{"id":20676,"date":"2025-07-09T13:01:12","date_gmt":"2025-07-09T13:01:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.theblackvault.com\/documentarchive\/?p=20676"},"modified":"2025-07-09T13:01:12","modified_gmt":"2025-07-09T13:01:12","slug":"navy-withheld-nearly-500-pages-about-uap-video-release-decision-records-show-foia-pressure-drove-disclosure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.theblackvault.com\/documentarchive\/navy-withheld-nearly-500-pages-about-uap-video-release-decision-records-show-foia-pressure-drove-disclosure\/","title":{"rendered":"Navy Withheld Nearly 500 Pages About UAP Video Release Decision, Records Show FOIA Pressure Drove Disclosure"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Newly released documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reveal that the U.S. Navy withheld 498 pages in full regarding the internal decision to release three well-known UAP<\/a> (unidentified anomalous phenomena) videos known as the FLIR1, Gimbal, and GoFast. These videos were posted publicly<\/a> on the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) website in April 2020, an action many believed<\/a> to be a voluntary act of government transparency.<\/p>\n

However, records now confirm the long suspected reason that it was a direct result of FOIA pressure, initiated by a request filed by The Black Vault in May 2019.<\/p>\n

The cover letter accompanying the release outlines the extent of withheld material: \u201cI have also withheld fifty-nine emails and three legal memos, totaling 498 pages in their entirety under the following FOIA Exemptions.\u201d Those exemptions include (b)(5) and (b)(6).<\/p>\n

Exemption (b)(5)<\/a> protects the \u201cdeliberative process privilege,\u201d shielding internal recommendations, advice, and legal opinions that relate to agency decision-making. It also includes the attorney-client privilege, covering legal communications between attorneys and clients inside the government. Exemption (b)(6)<\/a> is used to protect personal privacy information which, if released, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of individual privacy.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Page one of the FOIA release letter<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In addition to the material withheld in full, the Navy confirmed that seven documents totaling 151 pages were sent to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for additional review. That review remains pending.<\/p>\n

Only four email threads totaling 34 pages were released in part. They reveal behind-the-scenes activity in early 2020 as NAVAIR personnel prepared to post the videos online. One internal message from March 2020 discusses testing the website\u2019s ability to host video files: \u201cWe might have a video that we need to load to the reading room on our FOIA website tomorrow. Does our webpage have the capability to upload videos?\u201d Another chain shows that the actual release of the videos had been greenlit by security and legal officials: \u201cGot the okay from the PMA\u2019s to make the release (woo hoo).\u201d<\/p>\n

Despite the upbeat tone internally, these documents confirm the release was not proactive. It came after repeated follow-ups from The Black Vault on the status of FOIA case DON-NAVY-2019-008289. In one email dated November 14, 2019, The Black Vault pushed for an update and an estimated completion date. That inquiry was forwarded among Navy personnel as part of a broader review process, revealing the FOIA case was very much active and pushing the issue forward.<\/p>\n

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

This undermines the narrative that the Navy’s decision to release the videos was voluntary and in the interest of transparency. In April 2020, Forbes<\/a> even called the Navy release, “… a step that comes after years of progress towards government transparency surrounding unidentified flying objects.” But that wasn’t true. In reality, as noted in a 2020 article<\/a> published by The Black Vault at the time of the video release, the Navy added the files to its website and then answered the long-pending FOIA request from The Black Vault later that same day. The timing gave the public the impression that the release was part of a transparency initiative. But these internal records show the Navy had no choice\u2014FOIA requirements and legal review had backed them into a corner.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The vast number of documents withheld which total nearly 500 pages, and the referral of an additional 151 pages to the Office of the Secretary of Defense suggest a significant level of internal deliberation and legal concern behind the scenes of the U.S. Navy\u2019s release of the three now-famous UAP videos. While the Department of Defense publicly stated that the videos were “unclassified” and that their release \u201cdoes not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems, and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena,\u201d the volume of material withheld about how and why they were released raises deeper questions.<\/p>\n

If the content of the videos is as innocuous, what justified keeping nearly 500 pages of emails and legal memos entirely from public view? And why, if the objects depicted posed no extraordinary implications, did it take FOIA pressure and a prolonged review process to force the government\u2019s hand?<\/p>\n

Despite having already leaked years prior, the official release of the videos appears to have triggered extensive internal debate and hesitation. That level of secrecy and legal shielding could indicate there was more concern internally about the nature of these encounters than has been publicly acknowledged. The question remains: If there\u2019s nothing extraordinary in these videos, why go to such extraordinary lengths to conceal the process that led to their release?<\/p>\n

The withholding of 498 pages has been appealed by The Black Vault.<\/p>\n

###<\/p>\n

Document Archive<\/h3>\n

FOIA Case 2020-007231 Release Package<\/a> [37 Pages, 1.1MB]<\/p>\n