For four years the argument about UFOs in Washington has been an argument about documents. Who has them, who is sitting on them, which statute prises them loose. It has been slow, procedural and — to its credit — occasionally productive.
That argument has now quietly been replaced by a different one, and almost nobody has said so out loud. The most organised part of the disclosure movement is no longer asking the US government to release anything. It is asking one man to make a speech, and it would like him to make it before 3 November.
The campaign, and who is in it
Since 14 August the documentary filmmaker James Fox has released a series of four videos, each built around a different witness, each addressed more or less directly to the President. The participants are not obscure. They include David Grusch, the former Air Force intelligence officer whose 2023 testimony put the phrase “non-human origin” into the congressional record; Dylan Borland, a former Air Force geospatial intelligence specialist; Matthew Brown, the former Department of War official behind the Immaculate Constellation report; and Dr Eric Davis, an aerospace engineer long associated with advanced propulsion work.
Grusch made the pitch again on the Dr Phil podcast. “I hope President Trump delivers on his promise,” he said. “I think this is going to be the singular thing which is going to define his legacy.” He offered himself as staff: ready, he said, to “provide a full historical accounting to the National Security Council principals, the White House Chief of Staff and make any supporting public statements that are authorised to help this administration move disclosure forward.” He finished with a line that is either stirring or slightly alarming depending on your priors. “Mr President, give us the authorisation, and we’re ready to go.”
The asks are consistent across the videos: declassify the photographs and documentation of retrieved craft and alleged non-human bodies, and grant immunity to people who would otherwise be in breach of their nondisclosure agreements by describing them.
The reporting that assembled this into a single campaign, rather than four separate media appearances, comes from Liberation Times, the specialist outlet run by Christopher Sharp. It is worth naming, because a great deal of what follows rests on it.
The man they are actually lobbying
Here is the part that makes this a news story rather than a publicity cycle. According to that reporting, Trump has asked Stephen Miller — his deputy chief of staff, and one of the most durable figures in his political operation — to look at the UAP portfolio. Advocates now regard Miller as the person who will determine what, if anything, the administration does.
That detail is single-sourced and hedged as “reportedly”, and we would flag it as such. But it does not arrive from nowhere. In August, Marco Rubio told a podcast that he had “surrendered that portfolio to someone else” — someone he declined to name, whom several outlets read as Miller, an identification that was inference rather than confirmation. And when the Department of War issued its nondisclosure waiver this month, the former State Department analyst Marik von Rennenkampff noted on NewsNation exactly where the new reporting channel terminates: “This goes right to Stephen Miller’s task force that is looking specifically at this issue.”
Three separate threads, from three directions, all ending at the same desk. That is not proof of what Miller thinks. It is reasonable evidence about where the decision now sits.
Bigelow has already written the script
The billionaire Robert Bigelow — Budget Suites, Bigelow Aerospace, the man who funded the Pentagon’s original UAP programme and later bought Skinwalker Ranch — has said publicly in recent weeks that he advised the President in February on how to address the nation.
He did not offer a general suggestion. He offered wording.
“A non-human, intelligent presence has been on Earth for a very long time, using spacecraft and with performances completely beyond our capabilities and our human physics.”
That, Bigelow said, is what he wants Trump to say. His reasoning is that confirmation from the office itself would settle matters in a way that no document can: “important for somebody like the President of the United States to say, ‘yeah, they’re real, they’re here. And eliminate all the other nonsense, all the noise that’s been going on for 80 years.’”
It is a remarkably candid statement of the theory of change at work here. The evidence is not the point. The announcement is the point.
An announcement is not a disclosure
And this is where we part company with the campaign, politely but completely.
A presidential statement that non-human craft are real would be the single largest news event of the century. It would also, on its own, contain no information. No sensor data, no provenance, no chain of custody, nothing anyone outside the building could examine, test or disagree with. It would be an assertion with a seal on it.
Compare that with the thing the same movement spent four years asking for. A declassified file has a date, an originating office and a docket number. It can be read by a sceptic. It can be wrong in specific, checkable ways — which is precisely what makes it worth having. When the Department of War released 41 documents in August, the most interesting file in the tranche debunked itself two cables later, and that is a feature of real records, not a failure of them.
There is also the awkward matter of the deadline. Advocates want the speech before the midterm elections on 3 November. Whatever one thinks of the underlying claim, a request that a head of government make an unprecedented announcement by a date set by an election calendar is a political request, and it should be read as one. Evidence does not have a polling deadline.
The movement does not agree with itself
It is worth noting who is not in step here, because the disclosure community is being written up as though it moves as a bloc, and it does not.
Matthew Brown appears in Fox’s video series — and Brown has spent since the summer telling prospective witnesses not to use the government’s own PURSUE intake channels, on the view that they route testimony back into the apparatus that classified it. Those two positions can be held together, but only just: do not trust the executive branch’s process, and also, please may the executive branch announce the conclusion.
Meanwhile the lawmakers who have actually drafted text keep running into the same wall. Congress wants immunity for these witnesses, and the instrument it keeps naming — a presidential pardon — is the one thing that would not free them to talk, because a pardon forgives an offence without unclassifying anything.
The sceptic’s read
Two people deserve a hearing, and neither has changed their position.
Sean Kirkpatrick, who ran AARO and had every professional incentive to find something, has been unambiguous: “The best thing that could have happened in this job is I found the aliens and I could have rolled them out, but there’s none.” He also put a number on the mundane explanation, estimating that roughly nine in ten pilot sightings referred to his office turned out to involve parallax — an object appearing to move because the observer is moving.
Mick West, the field’s most persistent debunker, has watched the video releases land and drawn the obvious conclusion. After the last of the 46 videos requested by Congress had been published, he wrote that none of them were amazing, and suggested it might be time to consider that this is the best they have. It is an uncomfortable line, and it has not yet been answered.
There is a third position, and it is the most useful of the three. Avi Loeb, the Harvard astrophysicist now chairing the White House’s UAP Science Advisory Council, calls the subject “a detective story that can be resolved with better data” — multiple sensors in different wavelength bands, triangulated distance, inferred velocity and acceleration, checked against the performance envelope of human-built machines. He has also said he believes the US government is sincere in its efforts. That is a man asking for instruments. Nobody is lobbying him for a speech.
What would actually count
If the campaign succeeds and Trump says the words, three questions will decide within about a week whether anything real happened.
Does a document come with it? A speech accompanied by a declassified file with a date and an originating office is disclosure. A speech on its own is a press conference.
Can anyone outside the government check it? Raw sensor data, or nothing. Loeb’s council, which has no clearances and no access to classified material, would be a reasonable first test of whether the material survives contact with people whose job is to doubt it.
Who is named? Programmes have titles, contracts have numbers, facilities have addresses. An announcement that cannot produce one of them is telling you something about itself.
The UAP Times take
This piece earns a Credible rating — four out of five on our scale — and we want to be precise about what is being rated. The campaign is real and largely on the record: the videos are published, the podcast remarks are quotable, Bigelow described his own advice to the President in his own words. The one genuinely new claim — that Trump has handed the file to Stephen Miller — rests on a single specialist outlet, hedged, though it converges neatly with Rubio’s own on-air handover and with where this month’s waiver quietly points.
What none of it is, is evidence about UAP. Not one of these appeals contains a document, a photograph or a sensor record that was not already public. The central claim they are built on — that identifiable people worked on programmes holding non-human craft — has been in the public record since 2023 and has produced no corroborating page, and both the Pentagon and NASA have denied it.
The honest summary is that the most visible part of this movement has changed its request. For four years it asked to see the evidence, and made real progress. It is now asking a politician to assert the conclusion instead, before an election. Even if you believe the conclusion, that is a worse trade than it looks — and a public that already, at a record 78%, thinks the government is hiding something will not be convinced by being told so from a lectern.
Further reading: the nondisclosure waiver that routes every witness back into the executive branch and the science council asked to resolve all this without a security clearance.
Follow the file
Every new dispatch from the UAP desk, in your inbox. Sourced, sceptical, and no more than one email a week.