{"id":20425,"date":"2025-04-01T16:31:33","date_gmt":"2025-04-01T16:31:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.theblackvault.com\/documentarchive\/?p=20425"},"modified":"2025-04-01T16:31:33","modified_gmt":"2025-04-01T16:31:33","slug":"the-ufo-whistleblower-congress-and-classified-briefings-new-dod-oig-emails-and-what-they-reveal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.theblackvault.com\/documentarchive\/the-ufo-whistleblower-congress-and-classified-briefings-new-dod-oig-emails-and-what-they-reveal\/","title":{"rendered":"The “UFO Whistleblower”, Congress, and Classified Briefings: New DoD OIG Emails And What They Reveal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Randolph R. Stone –
Assistant Inspector General for Evaluations of Space, Intelligence, Engineering and Oversight<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A series of internal Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) emails referencing “UFO Whistleblower” David Grusch<\/a> were released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) following a request filed by The Black Vault. The request, processed under case DODOIG-2024-000451<\/a>, sought all emails\u2014including attachments\u2014sent to or from Randolph R. Stone, the Assistant Inspector General for Evaluations of Space, Intelligence, Engineering and Oversight, that contained the keyword \u201cGRUSCH\u201d from January 20, 2021, through to the date of processing in mid-2024.<\/p>\n

The released documents\u201475 pages in total\u2014offer a limited but interesting window into the awareness and handling of Grusch-related matters within the DoD OIG, particularly as interest in unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) surged in Congress and the media.<\/p>\n

On November 1, 2021, an internal email thread within the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) was initiated under the subject line \u201cHeads up: Contact with UAP interviewees.\u201d The message originated from an individual within the Space, Missile and Nuclear Evaluations division, part of the Evaluations Component of the OIG. The full content of that initial message is entirely redacted under FOIA exemption (b)(5), offering no insight into what was originally communicated. However, it prompted a reply from another OIG staff member later that same day, stating, \u201cGrusch reached out to me Thursday evening.\u201d<\/p>\n

Further into the correspondence, an exchange dated June 27, 2022, shows David Grusch emailing a DoD OIG staff member and copying Randolph Stone, stating: \u201cPlease see JWICS. DNI IG is requesting any records produced from my 12 Jul 2021 interview with you and your staff.\u201d While Grusch refers to the \u201cDNI IG,\u201d there is no known Office of Inspector General within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>It is more likely that Grusch was referring to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG), rather than a \u201cDNI IG,\u201d which does not formally exist. The IC IG is an independent oversight entity established under the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, and while it operates within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), it serves a broader mission by providing oversight across all 18 elements of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Referring to it as the \u201cDNI IG\u201d implies an internal inspector general specific to the ODNI, which is not the case. The IC IG is the proper entity for handling whistleblower complaints and likely the office Grusch intended to reference in his communication.<\/p>\n

Stone forwarded this message to colleagues with a brief \u201cFYSA\u201d (For Your Situational Awareness), but he provided no additional commentary.<\/p>\n

By September 1, 2022, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) had begun making inquiries about Grusch, as noted in an email where a DoD OIG Legislative Affairs staffer stated: \u201cThe SASC reached out to ask if we have any information on an NGA employee named Dave Grusch.\u201d The Office of the Inspector General responded by reviewing internal records to assist with potential congressional oversight.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Multiple messages from September 2023 further show that Grusch was mentioned in relation to a classified report on UAPs that the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (HCOA) was requesting to review. The committee staff expressed a desire to hold a classified meeting and \u201cnoted that the Committee is interested in learning about Mr. David Grusch.\u201d<\/p>\n

The messages from late September show logistical planning and concern over clearances, including questions from Stone such as, \u201chow can we confirm that the staffers have the proper clearance (TS\/SCI)? \u2026 I don\u2019t want a spill!!!\u201d highlighting the sensitivity of the information and the classified nature of the UAP-related report.<\/p>\n

In July 2023, just days before the House Oversight Committee\u2019s hearing featuring Grusch as a witness, internal emails within the DoD OIG revealed that Stone was not invited to the hearing, responding to a colleague asking if he was going with, \u201cI wasn\u2019t invited.\u201d The response to that simply stated, \u201cThat\u2019s good,” with a redacted line of additional commentary.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The public and political spotlight on Grusch intensified as news networks and even local reporters began reaching out to the DoD OIG. On July 30, 2023, a reporter from KOMO4 TV in Seattle emailed Stone asking for comment: \u201cCan you comment on the status of these investigations? Are you willing to testify before Congress in upcoming UAP hearings?\u201d No direct response is included in the released material.<\/p>\n

Also among the documents is a September 12, 2023, email from Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, then director of the Department of Defense\u2019s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), sent directly to Stone.<\/p>\n

\"\"While the message itself is completely redacted under FOIA exemption (b)(5), which protects deliberative communications within the government, its presence in a release focused on David Grusch suggests it may have pertained to internal discussions about UAP-related matters or Grusch\u2019s claims, along with the IC IG (the emails subject).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

One important note was the fact that Kirkpatrick’s email had \u201ccontents of this email are deliberative process privileged and fall under FOIA exemption (b)(5)\u201d within the footer. While this exemption does permit agencies to withhold predecisional and deliberative materials to protect internal discussions, its application is not absolute. Under the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, agencies must demonstrate that releasing the information would cause foreseeable harm to the interests protected by the exemption. Simply labeling an email as deliberative or citing (b)(5) is not sufficient justification to withhold it in full. Courts have consistently held that exemption claims must be accompanied by a specific and reasoned explanation of the harm that would result from disclosure. In this case, Kirkpatrick\u2019s blanket statement does not, on its own, justify full redaction under the law, and the lack of any segregable content raises questions about whether the exemption was appropriately applied. Moreover, it is the responsibility of FOIA release authorities — not the sender or a disclaimer in the footer of an email — that determines whether a record qualifies for withholding under the law. The Black Vault has appealed this, and other, aspects of these denials and redactions.<\/p>\n

(See other emails<\/a> released from Dr. Kirkpatrick not withheld under FOIA exemption (b)(5), and released to the Black Vault, some of which holding the same exact footer line.)<\/em><\/p>\n

There is also correspondence from October 19, 2023, referencing a planned member-level classified briefing on UAPs for the House Oversight Committee. It was confirmed that \u201csome Members have gone down and looked at [the report]ahead of time,\u201d and while the focus was stated to be on the UAP report, the same email hinted the briefing team should be \u201cprepared\u201d for additional lines of questioning\u2014likely involving Grusch. What they should be prepared for is entirely redacted.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

While the documents are heavily redacted in parts and provide limited insight into the substance of Grusch\u2019s allegations or the conclusions of any investigative actions, they do confirm internal DoD OIG awareness of and engagement with Grusch as early as mid-2021. The emails also reflect the congressional and media interest that escalated throughout 2022 and 2023 as Grusch became more publicly vocal about his claims.<\/p>\n

The FOIA response noted the redactions were made under exemptions (b)(5) for deliberative processes, (b)(6) for personal privacy, and (b)(7)(E) for law enforcement techniques and procedures. The Black Vault has filed an appeal to argue these redactions.<\/p>\n

Document Archive<\/h3>\n

FOIA DODOIG-2024-000451 Release Package<\/a> [77 Pages, 2.5MB]<\/p>\n