Senate Amendment 2610: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2024

Summary

Senate Amendment 2610 to the FY2025 NDAA, sponsored by Senators Rounds (R-SD) and Schumer (D-NY), proposes the "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2024." This legislation establishes a comprehensive framework for declassifying and publicly disclosing all government records related to UAPs (UFOs), "technologies of unknown origin," and "non-human intelligence." The amendment creates an independent 9-member Review Board to oversee systematic disclosure of these records through a centralized National Archives collection, with a presumption toward public release unless specific national security exceptions apply. The legislation operates from the premise that such materials and records exist and have been improperly withheld from public and congressional oversight.

Key Facts

Institutional Framework:

• Creates a UAP Records Collection at the National Archives, modeled on the JFK Records Collection Act
• Establishes independent Review Board (9 presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed members) operating until September 30, 2030
• Authorizes $20 million for FY2025 implementation
• Review Board has subpoena power, witness immunity provisions, and access to all special access programs
• Members must have no previous involvement with any "legacy program" related to UAP materials

Disclosure Requirements:

• All government agencies must identify, organize, and transmit UAP-related records within 300 days
• All records must be publicly disclosed within 25 years unless President personally certifies continued postponement
• Prohibits destruction, alteration, or reclassification of UAP records
• Previously disclosed records cannot be re-classified or redacted
• Records created by non-government entities (excluding personal identities) cannot be withheld
• Mandatory periodic reviews of postponed records with public Federal Register notices every 30 days

Material Seizure Provisions:

• Exercises eminent domain over any privately-held "technologies of unknown origin" or "biological evidence of non-human intelligence"
• Review Board gets physical access to examine all such materials held by private contractors or entities
• Federal government assumes control over materials currently under private or corporate possession

Scope of Coverage:

• Applies to 23+ specified agencies including DOD, CIA, DOE, NASA, FBI, NSA, and their historical predecessors
• Includes private sector entities "formerly or currently under contract" with the federal government
• Covers state/local governments that assisted federal UAP inquiries
• Extends to presidential libraries and National Archives holdings

Legislative Actions:

• Repeals Subtitle C of the FY2024 NDAA (previous UAP disclosure provisions)
• Takes precedence over other classification laws except IRS tax return confidentiality
• Designated oversight to Senate Homeland Security Committee and House Oversight Committee
• Amendment was "ordered to lie on the table" (not directly voted on, didn't pass)

UAP Definition and Observables

The amendment defines UAPs through performance characteristics that violate known physics, distinguishing them from both conventional objects and "temporarily non-attributed objects" (misidentified conventional phenomena). According to Section 3(22), UAPs are objects "lacking prosaic attribution due to performance characteristics and properties not previously known to be achievable based upon commonly accepted physical principles."

The Six Specific Observables:

1. Instantaneous acceleration absent apparent inertia
   • Objects that accelerate rapidly without showing effects of inertia (no visible G-forces, no structural stress)
   • Implies acceleration at rates that would destroy conventional craft or kill human pilots
2. Hypersonic velocity absent a thermal signature and sonic shockwave
   • Moving faster than Mach 5+ without generating heat friction normally produced at those speeds
   • No sonic boom despite supersonic travel
   • Violates thermodynamic expectations for atmospheric flight
3. Transmedium (such as space-to-ground and air-to-undersea) travel
   • Seamless movement between different mediums: space → atmosphere → ocean
   • No apparent reconfiguration or performance degradation when transitioning between environments
   • Current technology requires completely different vehicle designs for each medium
4. Positive lift contrary to known aerodynamic principles
   • Achieving flight/hovering without conventional wings, rotors, or visible propulsion
   • Maintaining altitude in ways that don't conform to Bernoulli's principle or other known lift-generation methods
5. Multispectral signature control
   • Ability to manipulate or minimize detection across multiple sensor types (radar, infrared, visual, etc.)
   • Goes beyond stealth technology into active signature management across the electromagnetic spectrum
6. Physical or invasive biological effects to close observers and the environment
   • Documented physiological impacts on humans who get near these objects
   • Environmental effects (radiation, electromagnetic interference, physical traces)
   • Implies measurable physical interaction with surroundings, not passive observation phenomena

Critical Distinction: The amendment explicitly excludes "temporarily non-attributed objects"—things like weather balloons, drones, celestial phenomena, foreign aircraft, sensor artifacts, commercial/military platforms, or natural phenomena that might initially puzzle observers but have conventional explanations. UAPs are defined as the residual cases that resist prosaic explanation even after thorough analysis.

Unstated Operating Assumptions

This legislation is structured around several foundational assumptions treated as established facts rather than contested claims. The amendment doesn't argue for these premises—it legislates from them:

Assumption 1: UAPs (as defined) actually exist

• The entire legislative framework presumes there ARE objects exhibiting these physics-violating characteristics
• Not framed as "if such objects exist" but "these objects exist and we need disclosure protocols"
• The observables definition serves as operational criteria, not speculative categories

Assumption 2: The government possesses extensive UAP-related records

• Assumes decades of documentation across multiple agencies (CIA, DOD, DOE, NASA, FBI, etc.)
• Presumes these records have been systematically withheld or improperly classified
• The 300-day deadline for agencies to "identify and organize" records assumes substantial material exists

Assumption 3: "Technologies of unknown origin" are in physical possession

• The eminent domain provision only makes sense if the government believes such materials exist in private hands
• Defines these as "materials or meta-materials, ejecta, crash debris, mechanisms, machinery, equipment... damaged or intact aerospace vehicles"
• Uses language of certainty: "any and all recovered technologies" not "potentially recovered technologies"

Assumption 4: "Biological evidence of non-human intelligence" exists

• Section 3(13) defines "non-human intelligence" as "any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform regardless of nature or ultimate origin"
• Section 10 treats biological evidence as something that may be "controlled by private persons or entities"
• Not framed as hypothetical but as potentially extant material requiring federal seizure

Assumption 5: "Legacy programs" have been operating in secret

• Defines legacy programs as efforts to "collect, exploit, or reverse engineer technologies of unknown origin or examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence"
• Assumes these programs predate the Act and have been running across government, industry, and academia
• Disqualification criteria for Review Board members assume people with legacy program involvement exist and must be excluded

Assumption 6: Private contractors/entities possess UAP materials under non-disclosure

• The eminent domain provision specifically targets "private persons or entities" with materials
• Assumes classification or contractual restrictions have kept materials from public/congressional oversight
• Section 3(5) defines "controlling authority" to include "commercial company, academic institution, or private sector entity"

Assumption 7: Existing classification systems have been misused to hide UAP information

• States that records exist "that have not been declassified... due in part to exemptions under the Atomic Energy Act" and "over-broad interpretation of transclassified foreign nuclear information"
• Assumes deliberate or systematic misapplication of classification authorities
• Presumes FOIA has been inadequate due to intentional withholding, not absence of records

Assumption 8: Living witnesses/whistleblowers possess direct knowledge

• Discusses access to "unidentified anomalous phenomena witnesses, close observers and legacy program personnel and whistleblowers"
• Defines "close observer" as anyone who has "come into close proximity to unidentified anomalous phenomena or non-human intelligence"
• Assumes such individuals exist and need legal protection to come forward

Assumption 9: Congressional oversight has been deliberately circumvented

• States "legislation is necessary to restore proper oversight... that has otherwise been lacking"
• Implies executive branch has maintained compartmented programs beyond congressional reach
• Assumes this wasn't mere bureaucratic confusion but systematic exclusion of elected officials

Assumption 10: Disclosure poses manageable rather than catastrophic risks

• The 25-year disclosure deadline assumes public release won't cause societal collapse or irreparable national security harm
• Presumes benefits of transparency outweigh risks of revelation
• "Controlled Disclosure Campaign Plan" assumes orderly, managed release is possible

Assumption 11: The phenomenon has non-human origins (or this is a serious possibility)

• While defining "prosaic attribution" as having "human (either foreign or domestic) origin," the Act creates entire frameworks around non-human possibilities
• The distinction between foreign adversary technology and non-human intelligence is treated as a meaningful, operational category
• Wouldn't need "non-human intelligence" definitions if this were purely about misidentified Chinese or Russian systems

Assumption 12: The scientific and technological value justifies urgency

• Section 2(a)(7) states legislation is necessary to afford "complete and timely access to all knowledge gained by the Federal Government concerning unidentified anomalous phenomena in furtherance of comprehensive open scientific and technological research and development essential to avoiding or mitigating potential technological surprise"
• Assumes UAP study could yield transformative technological insights
• Frames disclosure as urgent national security imperative, not historical curiosity

What This Means

This represents the most aggressive legislative attempt yet to force comprehensive UAP disclosure. If enacted, it would fundamentally shift UAP information from a fragmented, classified state to systematic public disclosure with independent oversight insulated from executive branch control.

The eminent domain provision is particularly striking—asserting federal authority to seize any exotic materials or biological evidence held by private contractors or entities, suggesting sponsors believe such materials exist outside direct government control. The 25-year disclosure deadline and mandatory periodic reviews create enforceable timelines that bypass traditional classification exemptions, while the Review Board's subpoena power and special access program clearances give it teeth to compel cooperation.

The legislation's structure reveals its most significant aspect: it doesn't argue that UFOs might exist or that the government might have relevant information. Instead, it legislates from the premise that the debate over "do UAPs exist" has been settled internally among its sponsors, and the remaining question is purely procedural—how to force disclosure of specific materials they believe are being hidden in classified vaults and private contractor facilities.

However, as an amendment "ordered to lie on the table," it wasn't directly voted on and didn't make it into the final NDAA—a pattern that's repeated with similar Schumer-Rounds amendments in previous years. This suggests significant resistance within Congress or from the executive branch to this level of mandatory disclosure, despite the bipartisan sponsorship. The amendment's failure to advance may indicate either: (1) successful lobbying against disclosure by agencies/contractors, (2) skepticism among legislators about the underlying premises, (3) concerns about the eminent domain provisions and their constitutional implications, or (4) resistance to creating an independent body with such sweeping investigative powers over classified programs.

The repeated introduction and tabling of similar legislation suggests an ongoing tension between disclosure advocates who believe they have credible evidence of hidden programs, and institutional forces—whether bureaucratic, corporate, or political—that have successfully blocked mandatory transparency measures.

Source:

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/2610/text?s=09