Harvard Law School National Security Journal: Flying Saucers and the Ivory Dome

Flying Saucers and the Ivory Dome: Congressional Oversight Concerning Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

Abstract
Once dismissed for decades, the topic of unidentified anomalous phenomena (“UAP”), previously labeled as unidentified aerial phenomena and unidentified flying objects (“UFOs”), now attracts the sustained attention of Congress. In the annual U.S. defense and intelligence authorization measure enacted in each of the last four years, lawmakers have included bipartisan provisions tightening oversight of this matter. One Senate-passed UAP bill would even have directed the federal government to exercise eminent domain over any “technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of non-human intelligence.” Relenting to this pressure, the national security establishment has grudgingly acknowledged that UAP are not the “illusions” Secretary McNamara told Congress about but real—and that they may challenge national security. So, who knew what about UAP when? Meanwhile, researchers at Harvard University, Stanford University, and elsewhere have begun to study these phenomena in earnest. This Article cannot determine whether UAP are natural occurrences, drones, secret U.S. or foreign advanced technologies, something else entirely, or some combination of these possible explanations. But legal and policy analyses have not kept pace with these developments, leaving a chasm rather than a foundation upon which legislators, other policymakers, academia, and the business community may build.

This Article begins to fill that space by studying UAP statutes and related governmental actions in five areas. First, this Article surveys congressional efforts to refine the historically laden definitions of these phenomena, shaping governmental efforts that hinge on the overarching import of these terms. Second, the activities of a novel office within the Department of Defense created to gather, analyze, and report to Congress on UAP data are evaluated, together with other U.S. governmental and international actors. Third, requirements providing for the gradual, if uncertain, declassification and public disclosure of UAP governmental records are discussed. Fourth, this Article analyzes one mechanism Congress created for persons to allege without retaliation that the government or contractors may be conducting secret UAP retrieval, research, reverse-engineering, or similar activities. Fifth, implications for contractors and others of prior statutory prohibitions against federal funding of any such unauthorized UAP activities are assessed. What emerges does not paint a full picture given the secrecy, ridicule, and conspiracism that continue to pall any serious discussion of UAP. But, by charting the strange waters of these UAP laws, this Article hopes to indicate routes of passage along which future legislation, policy, and scholarship may be ventured—if not free from hazard, then at least with a map.

Links

• Source: https://harvardnsj.org/2025/01/12/flying-saucers-and-the-ivory-dome-congressional-oversight-concerning-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/
• Full article:  https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Guthrie_16_Harvard_Natl_Security_J_1.pdf

===

Bottom line:

The essay traces how Congress went from decades of neglecting unidentified flying objects (UFOs) to devoting considerable attention and legislation to what are now called “unidentified anomalous phenomena” (UAP). It analyzes the statutory moves, institutional changes, and policy ramifications of recent congressional action—chiefly through defense and intelligence authorization acts—driving a new era of UAP oversight.

Summary:

1. Introduction

   • Establishes that the U.S. national security establishment once dismissed UFOs as “illusions.” Recent laws and hearings indicate a major shift: Congress now sees UAP as potentially real and possibly challenging U.S. national security.

   • Highlights key legislative changes since 2021 that built toward the creation of a dedicated UAP office within the Department of Defense (DoD) and mandated greater transparency.

2. Definitional Ambiguity (“A Rose by Any Other Name?”)

   • Explains the terminology shift from “UFO” to “UAP,” emphasizing that Congress aims to focus on genuinely anomalous cases rather than mundane misidentifications.

   • Covers how the FY 2022 and FY 2023 NDAAs define UAP to include airborne, underwater, and transmedium objects, yet still risk lumping truly extraordinary cases together with easily explained drones, balloons, or natural phenomena.

   • Notes some proposed legislation goes further by defining UAP based on unique capabilities (“beyond-next-generation”)—e.g., objects displaying extreme acceleration, instantaneous maneuvering, or transmedium travel.

3. Federal Government’s UAP Architecture

   • Surveys the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), created by Congress to gather, analyze, and report on UAP incidents across government agencies.

   • Describes how AARO’s mission faces bureaucratic challenges and information stovepipes, including tensions with well-established players in Defense and Intelligence.

   • Considers the lack of declared U.S. foreign policy on UAP, though international coordination may become important if these phenomena span oceans and airspace around the globe.

4. Declassification and Disclosure

   • Reviews the statutory push for public release of older and newly collected UAP records through the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

   • Emphasizes that, while Congress wants declassification, agencies can still invoke certain exemptions—meaning lingering secrets around “highly sensitive” records are possible.

5. UAP Whistleblowers and Authorized Disclosures

   • Explores new laws that permit individuals (including government and contractor personnel) to share information about possible clandestine UAP retrieval or reverse-engineering programs directly with AARO without penalty.

   • Differentiates between a whistleblower complaint and a person merely filing an “authorized disclosure” with AARO—protective frameworks differ, and clarity remains evolving.

6. Secret Program Funding and Congressional Oversight

   • Argues that historically, classified military programs might have bypassed lawmakers by hiding certain projects off the standard budget books.

   • Highlights how Congress used its power of the purse in the FY 2024 NDAA to cut funds for any “unauthorized” UAP programs until they are properly disclosed to certain lawmakers.

   • Notes this signals fresh congressional resolve to ensure new or long-concealed efforts on UAP are subject to oversight and formal authorization.

7. Conclusion: Future Investigations and Legislation

   • Urges that robust investigative hearings—supported by whistleblowers’ testimony—will likely precede more comprehensive statutes.

   • Foresees potential flashpoints where national security interests conflict with transparency mandates, prompting debates on how far declassification should go.

   • Concludes that “anomaly’s open water beckons,” meaning the full story remains hidden behind secrecy and cultural stigma. Even so, the new laws may serve as a foundation for further scholarly, legislative, and scientific inquiry into phenomena that, by definition, remain unresolved.