House lawmakers left a Friday classified briefing on UFOs, referred to as unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) by the government, with mixed feelings, some frustrated with the limited information and some claiming they were given more clarity on last summer’s explosive testimony on the unexplained sightings.
The closed-door briefing at the Capitol Building — where Thomas Monheim, inspector general of the intelligence community, spoke with House Oversight and Accountability Committee members — lasted about 90 minutes and was meant to improve transparency around the government’s knowledge of UAP.
The secretive meeting comes after a hearing in July when the three former Defense Department officials told the panel’s national security subcommittee that UAP sightings could pose national security risks.
The public hearing featured jaw-dropping testimony from former military intelligence officer and whistleblower David Grusch, who asserted the Pentagon and other agencies are withholding information about UAP — including shrouding a “multi-decade” program trying to reverse engineer nonhuman technology the U.S. government has retrieved from crash sites and now possesses. The Pentagon denies his claims.
But several lawmakers emerged from the briefing saying they barely gleaned any new information about Grusch’s accusations.
“Let’s just say that all of us were very interested in the substance of his claims, and unfortunately, I didn’t get the answers that I was hoping for,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who was one of several members irked with the lack of new material at the briefing.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), meanwhile, said the briefing was just “more of the same.”
“It’s very compartmentalized; it’s like looking down the barrel of a .22 rifle. All they know is just right in that little circle,” he told reporters. “Now it’s just whack-a-mole — you go to the next [briefing], until we get some answers.”
Burchett, who says he believes in the existence of extraterrestrial life and accuses the U.S. government of covering up evidence of it, added that what was discussed Friday “verified what I thought.”
And Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) — part of the UAP Caucus but not the Oversight Committee — said what “most Americans fear is true,” claiming there is a “concerted effort to conceal as much information as possible — both in Congress and to the general public.”
“I asked very specific questions and was unable to get specific answers,” he said. “And so that’s a problem, and we’re not going to stop until we get the truth.”
But others were more optimistic, with Rep Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) telling reporters that the briefing gave lawmakers “a direction to go next, and that’s the key thing.”
“I think that some people were looking for things. This was not the venue to determine those things, but for me, I got a lot of clarity,” he added.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), meanwhile, said it’s reasonable to contend that “everyone that was in the room received probably new information.”
Garcia earlier this week introduced the Safe Airspace for Americans Act, along with Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.). The bill is meant to close the gap in UAP reporting by enabling civilian pilots and personnel to report encounters with the Federal Aviation Administration, which would send reports to the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, in exchange for legal safeguards.
The secrecy around UAP has frustrated and confused lawmakers, who argue that transparency on the topic is crucial for national security.
The most publicly visible UAP sightings have been relayed by military pilots, with some even appearing to capture the phenomena on camera.
But lawmakers have argued that when they try to get more information as to what exactly is happening and what the government knows, they’ve been stonewalled by the intelligence community, and even from within their own ranks.
“This is not about whether there are aliens or there are not aliens,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), a member of the UAP Caucus, said in early December. “The problem is when we ask those questions, rather than being provided information that would prove it false, they stonewall the information, and that is what piques the interest.”