Congress has held five major public hearings on unidentified anomalous phenomena since 2022, each expanding the scope of questions, the caliber of witnesses, and the political pressure on the Pentagon for greater transparency. From the first cautious hearing with military officials to the explosive whistleblower testimonies that followed, the congressional UAP hearing record tells the story of how a fringe topic became a standing national security concern.
Congress has held five major UAP hearings since 2022. Each hearing has expanded the scope of questions and the pressure on the Pentagon for transparency.
Congress has held five major public hearings on UAP since May 2022. The first hearing featured cautious military officials describing a nascent reporting process. The second hearing introduced sworn whistleblower testimony about crash retrieval programs. The third and fourth hearings brought expanded witness rosters and increasingly pointed questions about government secrecy. The fifth hearing, in September 2025, featured video footage and testimony from military veterans about specific UAP incidents. Congressional interest in UAP is bipartisan and shows no signs of diminishing. Sources linked below.
Hearing Timeline:
The First Hearing: May 17, 2022
The first modern congressional hearing on UAP took place on May 17, 2022, before the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence and Counterproliferation. According to Wikipedia, the session featured Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Scott Bray and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security Ronald Moultrie as the primary witnesses.
The hearing was notable for its cautious tone. Bray presented a classified briefing on UAP encounters by military personnel, while Moultrie described the Pentagon’s plans to establish what would become the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office. The hearing did not feature whistleblowers or independent witnesses. The Pentagon controlled the narrative, presenting UAP as a data collection challenge rather than a confirmed threat or unexplained phenomenon.
The May 2022 hearing established the baseline congressional position: UAP warranted investigation, the Pentagon should have a dedicated office to manage the process, and Congress expected regular reporting. The hearing also highlighted the gap between classified information available to intelligence committees and the limited public information available to the rest of Congress and the public.
The subcommittee members pressed Bray on whether the Pentagon was taking UAP seriously and whether the reporting stigma was being addressed. Bray acknowledged that stigma had historically suppressed reporting and described efforts to standardize reporting procedures across military services. The hearing did not produce any revelations about specific UAP cases or their possible explanations.
The significance of the May 2022 hearing was primarily institutional. It established that Congress considered UAP a legitimate oversight topic, not a fringe curiosity. The hearing created a precedent for future sessions and demonstrated bipartisan interest in the issue. Representative Andre Carson, the subcommittee chair, and Representative Rick Crawford, the ranking member, both expressed support for continued investigation.
The Grusch Hearing: July 26, 2023
The July 26, 2023 hearing before the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs transformed the UAP debate. Titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency,” according to Congress.gov, the hearing featured three witnesses who brought direct experience and dramatic claims.
David Grusch, a former intelligence officer who served with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office, 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, and that he had provided classified information to the Intelligence Community Inspector General.
Ryan Graves, a former Navy F/A-18 pilot and founder of Americans for Safe Aerospace, testified about his personal experiences with UAP during training missions. Graves described encounters with objects that displayed flight characteristics inconsistent with known technology, including the ability to remain stationary in high winds and accelerate instantaneously.
David Fravor, a retired Navy commander who led the 2004 USS Nimitz encounter, described his firsthand observation of a Tic Tac-shaped object off the coast of San Diego. Fravor testified that the object he observed moved in ways that no known aircraft could account for, and that it appeared to respond to the movements of his aircraft.
According to the House Oversight Committee, the hearing generated significant public attention and created pressure for legislative action. The hearing was held one day before the Senate’s UAP disclosure amendment was being negotiated as part of the FY2024 NDAA, and the timing was not coincidental. The public testimony from credible military witnesses strengthened the hand of senators pushing for disclosure provisions.
The July 2023 hearing also introduced the concept of “non-human intelligence” into mainstream congressional discourse. While Grusch used the term in his testimony, it was the questions from representatives that established that Congress was willing to discuss the possibility of non-human technology openly. Representative Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, both pressed witnesses on the oversight gaps that allowed UAP programs to operate without congressional knowledge.
The hearing did not produce evidence to verify Grusch’s claims. The classified briefings that followed the public hearing provided additional information to members of the intelligence committees, but the public record remained limited to witness testimony. The gap between what Grusch claimed and what AARO subsequently reported became a defining tension in the UAP debate.
The “Exposing the Truth” Hearing: November 13, 2024
The November 13, 2024 hearing was a joint session of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation and the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs. Titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth,” according to the House Oversight Committee, the hearing expanded the witness roster beyond the 2023 session.
According to the hearing wrap-up, the witnesses included Luis Elizondo, a former Defense Department official who led the Pentagon’s UAP program within AATIP; Michael Shellenberger, a journalist who presented a 214-page testimony with a UAP timeline from 1947 to 2023; and Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, U.S. Navy (Ret.).
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. Shellenberger described a classified program called “Immaculate Constellation” that he alleged was a UAP-related special access program not reported to Congress.
Gallaudet testified that “there is a national security need for more UAP transparency,” noting that “in 2025, the U.S. will spend over $900 billion on national defense, yet we still do not have a full accounting of what is operating in our airspace.” According to NPR, Shellenberger’s testimony included “a lengthy timeline of UAP reports from 1947 to 2023.”
The hearing took place one day before AARO released its FY2024 annual report, which documented 757 new UAP cases. According to EarthSky, the report identified 21 cases that “merit further analysis” by intelligence community and science and technology partners. AARO Director Jon Kosloski described these cases as “the truly anomalous” during Senate Armed Services Committee testimony, according to DefenseScoop.
The juxtaposition of dramatic whistleblower testimony with the Pentagon’s more measured annual report created a contrast that defined the public debate about UAP transparency. Elizondo and Shellenberger claimed secret programs and reverse-engineering efforts. AARO reported that it found no evidence of extraterrestrial technology. The gap between these positions remained unresolved.
The November 2024 hearing also featured discussion of the Schumer-Rounds amendment and its reduction during the FY2024 NDAA conference negotiations. Representatives pressed witnesses on why the independent review board provisions had been removed, and whether the remaining records collection requirement was sufficient for meaningful disclosure.
The Whistleblower Protection Hearing: September 9, 2025
The September 9, 2025 hearing, titled “Restoring Public Trust Through UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection,” according to the House Oversight Committee, shifted the focus from dramatic revelations to the institutional framework for UAP accountability. The hearing featured testimony from military veterans Jeffrey Nuccetelli and Dylan Borland.
According to DefenseScoop, Nuccetelli, a former military police officer who served 16 years in the Air Force, described multiple possible UAP incursions between 2003 and 2005 near Vandenberg Air Force Base in California during high-stakes launches for the National Reconnaissance Office.
Representative Eric Burlison unveiled video footage during the hearing showing what he described as a U.S. military MQ-9 drone firing a Hellfire missile at a high-speed orb off the coast of Yemen in October 2024. The footage, shown publicly for the first time, demonstrated that UAP encounters extend beyond domestic airspace to active military operations zones.
The hearing also featured discussion of the Safe Airspace for Americans Act and the UAP Whistleblower Protection Act, with witnesses endorsing both pieces of legislation. According to DefenseScoop, Representative Luna announced that additional hearings were being planned for 2025 and 2026.
The September 2025 hearing was significant because it introduced video evidence into the congressional record. Previous hearings relied on testimony and documents. The MQ-9 footage represented a different category of evidence: military sensor data showing an object engaged by a weapons system. Whether the footage will be independently verified remains to be seen, but its introduction into the congressional record created a new standard for evidentiary expectations.
The hearing also reflected the maturation of congressional UAP advocacy. Rather than focusing on dramatic claims about secret programs, the witnesses described specific incidents with dates, locations, and operational details. The specificity of the testimony made it more difficult to dismiss as unsubstantiated and more difficult for the Pentagon to ignore.
How Each Hearing Changed the Conversation
The five hearings represent an escalation in both ambition and impact. The May 2022 hearing established that Congress was interested in UAP and expected the Pentagon to take the issue seriously. The July 2023 hearing introduced whistleblower testimony that contradicted official Pentagon statements. The November 2024 hearing expanded the witness roster and introduced specific allegations about classified programs. The September 2025 hearing brought video evidence and focused on legislative solutions.
Each hearing built on the previous one. The 2023 hearing created public pressure that contributed to the Schumer-Rounds amendment’s inclusion in the FY2024 NDAA negotiations, though the amendment was later reduced during conference negotiations. The 2024 hearing generated attention that supported the reintroduction of the Safe Airspace for Americans Act and the UAP Disclosure Act of 2025. The 2025 hearing contributed to the three UAP provisions in the FY2026 NDAA.
The bipartisan nature of the hearings has been consistent. Republicans and Democrats have co-chaired each session, and witnesses have included individuals with both military and civilian backgrounds. The cross-party support suggests that UAP transparency is one of the few issues that generates genuine bipartisan enthusiasm in the current Congress.
The hearings have also consistently featured tension between the official Pentagon position, as reported by NPR and others, and the testimony of whistleblowers and former officials. AARO has found no evidence of extraterrestrial technology, but witnesses have claimed secret programs exist that have not been disclosed to Congress. This tension has not been resolved through the hearing process, and it remains the central dynamic of congressional UAP oversight.
The Legislative Impact of Each Hearing
The hearings have produced tangible legislative results. The May 2022 hearing contributed to the establishment of AARO through the FY2022 NDAA. The July 2023 hearing strengthened the case for the Schumer-Rounds amendment in the FY2024 NDAA negotiations. According to Inside Government Contracts, the final FY2024 version retained the records collection requirement but removed the independent review board and subpoena power.
The November 2024 hearing supported the reintroduction of UAP-related legislation in the 119th Congress. Representative Luna introduced the UAP Transparency Act, and Representative Burlison submitted the UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 as an FY2026 NDAA amendment. According to Burlison’s office, the amendment would require public disclosure of UAP records within 25 years unless the President certifies a clear national security reason for delay.
The September 2025 hearing contributed to the three UAP provisions in the FY2026 NDAA. According to MeriTalk, the legislation requires AARO to account for all security classification guides governing UAP-related reporting. According to DefenseScoop, the NDAA also directs Congress to learn more about military UAP intercepts around North America.
Representative Anna Paulina Luna announced in May 2025 that additional UAP hearings were being planned, according to DefenseScoop. The announcements suggested that congressional interest in UAP would continue through the 119th Congress and potentially into future sessions.
The Witness Credibility Question
One of the defining characteristics of the congressional UAP hearings is the credibility of the witnesses. Each hearing featured individuals with verified military or intelligence credentials. Grusch served at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office. Fravor was a Navy commander who led the 2004 Nimitz encounter. Elizondo led AATIP within the Pentagon. Gallaudet is a retired rear admiral. Nuccetelli served 16 years in the Air Force.
The credibility of the witnesses creates a dilemma for the Pentagon. If the witnesses are telling the truth, then AARO’s public position that no evidence of extraterrestrial technology has been found is incomplete at best. If the witnesses are mistaken or misrepresenting their knowledge, then the Pentagon must explain how senior military and intelligence officials could hold such fundamental misunderstandings about UAP programs.
The Pentagon has largely avoided engaging with specific witness claims in public settings. AARO’s historical record report addressed some of the claims made by Grusch and others, concluding that no evidence supports the existence of reverse-engineering programs. But the report did not name witnesses or address specific allegations in detail.
The credibility question also extends to the witnesses’ motivations. Grusch stated under oath that he faced retaliation for his disclosures. Elizondo has described leaving the Pentagon due to concerns about how UAP were being handled. The personal risks that witnesses have described add weight to their testimony, even if the specific claims cannot be independently verified.
According to NewsNation, the hearings have consistently featured witnesses who describe experiences that contradict the Pentagon’s official position. The pattern of credible individuals testifying about programs that the Pentagon denies exists is the central unresolved question in congressional UAP oversight.
The credibility dynamic has also affected the way media covers UAP hearings. Major outlets including NPR, NBC News, and DefenseScoop now cover UAP hearings as routine national security news rather than fringe topics. The shift in media treatment reflects the credibility of the witnesses and the seriousness of the congressional questions.
The Classified Briefing Dynamic
Each public hearing on UAP has been accompanied or preceded by classified briefings available only to members of the intelligence committees. These classified sessions provide information that cannot be shared publicly, creating a two-track system of accountability: what Congress knows and what the public sees.
The classified dynamic is significant because it shapes the behavior of representatives at public hearings. Members who have attended classified briefings often ask questions that suggest they know more than they can say publicly. Representative Burchett, for example, has described seeing classified footage that exceeds what has been shown in public hearings. Representative Luna has made similar statements about classified information she has reviewed.
The classified briefings also explain the persistence of congressional UAP advocacy. If representatives were satisfied that the Pentagon’s public position was accurate, the pressure for additional hearings and legislation would likely diminish. The continued push for transparency suggests that classified information has not resolved the questions that drive congressional interest.
AARO’s semiannual classified briefings to Congress are mandated by law. According to the FY2022 NDAA, AARO must provide classified briefings on UAP activity to the armed services and intelligence committees of both chambers. The classified briefings supplement the annual unclassified reports and provide detail that cannot be shared publicly.
The classified dynamic also creates accountability challenges. Members of Congress who attend classified briefings cannot discuss what they learn in public settings. This creates frustration among representatives who want to share information with their constituents but are constrained by classification rules. The tension between classified knowledge and public accountability is a recurring theme in congressional UAP discourse.
Pre-2022 Congressional Interest
Congressional interest in UAP predates the modern hearing series by decades. The Government Accountability Office investigated the Air Force’s handling of UFO reports in the 1990s, finding that the Air Force had not always followed its own procedures. Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, secured $22 million in funding for AATIP through the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2007.
The modern era of congressional UAP interest began with the 2017 New York Times reporting on AATIP and the release of Navy UAP videos. Senator Marco Rubio, as acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, included language in the FY2021 intelligence authorization bill requiring the Director of National Intelligence to produce a preliminary assessment on UAP. This requirement led to the June 2021 ODNI report that documented 144 UAP cases.
The 2021 ODNI report created the political conditions for the 2022 hearing. The report acknowledged that UAP represented a safety of flight concern and potentially a national security challenge. The report’s inability to attribute the majority of cases to conventional explanations created congressional pressure for more investigation and more transparency.
Representative Andre Carson, who chaired the Intelligence Subcommittee hearing in May 2022, described the hearing as the beginning of a process rather than an end. The subsequent hearings proved him right. Each session built on the previous one, expanding the scope of questions and the expectations for government accountability.
The trajectory from the 2021 ODNI report to the five hearings demonstrates how a single government assessment can reshape the political landscape. The report did not conclude that UAP were extraterrestrial or even particularly dangerous. It simply acknowledged that some objects in U.S. airspace could not be explained with available data. That acknowledgment was sufficient to generate five years of congressional hearings, multiple pieces of legislation, and a permanent investigative office within the Pentagon.
The hearings also reflect a broader shift in how the government communicates about national security threats. The traditional model classified threats and briefed Congress in closed settings. The UAP hearing model has pushed for public accountability, with witnesses testifying under oath about programs and encounters that might otherwise remain classified. Whether this model extends to other national security issues will depend on the perceived success of the UAP transparency effort.
Where to Watch
Congressional UAP hearings are typically streamed live on the House Oversight Committee’s website and on major news networks. C-SPAN archives are available for past hearings. DefenseScoop and NewsNation provide live coverage and analysis during hearings.
The House Oversight Committee publishes hearing announcements, witness lists, and wrap-up documents. Congress.gov provides official transcripts and submitted documents for each hearing.
The Road Ahead
The congressional UAP hearing schedule shows no signs of slowing. Representative Luna announced in May 2025 that additional hearings were being planned, and the bipartisan coalition supporting UAP transparency remains active in both chambers. The 119th Congress has already introduced multiple UAP-related bills, including the UAP Whistleblower Protection Act, the UAP Disclosure Act of 2025, and the Safe Airspace for Americans Act.
The legislative pipeline for UAP accountability is also expanding. Each NDAA since 2022 has included UAP provisions, and the trend toward greater specificity continues. The FY2023 NDAA established basic protections. The FY2024 NDAA mandated records collection. The FY2026 NDAA required classification guide accounting. The incremental approach builds institutional infrastructure that could support more aggressive disclosure in future sessions.
The political environment for UAP hearings is also evolving. The bipartisan support for UAP transparency has survived changes in administration and congressional leadership. Representative Burchett, Representative Luna, Representative Burlison, and Representative Garcia have formed a cross-party coalition that has sustained momentum despite the crowded legislative calendar.
The international dimension of UAP transparency is also relevant to future hearings. As the UK, France, Brazil, and Canada develop their own UAP accountability frameworks, the United States faces pressure to maintain its position as a leader in disclosure. If allied nations release more information than the United States, the credibility gap between U.S. public promises and actual disclosure may widen.
The question that future hearings will need to address is whether the legislative framework produced by five years of hearings has actually improved government accountability. The reporting channels, whistleblower protections, and records collection mandates create the infrastructure for disclosure. Whether that infrastructure produces meaningful transparency depends on enforcement, political will, and the willingness of the Pentagon and intelligence community to cooperate with congressional oversight.
The precedent set by the five hearings is difficult to reverse. Congressional interest in UAP has become institutionalized through the committee process, bipartisan coalitions, and legislative mandates. Even if individual representatives retire or change committees, the oversight infrastructure they built will continue to generate questions and demand answers.
The ultimate measure of the hearing series will be whether it produces the level of transparency that the witnesses and legislators have described as necessary. As of early 2026, the gap between public claims and official positions remains. The hearings have established the political will for disclosure. Whether that will translates into substantive change is the question that the next hearing, and the one after that, will continue to ask. The bipartisan coalition shows no signs of fracturing, and the institutional momentum suggests that UAP hearings will remain a fixture of congressional oversight for years to come. Each new hearing builds on the last, expanding the documented record and the political pressure for transparency.
Opposing Perspective:
Critics argue that congressional UAP hearings have become performative rather than substantive. The dramatic testimony from whistleblowers generates headlines but has not been independently verified. AARO’s official reports consistently find no evidence of extraterrestrial technology, yet the hearings focus on claims that contradict AARO’s conclusions.
The Congressional Research Service has noted that the hearing process may create false impressions about the significance of UAP cases. With over 97 percent of cases resolvable to conventional explanations, the focus on the small number of unresolved cases may distort public understanding of the issue.
The political motivations of individual legislators also deserve scrutiny. UAP hearings generate significant media attention, and some critics argue that individual representatives use the hearings to build their public profiles rather than to advance genuine oversight. The distinction between genuine accountability advocacy and political positioning is difficult to draw from the outside.
House committee hearing on UAP transparency featuring testimony from former Pentagon officials and military witnesses.
Sources
Hearing Transcripts and Official Documents:
Source Links:
Related Reading: