Executive Summary

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) have long been a subject of intrigue, speculation, and concern within government and intelligence circles. Their potential implications for national security, technology, and our understanding of the universe are profound. However, amidst the mysteries that surround UAP, the recent revelations by David Grusch, a former intelligence official, have added a significant layer of complexity and urgency to the discourse.

David Grusch's Disclosure: Grusch, having served in an investigative capacity specializing in UAP for the UAP Task Force under the leadership of Jay Stratton, unearthed troubling inconsistencies and potential misconduct within Special Access Programs and Controlled Access Programs pertaining to UAP activities. His meticulous research including interviews with over 40 witness over 4 years indicated a possible internal web of evasion, potentially designed to keep certain activities obscured from the oversight of Congress.

The Allegations: Central to Grusch's disclosure is the claim that covert programs have dealt with retrieved crafts of non-human origin, information which he alleges has been deliberately and illegally withheld from Congress. Several members of the alleged recovery program have lent weight to these allegations through their testimonies to the Inspector General, painting a picture of a government potentially at odds with its own best interests.

Ensuring Legality and Safety: Recognizing the profound implications of his findings, Grusch meticulously adhered to established protocols. He initially presented the classified information—specifically about the withholding of information from Congress—to the DoD IG's office. Subsequently, due to the retaliation he faced for this disclosure, he filed a PPD-19 Whistleblower Retaliation Urgent Concern Complaint with the ICIG.

Echoes from Advocates: Chris Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and vocal advocate for transparency in UAP matters, has highlighted the need for Congress to be fully briefed, confident in their ability to discern the veracity of Grusch's claims. This call for clarity resonates with a growing sentiment within the government to address the UAP puzzle head-on, especially given the national security dimensions it encompasses.

The Road Ahead: As we approach this classified briefing from the DoD IG on Grusch's allegations, it is imperative for Congress to be equipped with a comprehensive understanding of the backdrop, the players involved, and the potential policy implications. Grusch's journey from discovery to disclosure, the subsequent public dialogue, and the march towards greater transparency set the stage for what promises to be a defining chapter in the UAP narrative.

Introduction to UAPs and David Grusch

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs): UAPs, commonly referred to as UFOs, have been a subject of public intrigue for countless years. These mysterious occurrences frequently display flight behaviors that defy current technological understanding. Historically, many UAPs were brushed off as either misconceptions or natural events. However, recent breakthroughs in sensor technologies, coupled with credible accounts from military and aviation experts, have rekindled genuine scientific and investigative pursuits. With the incorporation of specific provisions in the NDAA and IAA from 2021 to 2024, the focus has shifted beyond merely identifying UAP origins. The broader aim is to grasp their possible impact on national security and verify the claim that the Executive branch is deliberately withholding relevant information regarding its own knowledge and understanding of UAP from Congress.

David Grusch: A prominent figure in the UAP discourse, David C. Grusch has been instrumental as a whistleblower. His distinguished service record includes positions as a GS-15 employee at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and a stint in the United States Air Force (USAF). Notably, he served on the UAP Task Force from 2019 - 2021. Among his esteemed roles, Grusch was the NGA’s Senior Technical Advisor for UAP analysis and was entrusted with delivering the Presidential Daily Brief on behalf of the NRO. This vast experience afforded him unique insights into clandestine UAP-related programs and possible misconduct within Special Access Programs (SAPs) and Controlled Access Programs (CAPs).

Grusch's chief allegation is the deliberate withholding or concealment of UAP-related classified information from the US Congress by certain Intelligence Community (IC) elements. This obstruction hindered genuine Congressional oversight of the UAP Program(s). In a groundbreaking move in July 2021, Grusch presented classified details about this impropriety to the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG). Subsequently, he faced alleged retribution, suspecting that his identity had been jeopardized within defense circles. He also believed that his confidential communication with the DoD IG was unjustly revealed to parties outside the IG's jurisdiction.

Compounding his challenges, Grusch's security clearances and access within IC were unjustly scrutinized and impeded. He links these setbacks directly to his UAP-related revelations. Nevertheless, fortified by the protection of 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(D)(ii), Grusch engaged directly with the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in December 2022, underscoring the significance and urgency of his disclosures.

Prospective Briefing Agenda

In an ideal landscape of transparent governance and earnest pursuit of truth, the engagement between whistleblowers, the Intelligence Community (IC), and the Office of the Inspector General (IG) would be marked by openness, mutual respect, and a collective aim for clarity. The UAP subject matter, despite its unique and complex nature, should not deviate from this benchmark. Regrettably, our experience thus far suggests that the IG's office has maintained a stance that can be described as cautiously opaque when dealing with UAP-related concerns. Their reluctance in disseminating information or engaging in forthright discussions challenges the foundational principles of oversight and governmental accountability. It underscores the vital importance of setting clear expectations for what a genuine, constructive interaction should encompass.

The following briefing agenda is an articulation of that expectation. It serves as a blueprint for how matters of such gravity and public interest ought to be addressed. Any deviation from this level of detail, seriousness, and comprehensiveness should raise genuine concerns about the intentions and priorities of those entrusted with the responsibility of oversight.

In our mission to ensure that the truth around UAPs is not just pursued but also shared transparently with those who have the right to know, this agenda is a testament to the standards we hold and the commitment we expect in return.

  1. Opening Remarks

  • Welcome and purpose of the meeting.

  1. Setting the Stage

  • Acknowledgment of Grusch's prior testimonies to HPSCI and SSCI, emphasizing the DoD IG's distinct jurisdiction and perspective.

  • Overview of the specific concerns and events that fall under the DoD IG's review related to UAP and David C. Grusch.

  1. Expectations for the Meeting

  • Members and DoD IG lay out clear expectations and outcomes desired from the briefing.

4. Clarifying the DoD IG's Jurisdiction

  • Overview of the DoD IG's mandate and authority in the context of UAP inquiries.

  • Distinctions between the DoD IG's role and the roles of other intelligence entities or oversight bodies, without diving deep into the specifics of those external entities.

  • Areas of potential overlap or collaboration, if any, with other oversight entities in relation to UAP-related matters.

5. Grusch’s Revelations: A Comprehensive Review

  • Detailed background on David C. Grusch.

  • A timeline of his involvement with UAPs and related programs.

  • A summary of his main contentions and claims.

6. Analysis of Whistleblower Claims

  • Methodology of Investigation:

    • Outline the approaches and tools the DoD IG used in verifying Grusch's claims.

    • Mention any external agencies or bodies that were consulted or collaborated with.

  • Findings:

    • Present the results of the verification process: which of Grusch’s claims were substantiated, which were inconclusive, and which were refuted.

    • Discuss any corroborative evidence or testimonies that were unearthed during the investigation.

  • Implications for National Security:

    • Analyze how Grusch’s verified claims, if any, might impact national security or pose potential risks.

  • Recommendations:

    • Based on the investigation's findings, list any recommended actions or changes to address identified issues or to prevent similar incidents in the future.

  • Next Steps:

    • Outline planned or ongoing investigations related to Grusch's claims or related matters.

    • Highlight any areas where the DoD IG might require further collaboration or input from Congressional members.

7. Ramifications of Withholding Information

  • Implications of the alleged withholding of UAP-related classified information from Congress.

  • Any measures taken post-disclosure to rectify the situation.

8. Next Steps and Recommendations

  • Concrete steps on how to move forward, including any corrective measures or further inquiries.

9. Questions and Clarifications

  • An open forum for members to seek clarifications, probe deeper, and express concerns.

Prepared Responses to Anticipated Pushback from the DoD IG

1. Avoidance due to Ongoing Investigations

  • IG Pushback: "I cannot comment on specifics as the investigation is ongoing."

  • Response: "While we respect the investigative process, it's crucial for Congressional oversight to understand the general scope and direction. Can you provide a high-level summary without compromising the investigation?"

2. Refusal based on Classified Information

  • IG Pushback: "The details you're asking for are classified."

  • Response: "We understand the sensitivity, but as members of the Oversight Committee, we are cleared for such information. A general characterization without revealing specific details would suffice."

3. Deferring Responsibility

  • IG Pushback: "That falls outside our jurisdiction or is being handled by another agency."

  • Response: "The matter is of significant public interest and falls within the DoD's purview. Even if another agency is handling a portion, can you comment on the parts relevant to the DoD?"

4. Citing Whistleblower Anonymity

  • IG Pushback: "We must protect the identity and details related to whistleblowers."

  • Response: "We fully support the protection of whistleblowers. We're not asking for personal details but a broad understanding of the nature of the claims and your office's response."

5. Minimizing the Issue

  • IG Pushback: "We believe these concerns, while valid, have been blown out of proportion."

  • Response: "Given the potential national security implications, it's our duty to scrutinize all aspects. Can you detail why you believe it's being exaggerated?"

6. Evading with Bureaucratic Processes

  • IG Pushback: "The matter is being processed through standard protocol and channels."

  • Response: "While protocol is essential, timeliness and transparency are paramount. Can you provide a timeline or key milestones we should expect?"

7. Asserting Limited Scope of Knowledge

  • IG Pushback: "Our office hasn't been privy to all information from other departments."

  • Response: "As the DoD IG, it's expected that you're well-informed on matters within the department. Can you comment on what you do know and how you're collaborating with other entities?"

8. Challenging the Relevance of UAP Inquiries

  • IG Pushback: "There are other pressing defense matters that require our attention."

  • Response: "Given the potential implications of UAP phenomena, it's essential we understand all facets. How is your office prioritizing and allocating resources for this?"

Community-Sourced Questions

The public interest in UAP phenomena, especially regarding the claims made by David Grusch, has reached an unprecedented level. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential implications for national security, public policy, and global affairs, it's no surprise that countless individuals are demanding clarity and transparency.

However, it's essential to recognize that while the public's enthusiasm for answers is well-founded, many are not versed in bureaucratic intricacies. The Inspector General, a role steeped in a myriad of competing objectives and regulatory constraints, is often hesitant to engage in overt political discussions. This isn't the ideal forum for complete revelation, especially given the limited time available. With that in mind, we've curated a set of questions. These have been chosen based on their direct relevance, considering both the anticipated pushback from the DoD IG and the public's fervor.

Main Question Target List:

  1. Can the DoD IG confirm the credibility and authenticity of David Grusch's allegations? What steps have been taken to investigate these allegations?

  2. How many individuals have come forward to support Grusch's claims? Does the volume and nature of this evidence suggest that Congress should pursue further investigations?

  3. Have you confirmed the existence of a UAP Crash Retrieval and/or Reverse Engineering program? What evidence supports your conclusion?

  4. David Grusch alleges severe misconduct, including potential homicides, connected to UAP phenomena. Have you confirmed these allegations? How are these claims being addressed?

  5. Which locations, as disclosed by David Grusch or other whistleblowers, are believed to house or previously housed non-human artifacts or entities? Who oversees these sites? If you cannot specify, have you confirmed that any location currently houses or previously housed non-human artifacts or entities? If not, have you looked into, investigated, audited or taken any other form of action to look into or verify this?

  6. How are/were covert programs funded without Congressional oversight based on your findings of Grusch's allegations? Can you provide details or examples of any mechanisms or processes used to avoid oversight. Who is responsible for allocating these funds, and which private entities have had access to these funds and any potential off-world/non-human or unknown origin materials?

  7. Can you showcase any concrete evidence related to any allegation made by David Grusch? This could include but is not limited to in-camera footage, radar data, audio recordings, physical samples, eyewitness testimonies, documents, or other tangible items that can be presented to the public or Congress.

  8. Are there records of non-human entities interacting with or disabling U.S. nuclear capabilities that you came across while investigating, auditing or taking any actions related to Grusch's allegations? If so, what can you share or characterize about those records?

  9. In the course of your investigations surrounding David Grusch's allegations, have you encountered any references or evidence pertaining to USOs or unidentified phenomena within our oceans and waterways? If so, could you provide an overview or general characterization of the discovered references or evidence?

Community Questions:

  1. What understanding does the U.S. Government and its private contractors have about the origins, intentions, and capabilities of the entities within the recovered craft since 1947?

  2. Has any power source been reverse-engineered from non-human craft? If so, where can this technology be found?

  3. How are legacy programs obtaining taxpayer funds without proper channels? Are there specific gatekeepers or entities that oversee this?

  4. Are there theological beliefs or spiritual understandings associated with these alleged non-human intelligences?

  5. Regarding the reverse-engineering of non-human spacecraft, have we derived any knowledge that might aid in combating global climate change?

  6. Are any treaties or agreements in place with NHIs? If so, can you provide any details or insights into their nature?

This website (uapcaucus.com) is an independent community-driven platform and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or representative of any official government entity, including the UAP Caucus within the House of Representatives, or any other official body. The views, frameworks, and content expressed on this site are those of the contributors and do not reflect the official stance or endorsement of any governmental organization.

This website (uapcaucus.com) is an independent community-driven platform and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or representative of any official government entity, including the UAP Caucus within the House of Representatives, or any other official body. The views, frameworks, and content expressed on this site are those of the contributors and do not reflect the official stance or endorsement of any governmental organization.

This website (uapcaucus.com) is an independent community-driven platform and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or representative of any official government entity, including the UAP Caucus within the House of Representatives, or any other official body. The views, frameworks, and content expressed on this site are those of the contributors and do not reflect the official stance or endorsement of any governmental organization.