The United States Congress has enacted a growing body of legislation protecting federal employees who report information about unidentified anomalous phenomena. From the first UAP whistleblower provisions in the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act to the proposed UAP Disclosure Act of 2025, the legislative framework for UAP accountability has expanded from basic reporting requirements to comprehensive records collection and declassification mandates. Understanding what each law does — and what the proposed legislation would add — is essential to evaluating the government’s commitment to UAP transparency.
Congress has enacted multiple UAP-related laws since 2022, including whistleblower protections, records collection mandates, and proposed declassification timelines. Here is what each one actually does.
The U.S. government has created a multi-layered legal framework for UAP accountability. The FY2023 NDAA established the first statutory whistleblower protections for federal employees reporting UAP-related information. The FY2024 NDAA mandated government-wide UAP records collection by the National Archives. Multiple additional bills have been introduced in 2024 and 2025 to expand protections, require disclosure timelines, and define terms like “non-human intelligence” in federal law. No single law provides complete transparency. Together, they create the most detailed legislative framework the government has ever applied to the UAP issue. Sources linked below.
Timeline:
The FY2023 NDAA: Foundation of UAP Whistleblower Protections
The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 established the first statutory framework for UAP whistleblower protections. The law’s Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) provisions included reporting procedures codified at 50 U.S.C. ยง 3373b, titled “Unidentified anomalous phenomena reporting procedures.”
According to the House Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds, the FY2023 law created specific protections for federal employees and contractors who report UAP-related information through authorized channels. The protections covered disclosures about UAP activity, programs, or technologies, and included exemptions from nondisclosure agreements that might otherwise prevent reporting.
The law established that no federal employee could face retaliation for making authorized disclosures about UAP. The protections applied to current and former employees of the Department of Defense, intelligence community agencies, and other federal entities with access to UAP-related information.
The FY2023 provisions also created the legal foundation for AARO’s reporting system. By establishing statutory reporting procedures, the law ensured that federal employees had a recognized, authorized channel for UAP disclosures rather than relying on informal or ad hoc arrangements.
According to Wikipedia‘s article on the FY2023 NDAA, the UAP provisions “include whistleblower protections and exemptions to nondisclosure orders and agreements.” The law specifically addressed the concern that nondisclosure agreements could prevent individuals from reporting UAP-related information to Congress or to AARO.
The FY2024 NDAA: Records Collection and Reduced Disclosure
The FY2024 NDAA, signed by President Biden in December 2023, included a UAP amendment requiring government-wide records collection. According to Inside Government Contracts, the law requires all federal government offices to “identify and review all government, government-provided, or government-funded records relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, and non-human intelligence.”
The records collection provision directed agencies to transmit determinable records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for public inspection. The deadline for initial transmission was set for October 23, 2024.
The original Senate version of the FY2024 NDAA included a much more comprehensive UAP disclosure provision known as the Schumer-Rounds amendment. According to the New York University Journal of Law and Public Policy, this amendment “would have established an independent, nine-member review board — modeled on the JFK Assassination Records Review Board — with the power to subpoena records and override classification decisions.” The review board would have had authority to compel disclosure of UAP-related records from both government agencies and private contractors.
The Schumer-Rounds amendment was significantly reduced during conference negotiations between the House and Senate. The final version retained the records collection requirement but removed the independent review board, subpoena power, and mandatory declassification timelines. The compromise reflected resistance from elements within the intelligence community and defense industry who argued that broad disclosure mandates could compromise classified programs.
The National Archives issued guidance to federal agencies in October 2024 on implementing the records collection. According to the NARA guidance, agencies were required to identify records relating to UAP, technologies of unknown origin, and non-human intelligence, and to submit copies to the National Archives. The guidance defined the scope broadly, covering “copies of all Government, Government-provided, or Government-funded records” meeting the statutory criteria.
H.R. 10111 and H.R. 5060: Dedicated Whistleblower Protection Acts
In July 2024, Representative Anna Paulina Luna introduced the UAP Whistleblower Protection Act (H.R. 10111) in the 118th Congress. The bill aimed to provide “whistleblower protections to Federal personnel for disclosing the use of Federal taxpayer funds to evaluate or research unidentified anomalous phenomenon material,” according to the bill text on Congress.gov.
H.R. 10111 did not advance out of committee during the 118th Congress. However, the bill was reintroduced as H.R. 5060 in the 119th Congress on August 29, 2025, according to Congress.gov.
According to DefenseScoop, the UAP Whistleblower Protection Act “marks Congress’s latest move to help shield people who want to share information, but fear retaliation.” The legislation would strengthen the protections established in the FY2023 NDAA by creating additional safeguards specifically focused on disclosures about the use of federal funds for UAP research programs.
The distinction between the existing FY2023 protections and the proposed standalone act is significant. The FY2023 provisions were included as part of a broader defense authorization bill and focused primarily on reporting procedures. The dedicated Whistleblower Protection Act would create standalone protections with broader scope and potentially stronger enforcement mechanisms.
According to GovTrack.us, the 2024 version of the bill (H.R. 10111) received no committee action. Whether the 2025 reintroduction (H.R. 5060) will advance further depends on the political dynamics of the 119th Congress and the level of bipartisan support for UAP transparency measures.
The UAP Disclosure Act of 2025
Representative Eric Burlison submitted the UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 as an amendment to the FY2026 NDAA on August 29, 2025, according to his office’s press release. The amendment aims to “increase transparency on government records related to UAP.”
According to Burlison’s office, the UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 would require public disclosure of UAP records within 25 years unless the President certifies a clear national security reason for delay. The 25-year timeline is modeled on existing declassification frameworks used for other categories of classified records.
According to uapda.org, the UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 “aims to establish a comprehensive framework for the collection, review, and public disclosure of government records related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP).” The legislation builds on the FY2024 records collection requirement by adding declassification timelines and public disclosure mandates.
The bill defines several terms that have generated significant public interest. According to the NYU Journal of Law and Public Policy analysis, the legislation defines “unidentified anomalous phenomena” broadly as objects or events exhibiting “science and technology that lacks prosaic attribution or known means of human manufacture.” The term “non-human intelligence” is defined as “any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform regardless of nature or ultimate origin.”
The definitions are legally significant because they appear in proposed federal legislation. While the FY2024 NDAA uses the phrase “non-human intelligence” in its records collection provision, the definitions themselves were not included in the enacted law. The UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 would codify these definitions, giving them statutory force.
The original Schumer-Rounds amendment in the FY2024 NDAA process included similar definitions and a review board with subpoena power. The Disclosure Act of 2025 represents a legislative attempt to restore some of the provisions that were removed during the FY2024 conference negotiations.
The FY2026 NDAA: Three UAP Provisions
The FY2026 NDAA, signed in December 2025, included three UAP-related provisions according to multiple reports. The provisions addressed classification, military intercepts, and reporting efficiency.
According to MeriTalk, the legislation requires AARO to “account for all security classification guides governing UAP-related reporting and investigations.” This provision directly addresses concerns that over-classification of UAP information prevents meaningful congressional oversight. By requiring an accounting of classification guides, the provision enables Congress to evaluate whether the classification of UAP data is justified by national security concerns or serves other purposes.
According to DefenseScoop, the NDAA also directs Congress to learn more about military UAP intercepts around North America. This provision reflects growing interest in the Langley Air Force Base drone incursion and similar incidents where unidentified objects entered restricted military airspace. The provision ensures that Congress receives information about how the military responds to airspace incursions by unidentified objects.
The third provision broadly eliminates duplicative reporting requirements for federal agencies providing data to AARO. According to DefenseScoop, this provision was designed to reduce the bureaucratic burden on agencies that report UAP data while maintaining the flow of information to AARO.
The three provisions represent a pragmatic approach to UAP legislation: addressing classification concerns, expanding oversight of military incidents, and reducing reporting friction. None of the three provisions mandated new disclosure or declassification, suggesting that the FY2026 NDAA focused on administrative improvements rather than transparency breakthroughs.
The Safe Airspace for Americans Act
Representative Robert Garcia, a Democrat from California, introduced the Safe Airspace for Americans Act in March 2024 alongside Republican Representative Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin. The bill aims to strengthen U.S. airspace safety by creating a secure process for civilian aviation personnel to report UAP, with reports shared by the Federal Aviation Administration to AARO.
According to Garcia’s office, the legislation would provide aviation professionals with legal safeguards and support for reporting without fear of reprisal. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics endorsed the legislation. The bill was reintroduced in September 2025 after not advancing in the previous Congress.
The Safe Airspace for Americans Act addresses a gap identified in multiple official reports. The 2021 ODNI preliminary assessment noted that most UAP data came from U.S. Navy reporting, and that standardized reporting across civilian aviation was lacking. The bill would mandate FAA procedures, archival practices, and reporting safeguards for civilian encounters with unidentified phenomena.
According to Aerospace America‘s January 2026 year-in-review, the reintroduction reflected growing bipartisan support for UAP reporting reform. The legislation has also received attention from the airline industry, with Airline Pilot Central noting that the bill would provide legal safeguards for pilots who come forward with UAP reports.
The civilian aviation angle is significant because it extends UAP accountability beyond military and intelligence channels. If civilian pilots report UAP through standardized FAA procedures, the resulting data could provide a broader picture of UAP activity in national airspace than military reporting alone.
The Political Dynamics of UAP Legislation
UAP transparency has become one of the few genuinely bipartisan issues in the current Congress. Representatives from both parties have sponsored UAP-related legislation, and the issue has generated unusual alliances between progressive Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans.
Representative Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, has been one of the most vocal advocates for UAP transparency. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, questioned witnesses at the July 2023 hearing about the oversight gaps that allow UAP programs to operate without congressional knowledge. The cross-party appeal suggests that UAP accountability resonates with different political constituencies for different reasons.
For national security hawks, UAP transparency means ensuring that the Department of Defense is not hiding programs that could affect military readiness. For civil liberties advocates, UAP transparency means ensuring that taxpayer funds are accounted for and that government secrecy does not exceed legitimate national security needs. For transparency advocates, UAP represents a test case for whether the government can maintain accountability over classified programs.
The political dynamics also include resistance. Elements within the intelligence community and defense industry have pushed back against disclosure mandates, arguing that broad declassification could compromise legitimate classified programs. The reduction of the Schumer-Rounds amendment in the FY2024 NDAA conference negotiations demonstrated that this resistance has legislative power.
Representative Mike Turner, who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the FY2024 NDAA negotiations, was reportedly instrumental in reducing the UAP disclosure provisions. According to multiple reports, Turner’s opposition reflected concerns from defense contractors and intelligence agencies about the scope of the disclosure requirements.
The political landscape for UAP legislation in the 119th Congress remains uncertain. The bipartisan coalition supporting transparency is strong, but the legislative calendar is crowded, and UAP competes with other priorities for committee time and floor votes.
The Legal Definitions That Matter
The UAP legislative framework has introduced several legal definitions that have significant implications. Understanding what these terms mean in statutory language is essential to evaluating what the laws actually require.
The FY2024 NDAA uses the term “unidentified anomalous phenomena” consistent with the definition adopted by the Department of Defense. According to the DOD, UAP includes “objects that are not immediately identifiable” when encountered in the air, in space, on land, in maritime environments, or in the subsurface (transmedium objects).
The term “technologies of unknown origin” appears in the FY2024 records collection provision. According to the NYU Journal of Law and Public Policy analysis, this term refers to “any materials or meta-materials, ejecta, alien spacecraft, or space craft of non-human intelligence.” The inclusion of this term in enacted legislation is notable because it creates a legal category that presupposes the possible existence of non-human technology without confirming it.
The phrase “non-human intelligence” appears in both the FY2024 NDAA and the proposed UAP Disclosure Act of 2025. The NYU analysis defines NHI as “any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform regardless of nature or ultimate origin that may be presumed responsible for UAP or of which the Federal Government has become aware.”
The legal significance of these definitions is that they create categories in federal law that could be used to classify or declassify information. If records are determined to relate to “technologies of unknown origin,” they fall under the records collection requirements of the FY2024 NDAA. If the UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 passes, these records would be subject to the 25-year disclosure timeline.
Critics argue that the definitions are too broad and could capture information about conventional classified programs. Proponents argue that broad definitions are necessary to prevent agencies from using narrow technicalities to avoid compliance.
The Congressional Whistleblower Hearings
Congress has held multiple hearings featuring UAP whistleblowers and witnesses who claim direct knowledge of government UAP programs. These hearings have provided the public testimony that formal legislation cannot, while also exposing the tension between official government positions and individual claims.
The July 2023 hearing before the House Oversight Committee featured David Grusch, a former intelligence officer who testified under oath that the U.S. government operates a multi-decade program to recover and reverse-engineer non-human craft. Grusch stated that he had been informed of such programs by officials with direct knowledge, though he acknowledged he had not personally seen recovered craft or non-human bodies.
The November 2024 hearing, titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth,” featured testimony from Luis Elizondo and other former officials. Elizondo testified that the government has conducted secret UAP crash retrieval programs with the purpose of identifying and reverse engineering alien craft, according to NBC News.
In September 2025, a House hearing titled “Restoring Public Trust Through UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection” featured testimony from military veterans Jeffrey Nuccetelli and Dylan Borland, according to DefenseScoop. Nuccetelli described multiple possible UAP incursions near Vandenberg Air Force Base during high-stakes National Reconnaissance Office launches.
The hearings have served a dual purpose: generating public pressure for legislative action and creating a public record of claims that might otherwise remain confined to classified briefings. Whether the testimony will be verified by independent investigation remains to be seen.
What the Legislation Does and Does Not Do
The current legislative framework creates protections for federal employees reporting UAP information, mandates records collection, and establishes reporting procedures. It does not mandate the disclosure of specific UAP records, require the declassification of UAP programs, or compel any agency to release evidence of non-human intelligence.
The gap between the legislative intent and the legislative mechanism is significant. The FY2024 NDAA requires agencies to collect and transmit UAP records to the National Archives, but it does not require those records to be made public. The FY2023 NDAA protects whistleblowers who report through authorized channels, but it does not guarantee that their reports will be investigated or that findings will be released.
The proposed UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 would address some of these gaps by establishing declassification timelines. However, the 25-year disclosure requirement includes a presidential certification exception that could allow indefinite withholding. Whether future administrations would use this exception is unknown.
The American Institute of Physics noted that the UAP Whistleblower Protection Act (H.R. 5060) specifically focuses on “disclosing the use of Federal taxpayer funds to evaluate or research unidentified anomalous phenomenon material.” This narrower focus may make the bill more politically viable than broader disclosure mandates, but it also limits its scope to financial accountability rather than substantive information release.
The effectiveness of the legislative framework ultimately depends on enforcement. Without strong oversight mechanisms, the laws may create the appearance of accountability without the reality of disclosure. The congressional hearing process has provided some oversight, but the classified nature of most UAP information limits the extent to which public hearings can surface substantive findings.
The whistleblower protections established in the FY2023 NDAA represent a necessary but insufficient condition for meaningful disclosure. If federal employees know they are protected from retaliation, they may be more willing to report UAP information. But if the information they report is classified, compartmented, or otherwise restricted from congressional or public access, the protections serve primarily to ensure that the information reaches AARO rather than the public.
The records collection requirement in the FY2024 NDAA creates a repository of UAP-related documents at the National Archives. However, the law does not require the National Archives to make these records public. The records may be transmitted to NARA and remain classified or restricted. The UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 would address this by establishing a disclosure timeline, but the presidential certification exception could allow indefinite withholding.
The cumulative effect of the legislation is to create infrastructure for UAP accountability rather than to deliver accountability itself. The reporting channels, whistleblower protections, records collection, and oversight requirements form a framework that future administrations or congressional action could use to achieve greater transparency. Whether that framework will be used, and when, remains an open question.
The legislation also creates a vocabulary for UAP accountability that did not previously exist in federal law. Terms like “unidentified anomalous phenomena,” “technologies of unknown origin,” and “non-human intelligence” now appear in enacted legislation and proposed bills. This vocabulary enables future legislative action by establishing that these concepts have statutory standing, even if the current laws do not mandate the disclosure of specific information about them.
The international dimension of the legislative framework should not be overlooked. As more countries adopt UAP disclosure requirements, the pressure on the United States to maintain its own transparency framework increases. The UK, France, Brazil, and Canada are all at various stages of UAP accountability reform. If the United States falls behind international norms on disclosure, the credibility of its commitment to UAP transparency may be questioned.
The next major test of the legislative framework will come when AARO submits its accounting of classification guides under the FY2026 NDAA provision. If the accounting reveals that significant categories of UAP information are classified beyond what national security requires, Congress may use the information to justify stronger disclosure mandates. If the accounting shows that classification is justified and proportionate, the case for additional legislation may weaken.
The trajectory of UAP legislation from 2022 to 2025 shows consistent expansion in both scope and ambition. The FY2023 NDAA established basic protections. The FY2024 NDAA mandated records collection. The proposed 2025 legislation would add disclosure timelines and strengthened whistleblower protections. Each step builds on the last, creating an institutional framework that may eventually produce the level of transparency that advocates seek.
The International Context
The United States is not the only country developing legislative frameworks for UAP accountability. The UK’s House of Lords debated UAP in 2024, with multiple peers calling for greater transparency about the Ministry of Defence’s historical UAP files. France’s GEIPAN has operated under a public mandate since 1977, providing a model for civilian-operated UAP investigation.
The Brazilian Congress has considered legislation to declassify additional UAP documents held by the Brazilian Air Force. The Brazilian National Archives has already released thousands of declassified documents, providing a level of public access that exceeds current U.S. disclosure.
Canada’s Parliament has debated UAP transparency following testimony from Canadian military and intelligence officials about NORAD’s tracking of unidentified objects. The Canadian government has not enacted UAP-specific legislation but has acknowledged the need for standardized reporting procedures.
The international legislative trend suggests that UAP accountability is becoming a governance issue rather than solely a defense concern. As more countries adopt disclosure frameworks, the pressure on governments that maintain high levels of classification may increase.
Opposing Perspective:
Critics of the UAP legislative framework argue that the laws create bureaucratic overhead without proportional transparency benefits. The Congressional Research Service has noted that the overlapping mandates of AARO, the National Archives, and congressional committees may create redundancy rather than efficiency. The FY2026 NDAA’s provision eliminating duplicative reporting requirements was partly a response to this concern.
Skeptics also argue that the legislative definitions of terms like “non-human intelligence” and “technologies of unknown origin” are overly broad and could capture records about conventional classified programs. If a classified drone program uses technology that a field observer cannot identify, records about that program could be swept into the UAP collection process, creating confusion rather than clarity.
The political dynamics also deserve scrutiny. UAP transparency has become a bipartisan cause, but the motivations of individual legislators vary. Some are genuinely interested in government accountability. Others may see UAP as a vehicle for political attention. The distinction matters for evaluating whether the legislative framework will produce meaningful disclosure or remain a collection of well-intentioned but ineffective mandates.
Congressional UAP hearing with testimony from former military and intelligence officials on government transparency and whistleblower protections.
Sources
Official Legislation and Government Sources:
Source Links:
Related Reading: