The UAP Disclosure Act: What It Is, What Survived, and What Didn’t

By /

In the summer of 2023, two senators from opposite parties wrote what may be the most ambitious transparency legislation in decades. Modeled on the law that forced the release of JFK assassination records, the legislation proposed something no U.S. law had attempted before: a mechanism to force the declassification of government records about unidentified anomalous phenomena, even over the objections of the intelligence community. It passed the Senate. Then the House killed its most important provisions. Twice.

TL;DR: In July 2023, Senators Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds introduced the UAP Disclosure Act, modeled on the JFK Records Act. The bill proposed an independent review board, eminent domain over UAP materials, and a 25-year automatic disclosure timeline. It passed the Senate as part of the FY2024 NDAA, but House negotiators stripped the key provisions. A second attempt in the FY2025 NDAA was also gutted. What survived: annual reporting requirements and a funding ban on unreported special access programs. What didn’t: the review board, eminent domain, and automatic declassification. Senators Schumer and Rounds have pledged to reintroduce the stripped provisions. As of March 2026, the full legislation has not been enacted. Sources linked below.

Timeline

July 14, 2023 Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Mike Rounds (R-SD), joined by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), introduce the legislation as an amendment to the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act. The legislation is modeled explicitly on the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.

September 2023 The act is included in the Senate version of the FY2024 NDAA. The bill establishes a UAP Records Collection, a presidentially appointed UAP Records Review Board, eminent domain authority over materials of unknown origin, and a 25-year automatic disclosure timeline.

December 2023 During NDAA conference negotiations, House Republican leaders strip the three most significant provisions: the UAP Records Review Board, eminent domain authority, and the automatic disclosure timeline. The weakened version retains annual UAP reporting requirements and a new provision prohibiting funding of special access programs not reported to Congress.

July 2024 Senators Schumer and Rounds submit the legislation again as an amendment to the FY2025 NDAA, retaining the review board and eminent domain provisions. The amendment is again stripped during conference negotiations.

July 2025 Senator Rounds announces he will continue pushing for UAP disclosure legislation, signaling a third attempt at passing the full act.

The UAP Disclosure Act: What It Proposed

The UAP Disclosure Act contained four major provisions that, if enacted in full, would have fundamentally changed how the U.S. government handles records related to unidentified anomalous phenomena.

UAP Records Collection. The act directed federal agencies to identify all records related to UAP and transmit them to a central collection, similar to the JFK Assassination Records Collection at the National Archives. Each record would be reviewed for disclosure eligibility.

UAP Records Review Board. An independent federal agency composed of presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed members. The board would have the authority to review agency claims of postponement and overrule them. This was the act’s most powerful provision: it created an independent body that could force disclosure even when the originating agency objected. The board was modeled on the Assassination Records Review Board established by the JFK Records Act.

Eminent domain. The act granted the federal government eminent domain authority over any technology of unknown origin or biological remains of non-human intelligence held by private persons or entities. This provision was aimed at defense contractors and other private organizations alleged to possess UAP materials. It would have allowed the government to seize these materials, with compensation, and transfer them to the UAP Records Collection.

25-year automatic disclosure. All UAP records would be automatically disclosed after 25 years unless the President personally certified that continued postponement was necessary because disclosure would cause identifiable harm to military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or foreign relations. This provision shifted the burden of proof from those seeking disclosure to those seeking to maintain secrecy.

Why the House Stripped It

The provisions that survived conference negotiations were the least controversial elements of the act: annual reporting requirements and a funding prohibition on unreported special access programs. The three provisions that were removed, the review board, eminent domain, and automatic disclosure, were stripped for specific political reasons.

The review board. House Republican leaders, particularly members of the Armed Services Committee, objected to creating an independent body with authority to overrule the intelligence community. The concern was precedent: if a review board could force disclosure of UAP records, similar mechanisms could be applied to other classified programs. Intelligence agencies lobbied against this provision.

Eminent domain. Defense contractors and their Congressional allies objected to the government seizing private property, even with compensation. The provision was seen as an attack on the private sector’s role in national security research. Companies with classified contracts argued that eminent domain would set a dangerous precedent for technology seizure.

Automatic disclosure. The 25-year timeline was seen as too aggressive by intelligence agencies, which argued that some programs require classification beyond 25 years for legitimate national security reasons. The JFK Records Act uses a 50-year timeline for automatic disclosure.

The final version of the FY2024 NDAA included Section 1687, which prohibits the use of NDAA funds for any special access or restricted access activities related to UAP that have not been reported to Congress by the Director of National Intelligence. This was a significant but limited provision: it didn’t force disclosure, but it created a financial penalty for non-reporting.

What Survived

The weakened legislation that became law in the FY2024 NDAA included two meaningful provisions:

Annual reporting. The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense are required to submit annual reports on UAP activity to Congress. This builds on earlier reporting mandates and ensures continued Congressional oversight.

Funding prohibition. Section 1687 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for UAP-related special access programs or restricted access programs that have not been reported to Congress. This creates a financial mechanism to enforce reporting, though enforcement depends on Congressional willingness to investigate potential violations.

While these provisions represent progress, they lack the enforcement mechanisms that made the original act powerful. Without a review board, there is no independent body to compel disclosure. Without eminent domain, there is no mechanism to recover materials held by private contractors. Without automatic disclosure, there is no timeline forcing eventual declassification.

Connections to Other Cases

The disclosure legislation did not emerge in isolation. It was directly driven by the testimony of David Grusch, who alleged in the July 2023 congressional hearing that the U.S. government has recovered craft of non-human origin and has been operating crash retrieval programs outside Congressional oversight.

The eminent domain provision specifically targeted the scenario Grusch described: private defense contractors allegedly possessing UAP materials. The review board was designed to address Grusch’s claim that he was denied access to programs he was supposed to oversee as the NRO’s UAP Task Force representative.

The act also connects to broader UAP history. The pattern of UFO interest in nuclear weapons, the Pentagon’s UAP investigation office, and incidents like the Nimitz encounter all contributed to the political pressure that made the act possible.

The Ongoing Push

As of March 2026, the full disclosure legislation has not been enacted. Senator Rounds announced in July 2025 that he would continue pushing for the legislation. The bipartisan support that originally backed the act remains largely intact, with both Democratic and Republican senators expressing support for UAP transparency.

The political dynamics have shifted somewhat. The November 2024 follow-up hearing with new witnesses kept UAP transparency in the public eye. Representative Luna’s introduction of the Immaculate Constellation report during the 2024 hearing added new classified program allegations that strengthened the case for a disclosure mechanism.

Whether the full act, including the review board and eminent domain provisions, will pass in a future NDAA depends on continued bipartisan support and the outcome of future conference negotiations. The stripped provisions remain the core of what disclosure advocates want, and their absence from current law means the most significant UAP transparency mechanisms are still not in place.

Opposing Perspectives

The case for the full act: Supporters argue that the JFK Records Act model proved that independent review boards can force disclosure of classified records that agencies prefer to keep secret. The JFK board successfully released thousands of records that agencies fought to keep classified. A UAP review board could do the same. The eminent domain provision addresses a specific allegation: that defense contractors hold UAP materials that the government cannot access through normal channels. Without eminent domain, these materials may never be disclosed.

The case against: Critics argue that creating an independent board to overrule intelligence agencies sets a dangerous precedent. If a review board can force UAP disclosure, future legislation could apply the same mechanism to other classified programs. The eminent domain provision raises Fifth Amendment concerns about government seizure of private property. Intelligence agencies argue that some programs require indefinite classification and that a 25-year automatic disclosure timeline is too aggressive.

The middle ground: Some legislators support the reporting requirements and funding prohibitions that survived conference but oppose the review board and eminent domain provisions. This position accepts Congressional oversight of UAP programs but rejects independent enforcement mechanisms. Whether this middle ground produces meaningful transparency or merely continued agency self-reporting remains to be seen.

Sources

Documents

Reporting

Related

Scroll to Top