Congressional UAP Hearing 2024: What Witnesses Told Congress

By /

Four witnesses testified at the November 2024 congressional UAP hearing. Here is what they said, who testified, and what the Pentagon’s response was.

On November 13, 2024, four witnesses testified before the House Oversight Committee in the most closely watched congressional UAP hearing since the July 2023 session. The hearing covered alleged secret government programs involving unidentified aerial phenomena, which the government calls UAP, short for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, a term that replaced UFO in official use. A retired Navy admiral, a former Pentagon intelligence officer, a former NASA administrator, and an investigative journalist each told the committee what they said they knew about UAP secrecy. One witness, speaking under oath, confirmed that the government has conducted crash retrieval programs, meaning it has recovered unidentified craft from crash sites and studied them. The Pentagon has denied all such claims. The committee recommended forming a new subcommittee with subpoena power to investigate further.

TL;DR: On November 13, 2024, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth.” Four witnesses testified. Former Pentagon official Luis Elizondo said under oath that the government has conducted secret crash retrieval and reverse engineering programs. Journalist Michael Shellenberger reported on a claimed DoD program called “Immaculate Constellation.” Retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet called for greater UAP transparency. Former NASA official Michael Gold urged scientific rigor. The Pentagon and AARO have denied the existence of extraterrestrial technology or secret retrieval programs. No physical evidence was presented at the hearing. The committee recommended a bipartisan select subcommittee with subpoena power. Sources linked below.

Timeline

  • December 16, 2017: The New York Times published a story revealing the Pentagon had been studying UFOs through a program called AATIP, funded at $22 million and led by Luis Elizondo.
  • August 4, 2020: The Department of Defense established the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) under the Department of the Navy to detect and analyze UAP that could pose a threat to national security.
  • December 27, 2020: The Consolidated Appropriations Act required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report on UAP to Congress within 180 days, setting the stage for the first official UAP assessment.
  • June 25, 2021: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released the first UAP preliminary report covering 144 military pilot incidents from 2004 to 2021. Only one was identified.
  • July 26, 2023: Former intelligence officer David Grusch testified before a House Oversight subcommittee in what became known as the first major David Grusch testimony on UAP, telling Congress that the U.S. government had recovered “non-human biologics” from crash sites.
  • March 8, 2024: The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), the Pentagon’s primary office for investigating UAP, released Volume I of its historical review, finding no verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial technology or secret reverse-engineering programs.
  • November 13, 2024: The House Oversight Committee held a joint hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth” with four witnesses testifying about UAP secrecy.

What Happened at the November 2024 Congressional UAP Hearing

On November 13, 2024, the House Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation and the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs held a joint hearing at the Rayburn House Office Building. The session, titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth,” was chaired by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and ran approximately three hours.

The hearing’s focus was on the Department of Defense’s lack of transparency regarding UAPs, including undisclosed spending on UAP-related programs and national security implications of UAP encounters at U.S. military installations, according to the committee’s hearing wrap-up.

The hearing followed more than a year after the July 2023 hearing where David Grusch first made public claims about government UAP retrieval programs.

Who Testified and What They Said

Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet (U.S. Navy, Ret.)

Dr. Tim Gallaudet, a retired Navy rear admiral and former oceanographer of the Navy, testified about the national security implications of UAP. According to the committee’s official summary, Gallaudet stated: “There is a national security need for more UAP transparency. In 2025, the U.S. will spend over $900 billion on national defense, yet we still have an incomplete understanding of what is in our airspace.”

Gallaudet described UAP sightings near Navy operations and commercial shipping routes and argued that the executive branch’s failure to share UAP information with Congress “may be creating a constitutional crisis.” He was referring to whether the executive branch is obligated under the Constitution to share national security information with Congress when Congress exercises its oversight authority. He currently serves as CEO of Ocean STL Consulting, LLC.

Luis Elizondo

Luis Elizondo, a former Department of Defense intelligence official who previously led the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), made several claims under oath during the hearing. According to The Guardian, when Chairwoman Mace asked directly, “Has the government conducted secret UAP crash retrieval programs? Yes or no?” Elizondo answered yes. When asked whether those programs were designed to identify and reverse-engineer alien craft, meaning to take the craft apart and study how they were built, he again said yes.

Elizondo also testified that government employees had been injured by UAPs, placed on leave, and received government compensation for their injuries. He stated during the hearing that “there is a long historical record” of UAP incursions near sensitive U.S. military installations and nuclear sites that has been “obfuscated” from Congress.

Elizondo published a memoir in July 2024 titled “Imminent,” in which he wrote that the U.S. is “in possession of advanced technology made off-world by non-human intelligence,” according to NBC News.

Michael Gold

Michael Gold, former NASA Associate Administrator of Space Policy and Partnerships, urged scientific rigor and transparency in UAP research. According to the hearing record, Gold advocated for NASA to use its Earth observation capabilities in studying UAP and emphasized the need for data sharing between agencies.

Gold had previously served on a NASA study team that released a 2023 report recommending that NASA leverage its existing Earth observation assets to study UAP using scientific methodology.

Michael Shellenberger

Michael Shellenberger, an investigative journalist and founder of the news site Public, testified about a program he called “Immaculate Constellation.” According to The Guardian, Shellenberger told the committee that “current or former government officials” had informed him about a Department of Defense program that had “maybe thousands” of pieces of UAP evidence, including classified photos and videos.

Shellenberger stated that the evidence went beyond the blurry footage made public. “What the American people need to know is that the U.S. military and intelligence community are sitting on a huge amount of visual and other information: still photos, video, other sensor information, and they have for a very long time,” he said. “And it’s not those fuzzy photos and videos that we’ve been given. There’s very clear, high resolution files.” The intelligence community refers to the 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, and DIA.

Shellenberger declined under questioning to name his sources but provided the committee with a formal written testimony and a 12-page report on Immaculate Constellation that he said was written by a whistleblower, a current or former government insider reporting what they said was illegal activity. According to the Medill on the Hill coverage, the program allegedly began around 2017 under the Office of the Secretary of Defense and included classified photos and videos of UAP. The Pentagon has specifically denied the existence of Immaculate Constellation.

What Committee Members Said

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who chaired the hearing, questioned the financial accountability of UAP programs. According to the committee summary, Mace stated: “If we are spending money on something that doesn’t exist, why are we spending the money? And if it does exist, why is it hiding from the public?”

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, asked about the pattern of UAP sightings near military installations. Elizondo responded: “There is definitely enough data to suggest that there is some sort of relationship between sensitive U.S. military installations, also some of our nuclear equities. This is not a new trend, this has been going on for decades.”

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) pushed for a bipartisan select subcommittee on UAP with subpoena power, citing what she described as a pattern of UAP sightings near nuclear weapons facilities that constituted a national security concern.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), a long-standing advocate for UAP transparency, submitted documents related to UAPs and stated that the government had been lying to the American people about the issue for too long.

Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) stated that UAP is a bipartisan concern and that Congress has a responsibility to investigate it.

Ranking Democrat Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) opened his statement by calling for “a bipartisan, serious conversation about our national security” grounded in “facts, the evidence, and the data.” He acknowledged that “there are objects, or phenomena observed in our airspace” that “we do not know what they are” and quoted AARO’s reporting of hundreds of UAPs that “appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities and require further analysis.” Garcia also noted “legitimate reasons for the Department of Defense to be careful about divulging information to the public” and introduced the bipartisan Safe Airspace for Americans Act, which would create a safe reporting system for civilian pilots to report UAPs.

What Happened After

The hearing concluded on November 13, 2024, with the committee recommending the formation of a bipartisan select subcommittee on UAP with subpoena power, the legal authority to compel testimony and force the production of documents, including from government officials who might otherwise decline to appear. According to the hearing wrap-up, this followed a similar recommendation made after the July 2023 hearing. No such subcommittee was formed after the 2023 hearing.

The day after the hearing, the Pentagon issued a statement denying the claims made by witnesses. According to The Guardian, a Pentagon spokesperson stated the department “has not found any verifiable evidence that any UAP observation represented extraterrestrial activity nor has the department discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently.”

AARO’s 2024 annual report was released around the same time as the hearing. According to The Debrief, the report documented hundreds of new UAP cases while maintaining there was no evidence of extraterrestrial origins.

The Evidence Question

The November 2024 hearing highlighted a central tension in the UAP discussion. Witnesses made specific claims under oath. Elizondo said crash retrieval programs exist. Shellenberger reported on Immaculate Constellation. Both spoke with the confidence of people who said they had direct knowledge. But neither presented photographs, documents, or physical materials to the committee. The Pentagon and AARO denied their claims. No physical evidence was presented.

The Pentagon and AARO have consistently denied the existence of extraterrestrial technology or secret retrieval programs. AARO’s Volume I historical review, released in March 2024, concluded it found no verifiable evidence that any UAP sighting represented extraterrestrial activity. The review also stated it found no evidence of reverse-engineering programs or that the government possessed any extraterrestrial materials.

Some observers argue that AARO’s findings should be considered definitive. Others, including some members of Congress, have questioned whether AARO had access to the most classified programs, arguing that the very secrecy the witnesses described would prevent AARO from finding evidence of it.

Nick Pope, who investigated UFOs for the British Ministry of Defence in the early 1990s, told The Guardian that the hearing “moved things forward” by building public interest and demand for transparency, even without physical evidence. “It’s building up that critical mass,” Pope said.

Opposing Perspectives

AARO’s March 2024 historical review examined decades of U.S. government UAP-related activities and found no verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial technology or secret retrieval programs.

Skeptics have noted that several of the hearing’s witnesses have financial or reputational interests in the UAP topic. Elizondo published a book about his experiences. Shellenberger runs a news site that has covered UAP extensively. Gallaudet runs a consulting firm. These interests do not disprove their claims, but they are relevant context for evaluating testimony.

The Guardian’s coverage of the hearing noted that “the lack of concrete proof has been a consistent thorn in the side of those who believe the government is harboring UAPs, with Wednesday’s hearing again focusing on testimony from people who said they were aware of secret government programs, rather than witnesses presenting actual hard evidence.” The three UAP videos the Pentagon has officially confirmed are the closest thing to official footage released to date.

Reddit’s r/skeptic community has questioned the credentials and motivations of the witnesses, with some pointing to prior interviews where Gallaudet discussed topics such as underwater alien bases and weather manipulation weapons.

The hearing also revealed bipartisan interest in the topic. Both Republican and Democratic members of the committee expressed support for greater transparency, framing the issue as one of government accountability and taxpayer spending rather than a debate about whether UAP are extraterrestrial.

Additional Video

Rep. Nancy Mace’s opening questioning of the witnesses, including the direct exchange with Elizondo about crash retrieval programs. This clip captures the moment Elizondo said “yes” under oath when asked whether the government has conducted secret UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering programs.

A review and highlights of the November 2024 hearing, covering the key testimony and exchanges between committee members and witnesses.

Sources

Official Documents and Government Sources:

News Coverage:

Related Reading:

FAQ

What is Immaculate Constellation?

Immaculate Constellation is the name given to a claimed Department of Defense program that, according to journalist Michael Shellenberger, has collected thousands of pieces of UAP evidence including classified photos and videos. Shellenberger testified about the program at the November 2024 hearing, citing unnamed government sources. He provided the committee with a 12-page report on the program. The Pentagon has specifically denied that Immaculate Constellation exists. As of March 2026, no physical evidence or declassified documents have confirmed the program’s existence.

Did the committee actually prove anything at the hearing?

The hearing produced testimony under oath from four witnesses, but no physical evidence was presented. Elizondo said yes when asked whether the government has conducted crash retrieval programs. Shellenberger described Immaculate Constellation. Gallaudet called for transparency. But the committee did not see photographs, documents, or recovered materials. A hearing establishes what people are willing to say under penalty of perjury, which is different from establishing whether what they said is true. The committee recommended forming a new subcommittee with subpoena power to investigate further, which would have the legal authority to compel production of classified documents.

What did AARO say about these claims?

AARO’s Volume I historical review, released in March 2024, found no verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial technology, no evidence of secret reverse-engineering programs, and no evidence that the government possesses any extraterrestrial materials. AARO’s 2024 annual report, released around the same time as the November hearing, documented hundreds of new UAP cases but found no evidence of extraterrestrial origins. Some members of Congress have argued that AARO may not have had access to the most classified programs, meaning the secrecy witnesses described could prevent AARO from finding evidence of it.

What happened after the hearing?

The committee recommended forming a bipartisan select subcommittee on UAP with subpoena power. The Pentagon denied the witnesses’ claims the next day. AARO released its 2024 annual report around the same time, documenting hundreds of new UAP cases with no evidence of extraterrestrial activity. As of March 2026, no select subcommittee with subpoena power has been formed, though Congress has continued to push for greater UAP transparency through legislation including the UAP Disclosure Act.

Were any of these secret UAP programs ever confirmed to exist?

No program involving the recovery or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial technology has been confirmed. The Pentagon has consistently denied such programs exist. However, the U.S. government has acknowledged that it investigates UAP through AARO, and that some UAP cases remain unexplained. The gap between what witnesses claim under oath and what the government officially acknowledges is the central unresolved tension in the UAP discussion. Elizondo’s claims about crash retrieval programs and Shellenberger’s description of Immaculate Constellation remain unverified by official sources.

Keep Reading:

Scroll to Top