was approaching LAX and a pilot possibly saw the same person flying with the jet pack”.

The Bureau’s records show the FBI’s Los Angeles Resident Agency opened a file (164B-LA-3313857) on September 1, 2020 to investigate the sightings.

October 2020: Pilot Describes Object in Detail

A year later, on October 14, 2020, a China Airlines captain flying from Taipei to Los Angeles told FBI agents he saw an object at 6,000–6,500 feet over Culver City during descent. The pilot described it as moving horizontally and only visible for two seconds:

“He called out the sighting to the co-pilots… The object was approximately 100-200 meters away from the left wing tip when it went past the plane”.

At first, the October 14, 2020, sighting was linked to the idea of a jetpack or “fly suit.” But after an FBI interview, the China Airlines captain made a crucial clarification. He told investigators that, on reflection, “he did not believe it resembled the shape and size of a human.” He added that there were “no propellers or jet propulsion devices attached to the object.”

This reversal is noteworthy. The incident was widely described in headlines as another “jetpack man” encounter, yet the pilot himself cast doubt on that very interpretation. If the object did not look like a human, and carried no visible propulsion system, it leaves open the possibility that it was not a balloon, not a drone, and not a man in flight gear. The FBI documents stop short of offering an alternative explanation, but the pilot’s testimony underscores the unresolved nature of what was seen that night.

Social Media Tips and Public Leads

The files show that tips poured in through the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center (NTOC). One December 2020 e-tip accused a Los Angeles graffiti “tagger” of being the jetpack flyer, alleging he had “posted about this on social media — knowing the FBI was looking into this” and that he “clearly has no remorse… and finds it funny that he has got away with it so far”.

The tipster urged the FBI to “find out his real name, his cell phone, IG use location… and charge him appropriately” because “he is scaring people by being able to operate a jetpack”. No evidence in the released files confirms that lead produced results.

May 2021: Cessna Pilot Reports Jetpack-Like Figure Near Van Nuys

On May 9, 2021, a student pilot in a Cessna 172 with an instructor at Van Nuys Airport reported seeing “what appeared to be a person on a jetpack” for about six seconds at 2,400 feet, 400–500 feet from the plane:

“The person was going the opposite direction from the plane… standing up straight… wearing black and red clothing”.

The pilot compared the sighting to a prior photo and video and said it was “exactly the same” in shape and build, but with different colors.

July 2021: Cargo Pilot Describes “Reddish” Object

The July 28, 2021 incident involved a Kalitta Air cargo flight on final approach to LAX. The captain told the FBI he saw an “unidentified object” at 5,000 feet, initially thinking it was “a guy with a jet pack” but later noting it was “larger than a balloon and smaller than a helicopter or small airplane”.

He described the object as “reddish in color and 5 to 7 feet tall, similar to the height of a person” and said he observed it for seven to eight seconds, first trying to determine if it posed a collision risk before attempting to identify it. He was later sent a photo and video of a similar object but said “the color was wrong” — the comparison image showed black and white, not red.

(See other documents at: Jetpack Man Sighting over Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), July 28, 2021)

August 2021: Drone Sighting Tip

In November 2021, an individual reported seeing a man at San Pedro’s Lookout Point Park flying “a fast, advanced looking drone that landed on his arm like a hawk” and speculated it could be connected to the jetpack sightings.

No Definitive Conclusion in FBI Files

The released records contain no definitive identification of the object or person. Instead, they show a mix of pilot testimony, public tips, and FBI investigative activity, including interviews with flight instructors, pilots, and possible industry contacts.

One record shows agents retrieved at least one CD containing “video recording” evidence in December 2020 but the contents were not included in the FOIA release.

The FBI’s decision to initially withhold the records for years under exemption (b)(7)(A) signals how seriously the Bureau took the reports and their investigation. Yet the eventual release leaves the mystery unresolved. Pilots repeatedly described objects that appeared humanoid at altitudes and distances difficult for current consumer jetpacks, and the files reveal the Bureau explored but did not prove links to drones or social media personalities.

What the files do show, for the first time in an official release, is how pilots, airline crews, and tipsters perceived the incidents, and how the FBI documented them in its case file. The records also confirm that federal authorities obtained at least some video evidence but have not released it publicly.

Future releases will be highlighted on The Black Vault, and linked below, when available.

###

Document Archive

FBI Release Package #1 – October 1, 2025 – [147 Pages, 4MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [3.98 MB]

FBI Release Package #2 – December 23, 2025

This second release had the below video. As indicated by the FOIA release letter above, additional media was withheld in full.

The post FBI Releases LAX “Jetpack” Case Files; Pilot Interview Contradicts Jetpack Description first appeared on The Black Vault.

The request, filed May 19, 2025, sought internal communications, review logs, classification guidance, legal opinions, and technical documentation tied to the public posting of the video titled “Middle East 2024.” The video, showing more than six minutes of infrared footage from a U.S. military platform, was released in May 2025 and remains unresolved by AARO.

The DoD confirmed that responsive documents exist, but a September 19, 2025, final response stated that all records are being withheld in full.

The denial cited multiple FOIA exemptions, including:

• Exemption (b)(5): covering deliberative inter- and intra-agency material.
• Exemptions (b)(7)(A), (B), (C), and (E): law enforcement provisions shielding records that could interfere with enforcement proceedings, risk an unfair trial, invade personal privacy, or reveal law enforcement techniques.

AARO described the video as depicting “an apparent thermal contrast within the sensor’s field of view” that may be consistent with a physical object, but noted that without corroborating data, “the available data does not support a conclusive analytic evaluation.”

The Pentagon’s decision continues a recurring pattern in UAP transparency efforts: footage may be released for public viewing, but records explaining the deliberations and analysis behind such releases remain withheld.

As The Black Vault has previously reported, the DoD has increasingly invoked FOIA’s law enforcement exemption, commonly used to protect criminal investigations, in connection with AARO and UAP-related records. This practice has drawn criticism for applying investigative secrecy provisions to matters that are presented to the public as unresolved anomalies.

The Black Vault has appealed the decision, and the result will be posted, when available.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [283.28 KB]

The post All Analysis and Records Withheld on DoD’s Own Released UAP Footage first appeared on The Black Vault.

The release was supposed to show the internal decision-making behind this new practice. Instead, nearly all substance was withheld, and more than 95%+ of the content is either blacked out or withheld in full. The result is another chapter in a growing saga of secrecy surrounding AARO, FOIA, and UAP records.

This issue has now persisted for more than two years. The Pentagon’s Public Affairs office, through spokesperson Susan Gough, continues to refuse to answer The Black Vault’s roughly four dozen inquiries and follow-ups over the course of 27 months sent to her about how this exemption can be legally justified.

The September 18, 2025, release (case 24-F-0154) consisted of 23 pages. Three pages were withheld in their entirety under Exemption (b)(5), while the rest were redacted under (b)(5) and (b)(6).

The unredacted fragments show only hints of the internal process:

• Coordination Calls: One email references a call scheduled “with AARO … at 1300 today to discuss a way ahead on Greenewald’s FOIA’s concerning the interviews”.
• Media Coordination: Another chain references “OSD/JS; 23-F-0529 & 23-F-0658 for Media Release,” noting “This relates to the AARO request”. Both of these cases were filed by The Black Vault.
• Drafting Discussions: Several short exchanges note updates to “language and organization” or “feedback is attached from our interviewers,” but nearly all surrounding context is redacted.

These snippets confirm that AARO and FOIA staff were in active coordination, but they shed no light on the legal reasoning for invoking a law enforcement exemption.

This FOIA request specifically sought to answer how (b)(7) could be applied in the UAP context. Yet, the very records that could explain that decision are almost entirely withheld. The lost appeal on the Mosul Orb request (23-F-0389) shows that DoD had already invoked (b)(7)(A) and (b)(7)(E) to justify withholdings in UAP cases, a tactic starting in early June 2023. The appeal, based on the fact that (b)(7) was not legally justified, was denied.

There have now been numerous other cases, all filed by The Black Vault, that were also denied specifically fighting the (b)(7) exemption. Most have been appealed, all of which have received denials. In some of those cases, however, the DoD went a step further. After appeals challenged the validity of using a law enforcement exemption, the Department added entirely new exemptions to its original denials. These included (b)(1) for classified national security information and (b)(3) for material protected under other disclosure statutes.

This tactic significantly raises the barrier for judicial review. While the original (b)(7) arguments could be scrutinized in court, the addition of broader, harder-to-challenge exemptions after the fact makes any legal fight far less winnable. The strategy not only preserves the secrecy around AARO-related records but also ensures that even if one exemption is successfully contested, others remain to block disclosure. It demonstrates an institutional approach to reinforce denials rather than defend the specific use of (b)(7) on its own merits.

If the rationale for (b)(7) is as clear-cut as the DoD suggests through their FOIA appeal denials, then two things should logically follow:

1. Public Affairs should be able to provide a straightforward explanation of why (b)(7) applies to AARO. Yet, despite years of follow-ups, no statement has ever been given.
2. The FOIA release should have contained the legal analysis that supports the use of the exemption, and such justification should not itself be withheld by exemption. Instead, the responsive documents justifying the use of (b)(7) denials were hidden behind (b)(5) redactions. (b)(5) is an exemption meant to protect internal deliberations or draft processes, even though the very purpose of the request was to understand how the policy was justified. Once a strategy has been implemented and applied to real-world cases, it is no longer merely predecisional or deliberative. If the government maintains that the use of (b)(7) is legally valid, then the underlying justification should be subject to disclosure and released, at least in part, to the public.

The newly released documents demonstrate that the DoD and AARO are in direct coordination on FOIA matters, and that senior officials in both legal and intelligence roles are involved in the decision-making when it comes to the release of information. The public remains in the dark about the legal foundation for invoking a law enforcement exemption on AARO/UAP records, and has so for more than two years, despite AARO not being a law enforcement agency and no legal justification being given.

The Black Vault has filed an appeal on the over-use of redactions, and those results will be posted, when available.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Case 24-F-0154 Release Package [25 Pages, 1.7MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.84 MB]

The post DoD Redacts Nearly All Records Explaining AARO’s Use of Law Enforcement Exemption for UAP Files first appeared on The Black Vault.

In September 2025, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) issued a final response to FOIA case 25-F-3514, denying the existence of records related to the alleged 2023 directive. The request specifically sought “a copy of the memorandum issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in spring 2023 ordering the immediate cessation of practices associated with the so-called ‘Yankee Blue’ program.” The response stated that after “thorough searches of the electronic records and files of CMD, no records of the kind you described could be identified”.

The denial directly contradicts the WSJ’s claim that “the defense secretary’s office sent a memo out across the service in the spring of 2023 ordering the practice to stop immediately.” If such a memo existed, it would be retained by OSD correspondence management systems and would be subject to FOIA. Given that the topic allegedly involved halting a hazing ritual, rather than revealing classified operations, the record would not be expected to carry high-level classification. Courts have repeatedly held that embarrassment or institutional sensitivity does not constitute grounds for classification.

This is not the first “no records” finding tied to the WSJ reporting. In FOIA case 25-F-3515, the DoD also reported that it could not locate “briefing materials, talking points, slide decks, notes, or summaries prepared for or presented to Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines in connection with briefings on ‘Yankee Blue.’” The WSJ reported that Haines was briefed on the discovery, describing her as “stunned” upon hearing about the scale of the deception. That request is currently under appeal.

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) says it found no records tied to “Yankee Blue” hazing rituals which convinced “hundreds and hundreds of people” they were working on a “reverse engineering” program for alien technology, despite detailed Wall Street… pic.twitter.com/KQY50ET08i

— John Greenewald, Jr. (@blackvaultcom) June 26, 2025

Separately, in case 2025-06002-F, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) said it found “no records” of investigative reports, summaries, or closure memos tied to “Yankee Blue.” While it remains possible that another entity, such as an Inspector General’s office, handled such inquiries, the consistent pattern of FOIA denials leaves significant doubt as to whether the WSJ’s central claims can be substantiated.

The WSJ story has been frequently cited by skeptics as a definitive account explaining long-standing rumors of U.S. programs tied to recovered non-human technology. But with the Pentagon’s FOIA responses turning up empty, the reliability of that reporting is now under scrutiny. Either the FOIA system is omitting responsive material through error or concealment, or the memo and briefings described in the article never existed, or at the very least, never existed in the way they were reported. Appeals are pending, but for now, the official record does not align with the narrative that has been widely circulated in media coverage as first reported by the WSJ.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [644.40 KB]

The post Pentagon Denies Existence of “Yankee Blue” Memo Reported by Wall Street Journal first appeared on The Black Vault.

The language was clear. Not only did the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) meet with aerospace company officials, but those executives gave formal, on-the-record denials that their firms were involved in alleged crash retrieval or reverse-engineering programs involving “extraterrestrial craft”.

Following this admission, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed by The Black Vault seeking the release of those very statements. The request asked for both classified and/or unclassified versions of the records, with the understanding that the government itself had already acknowledged their existence in its public report.

However, despite its own published acknowledgement, the Department of Defense denied the request in full. In a final response letter dated September 5, 2025, the Office of the Secretary of Defense invoked a “Glomar” response — refusing to confirm or deny whether any records exist at all. The denial cited FOIA exemptions (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(D) as justification for withholding.

The reasoning presented a paradox: the DoD’s public report had already confirmed the existence of such records, yet when pressed under FOIA, the agency reversed course, claiming it could neither confirm nor deny them.

An appeal was quickly filed on September 6, 2025, challenging the denial. The appeal argues that the cited exemptions do not apply to the requested material and highlights the inconsistency of the government’s position.

Among the key points:

• Exemption (b)(5), typically covering deliberative and predecisional agency memoranda, cannot apply to finalized company statements already acknowledged in a public report.
• Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), meant to protect personal privacy, are not relevant to official statements made by corporate executives speaking in their professional capacity.
• Exemptions (b)(7)(A) and (b)(7)(D), intended for law enforcement records, have no rational nexus to AARO’s historical review of UAP matters.

Most importantly, once the government has officially acknowledged the existence of specific records, FOIA case law holds that it cannot later refuse to confirm or deny them.

The appeal calls on the DoD to reverse its denial, release the responsive statements, or at minimum produce a detailed Vaughn index explaining any continued withholding.

This case centers around not the disclosure of classified crash retrieval programs, which the public knows officials already denied to exist, but the release of the denials themselves. In effect, the Pentagon is refusing to release the very statements it cited as proof that such programs are not taking place.

The outcome of the appeal will determine whether those “on-the-record” statements remain hidden, or whether the government will be compelled to reconcile its public reporting with its obligations under FOIA. The results will be posted, when available.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Final Response Letter – September 5, 2025

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [662.61 KB]

The post DoD Says Aerospace Firms Went “On the Record” About UAP — Then Refuses to Acknowledge Records Exist first appeared on The Black Vault.

The request yielded 14 pages of emails, many redacted, that offer a rare glimpse into how the Pentagon handled the rollout of AARO’s congressionally mandated Historical Record Report and managed both internal and external messaging.

Controlled Media Access

The emails reveal that access to AARO’s acting director, Tim Phillips, was tightly restricted. In February and March 2024, multiple journalists, including representatives from Scientific American, the Washington Examiner, and Finland’s national broadcaster YLE, requested inclusion in press briefings or sought interviews with Phillips.

Those requests were declined. “At this time, we are looking to keep any media engagement with AARO’s acting director to a small group,” Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough wrote in response to one inquiry. Another journalist expressed disappointment at the exclusion, saying it “seems to be a bit of Pentagon narrative setting versus genuine media outreach”.

A small, invite-only briefing was held on March 8, 2024, with only about seven journalists present. During the session, reporters asked pointed questions that reflected the broader public interest. One journalist pressed Phillips directly about whether high-profile whistleblowers Luis Elizondo or David Grusch had been interviewed for AARO’s review. Phillips declined to confirm, stating: “As a practice, we do not disclose who came in and spoke to us. The individuals are free to share that with you, but I’m not going to talk about who we interviewed. But anybody with knowledge of UAPs or the government covert attempt to reverse engineer or to exploit these materials, we would love to talk to them”.

Phillips also sought to portray the work as unprecedented in scope: “I don’t think there’s ever been a government organization with the authorities and with the amount of funding that we receive from Congress… I don’t believe any previous government attempt to research UFOs, UAPs has ever had that type of top cover”.

While the answers themselves added to the record, the manner in which the information was released raised broader concerns. By holding a private, invitation-only engagement, the Pentagon limited access to a select group of reporters. For others seeking answers, including those who had submitted formal FOIA requests, the arrangement stood in stark contrast to the principles of openness and transparency that Congress intended when it mandated AARO’s historical review.

ODNI’s Role Minimized

Another exchange shows discussion about whether to acknowledge the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in press materials. Although AARO operates within the Department of Defense, its statutory reporting structure, which was established under the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), requires it to report to both the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (PDDNI).

Despite this, internal correspondence about the March 2024 rollout of AARO’s Historical Record Report shows officials deliberately choosing to downplay ODNI’s role. In an email chain on March 5, 2024, while discussing the draft press release, Gough asked whether ODNI should be referenced since “the legislation calls for AARO producing the report — but Dir, AARO reports to PDDNI, too, so wanted to check.” The reply was clear: “Confirming that we’re good without any ODNI mention.” Who that was from was redacted and withheld.

Legally, ODNI sits atop AARO’s chain of accountability, yet in this instance the Department of Defense opted to present the rollout as a DoD-driven initiative.

Congressional Briefings and “KONA BLUE”

During March 6, 2024, classified briefings on the Historical Record Report, congressional staff pressed AARO leadership on the individuals interviewed, the scope of documentation reviewed, and “noteworthy programs,” including one labeled KONA BLUE.

According to a declassified release from the Department of Defense, KONA BLUE originated as a prospective Special Access Program (PSAP) proposed within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2011. The program was described in interviews as a sensitive compartment established to protect the retrieval and exploitation of “non-human biologics.” However, further investigation by AARO determined that KONA BLUE was never formally established. It received neither funding nor materials, and no data was ever transferred to DHS under its name.

The roots of KONA BLUE trace back to the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Application Program (AAWSAP)/Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), run by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from 2009 to 2012. Those programs, funded by congressional earmarks, were executed primarily through Bigelow Aerospace in Nevada. DIA ultimately terminated the contract, citing “lack of merit and lack of utility” in the products provided. Following its cancellation, individuals associated with AAWSAP/AATIP advocated for DHS to adopt and fund a successor program under the code name KONA BLUE.

In 2011, DHS’s Under Secretary for Science and Technology approved KONA BLUE as a PSAP, justifying the move on claims that sensitive information and materials required this level of protection. Six months later, the DHS Deputy Secretary disapproved the initiative, citing insufficient justification and lack of credible supporting information. The program was terminated immediately thereafter.

Despite speculation surrounding the name, the official record confirms that KONA BLUE never advanced beyond proposal stage. The Department of Defense has since declassified related documents in coordination with DHS, reaffirming that “no data or material of any kind was ever transferred to or collected by DHS under the auspices of KONA BLUE”.

Gillibrand Presses for Expanded AARO Role

The records also capture friction between Congress and the Pentagon over AARO’s responsibilities. During a Senate briefing on drone incursions, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand pressed officials on why the Department lacked a central database for unmanned aerial system (UAS) incursions, arguing that AARO should serve that function.

Internal Pentagon correspondence shows immediate pushback. “We do not want to see sUAS added to AARO’s portfolio!” Pentagon spokesperson Gough wrote in an email to David A. Kozik, Director Congressional Activities, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence. Kozik repliesd that AARO should serve in a coordinating capacity on counter-UAS issues, but not as the lead office. The discussions underscored a disconnect between congressional expectations and the Department’s vision for AARO’s scope.

What makes this exchange notable is the role of the official raising the concern. Under Department of Defense policy, Public Affairs personnel are tasked with communicating information and providing counsel to commanders, but not with determining mission assignments. Joint Publication 3-61 emphasizes that public affairs officers are the commander’s “principal spokesperson” and serve to advise and align communication, but their role is not directive in setting operational responsibilities. Similarly, DoDD 5122.05 and DoDI 5400.13 define the public affairs function as supporting transparency, releasing information, and coordinating messaging, not deciding organizational missions.

For that reason, Gough’s strong stance appears to move beyond the traditional remit of a spokesperson. While she is entitled to offer her views, it is unusual to see a Public Affairs official weighing in directly on whether a congressional request, which was raised by a sitting Senator, should alter AARO’s mission portfolio.

In short, while the emails show a clear disagreement between congressional intent and Pentagon preference, they also highlight the unusual position of a public affairs spokesperson inserting herself into a debate that doctrine indicates should rest with mission leadership and policymakers, not communications staff.

The newly released emails offer a glimpse into how the Pentagon manages both its internal deliberations and public-facing messaging about UAPs. The records confirm congressional pressure to expand AARO’s mandate, references to sensitive programs like KONA BLUE, and a deliberate effort by DoD and ODNI officials to shape the rollout of AARO’s Historical Record Report.

While heavily redacted, the correspondence highlights an ongoing tension between secrecy, congressional oversight, and public transparency in the government’s handling of unidentified anomalous phenomena.

###

Document Archive

FOIA 24-F-0894 Release Package [16 Pages, 2.2MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.37 MB]

The post FOIA Emails Reveal Pentagon’s Tight Control Over AARO “Historical Record Report” Rollout and Messaging first appeared on The Black Vault.

The records show the manuscript, originally submitted in March 2020, was routed to multiple agencies including the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), U.S. Air Force, and Department of Homeland Security. All three cleared the manuscript, though DIA required some amendments before public release. On May 11, 2021, DOPSR issued its final determination: CLEARED AS AMENDED. The changes were largely to address privacy concerns involving personally identifiable information and protected health information, as well as the names of certain government employees.

For Lacatski, who served as a key figure in the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP), the delays were a source of growing frustration. Email exchanges show repeated inquiries about the status of the review, with him noting at one point that the process had reached “the fourteen month point” and suggesting that holding up publication “may very well be one person” delaying the work. In another message, he urged DOPSR to give the lagging office “a firm deadline” or assume no further comments would be provided.

Kelly McHale, the DOPSR security review specialist assigned to the case, repeatedly cited slow responses from reviewing components, pandemic-related telework restrictions, and the complexity of coordinating input from multiple agencies as factors in the delay. “We never intend for reviews to take this long,” McHale wrote, assuring Lacatski that she was “keeping the pressure on”.

The delays not only impacted the authors’ timeline but also forced consideration of alternative publication strategies. In one April 2021 email, Lacatski proposed adding a statement to the book’s copyright page indicating that the manuscript was under DOPSR review, so the work could be sent to the editor without waiting for final clearance.

In a post-release interview on Coast to Coast AM, co-author Colm Kelleher outlined what DOPSR required before publication: “they made us take out some fairly specific references to various offices and also some of the security-related verbiage,” and they insisted that “any active military people or people who are still working in the government service had their names changed.” He said “all of the names that are in the book are actually pseudonyms for all active-duty service people,” noting that “one of the four Tic Tac pilots from the famous Tic Tac incident back in 2004” was discovered to still be active duty and was therefore given a pseudonym. Kelleher added that DOPSR “sent the book out to four separate agencies for review,” and the process “did take… about 14 months,” which he believed was “because of the COVID.” When asked if the review was fair, he said officials “left in a lot of the details,” including Appendix One’s “full summary of over 100 separate reports… delivered to the Defense Intelligence Agency,” adding, “we expected to have some of that removed but none of it was removed.”

The DOPSR process, designed to protect classified and sensitive information, often draws criticism from current and former government employees. The Skinwalkers at the Pentagon case highlights how these reviews can extend well beyond initial projections, even for manuscripts that ultimately face minimal redactions.

While the FOIA release contains no revelations about the classified and/or sensitive content removed from the book, it provides a detailed view of the bureaucratic hurdles faced by authors with government ties. The prolonged review, combined with the authors’ public comments about omitted material, underscores the tension between national security vetting and timely public disclosure.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Case 22-F-0035 Release Package [108 Pages, 3.6MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [3.71 MB]

The post New Documents Detail Slow, Multi-Agency Vetting of “Skinwalkers at the Pentagon” first appeared on The Black Vault.

SKYWATCH is an FAA operations security platform used to collect and disseminate reports of suspicious or unauthorized aerial activity, often relayed through Air Traffic Control Towers, FAA regional offices, and the Domestic Events Network. It serves as a central alert system for potential security risks, with reports often shared with law enforcement and military security forces.

Here is a breakdown summary of the events just released as a result of this case, and drawing from the SKYWATCH system. The documents themselves (located at the bottom of this article) go into greater detail.

Event #1 – December 14, 2024 (03:55Z)
Air traffic controllers observed a drone over multiple sensitive locations on base, including the Hot Cargo Ramp, the south side of Runway 5L, the military ramp, and the east side of the airfield. Base security reported the drones were turning their lights off and flying past them in close proximity. The incident triggered NOTAMs (M1132/24 and M1133/24) for an airfield closure, with the information broadcast on the ATIS. The closure remained in effect until base leadership met later that morning.

Event #2 – December 17, 2024 (04:41Z)
Multiple radar targets, presumed to be drones, were observed on tower radar. No visual confirmation was made, but the Riverside Police Department was notified.

Event #3 – December 17, 2024 (04:58Z)
The situation escalated when ZID Center radar detected between seven and seventeen targets within 40 miles of the airport. Wright-Patterson Security Forces on the ground confirmed the objects were drones. Riverside Police were again contacted. The report categorized the incident as a “swarm” involving multiple unmanned aircraft.

Event #4 – December 17, 2024 (18:08Z)
An aircraft on approach reported seeing a silver drone approximately five nautical miles southeast of Wright-Patterson at 3,200 feet. The pilot took no evasive action. FAA quality assurance later logged coordinates placing the object within the Dayton area, consistent with the Wright-Patterson region.

Event #5 – December 19, 2024 (18:45Z)
The most unusual report came from an aircraft westbound at 16,000 feet near Appleton VOR, roughly 70–80 miles east-northeast of Wright-Patterson. The crew reported a drone “passing beneath them by about 500 feet” and described it as a “black cube.” FAA quality assurance assigned coordinates to the sighting, placing it well east of the base, but it occurred within the same week as the other incursions and was documented in the same SKYWATCH dataset.

Located within the “Drone Sightings Near Airports” reports located at the FAA’s website, the sighting above described as a “black cube” is listed, however, the description of it being a “black cube” was removed, or intentionally not included.

The earlier Air Force records documented numerous sightings by Security Forces personnel of multiple drones over Areas A and B of the base, some flying in formations and performing rapid altitude changes. Many were described as turning lights off, maneuvering in ways consistent with evasion, and in some cases appearing over sensitive areas like the flightline and base gates. However, the “black cube” sighting did not appear in the Air Force release. The FAA records now confirm that during the same operational window, pilots and controllers were also logging high-altitude, unusually shaped drone activity, broadening the scope of what was occurring in the region’s airspace.

The FAA data mirrors many of the Air Force incident points but adds radar “swarm” data, aircraft pilot reports, and precise coordinates where available. The coordinates from the December 17 silver drone sighting place it within the Wright-Patterson airspace vicinity, while the December 19 “black cube” coordinates are farther east but along a flight corridor that could connect to the operational area around the base during that week’s security incidents.

While most of the December 2024 events involved drones at altitudes that could be considered typical of hobbyist or small commercial systems, the “black cube” report at 16,000 feet raises questions about capabilities far beyond those of standard small UAS operations. Whether connected to the Wright-Patterson incursions directly or it is a separate high-altitude event all together, its inclusion in FAA’s SKYWATCH reporting during the same security surge is notable.

Together, the Air Force and FAA FOIA releases now establish that multiple confirmed incursions occurred over and around Wright-Patterson in December 2024, including “swarms”; that a base closure and NOTAM airfield closure were directly tied to drone activity; that FAA radar detected up to seventeen simultaneous targets within 40 miles; and that a rare, pilot-reported sighting of a “black cube” drone at high altitude was documented during the same period. These details expand the public record and offer new leads in understanding the scale and sophistication of the aerial activity that prompted Wright-Patterson’s partial shutdown.

Note: Imagery used in this article are artist renditions based on descriptions of the event.

###

Document Archive

2025-04622 Released Records [8 Pages, 0.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [540.15 KB]

The post FAA Records Add ‘Black Cube’ Sighting to Wright-Patterson AFB Drone Mystery first appeared on The Black Vault.