Do Not Respond: Pentagon Staff Instructed to Ignore The Black Vault’s UAP Inquiry

The Department of Defense (DoD) has released 151 pages of internal records related to the FLIR1, Gimbal, and GoFast UAP videos. The disclosure, obtained by The Black Vault through FOIA case 19-F-1420, adds new detail to the growing archive of material that documents how the U.S. government internally handled the official release of the three now-famous videos.

While the U.S. Navy confirmed last week it withheld 498 pages in full regarding the same release effort, the 151 pages from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) are overlapping in subject matter and offer a closer look at the overall internal process and discussion. Both sets of documents stem from multiple FOIA requests filed in 2019 by The Black Vault, and both were finalized the same week in July 2025, suggesting coordinated processing between the Navy and OSD on the two cases.

Among the more revealing records is an August 19, 2019, internal email from a DoD staffer, written in response to a question submitted by The Black Vault the previous day.

The inquiry asked whether the Navy had ever completed a required step in the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR) process—specifically, whether it had formally responded to clear the videos for public release after a 2017 review.

The internal email reads:

“Our instructions are to not respond and forward requests to Public Affairs. The answer to his question is no; Navy did not respond. Had they responded, it would have been part of the case file/responsive records.”

At the time of the exchange, the DoD already had the information necessary to provide a direct answer. However, the FOIA office, acting under internal guidance, chose not to inform the The Black Vault, and instead redirected it to Public Affairs.

The question itself was narrowly focused and factual: whether or not a final approval had ever been submitted to DOPSR. It was not classified, nor was it subject to any legal exemption. Yet the FOIA officer, following instructions, withheld the answer and ignored the question.

Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552), federal agencies are required to provide access to records but not to answer questions or explain policy. Courts have consistently upheld this limitation. The Department of Justice’s FOIA guidance reiterates this standard: agencies must “search for and produce responsive agency records,” but they are not obligated to “create new records” or “answer questions posed as FOIA requests.”

So while frustrating, and arguably at odds with the spirit of transparency, the DoD’s refusal to respond directly to a factual question remains legally permissible.

In response to the silence, The Black Vault re-submitted the question to the U.S. Navy, along with four others, to continue digging. It would take until September 9, 2019, three weeks after the internal email confirmed the answer was known, before a reply was finally received.

The 151 pages released by OSD also include again how the videos were initially submitted for review in 2017, but now include additional context by revealing internal communications never-before-released to the public until now. Originally, the review of the three UAP videos began at the request of Luis Elizondo for internal DoD use. A DOPSR email at the time stated that public release could proceed if the originating classification authority (OCA) verified the videos as unclassified once metadata was removed. However, no such verification was ever documented, and the Navy never gave that authorization.

“The conditions were for [redacted]to share with cleared contractors only and await for NAVY to approve for public release.”

Another 2019 Pentagon email affirmed:

“The videos were never officially released to the general public by DoD and should still be withheld.”

Despite these positions, the videos were eventually posted to the Navy’s FOIA reading room in April 2020, the same day another FOIA case filed by The Black Vault was answered. This further indicated the release was driven by FOIA pressure, not voluntary transparency.

Together, these records show that answers existed internally but were intentionally withheld from the public—even when disclosure would not have compromised any sensitive information. The release adds to the growing body of documentation showing that the handling of the UAP videos was shaped not just by classification or policy, but also by strategic control of information flow.