Recommendations for Transparency and Oversight

The persistent use of secrecy, disinformation, and suppression to manage UAP, NHI-related research, and advanced scientific inquiry demands reform. We must modernize secrecy laws, launch systematic declassification initiatives, enforce disinformation prohibitions, invigorate congressional oversight of the Executive Branch, and implement statutory protections for whistleblowers.

At the same time, national security remains a vital responsibility of the U.S. government. Disclosure must be conducted deliberately and responsibly, especially concerning NHI, exotic technologies, or suppressed scientific breakthroughs. Safeguarding legitimate defense capabilities and operational integrity is essential. However, national security should not serve as an open-ended justification for extralegal secrecy, circumvention of legislative oversight, or the indefinite suppression of transformative knowledge. Responsible disclosure is entirely compatible with national defense when conducted through lawful, constitutional channels that balance transparency with prudence.

Central to this reform agenda is the immediate passage of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act (UAPDA), initially proposed in Congress in 2023 by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a liberal, and Mike Rounds (R-SD), a conservative. Modeled on the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, the UAPDA would create a legally binding framework for identifying, collecting, and disclosing UAP-related records held by federal agencies and affiliated contractors. The Act would establish an independent UAP Records Review Board composed of presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed experts with the authority to review classified UAP materials and override agency classification claims unless a demonstrable national security risk is shown. It would also mandate a centralized UAP Records Collection, require periodic agency compliance reporting to Congress, and impose deadlines for disclosure.

The scale of the national security classification system has expanded to such a degree that it now undermines its original intent. More than one million individuals in the United States currently hold Top Secret security clearances. This staggering figure reflects how deeply secrecy has become embedded within both the federal bureaucracy and the defense-industrial base.⁷⁷ This vast classification footprint dilutes meaningful oversight, obscures lines of accountability, and enables unregulated programs to persist behind layers of legal and bureaucratic insulation. Reform is urgently needed.

Congress should also pass a Classification Reform Act to overhaul the national security classification system and end its routine abuse as a tool of institutional control. A sweeping declassification initiative must accompany this reform effort, prioritizing releasing records and classified patents related to energy, propulsion, materials science, and UAP-related technologies. Particular attention should be paid to secrecy orders issued under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, two laws that grant sweeping and opaque authority to suppress scientific discoveries, particularly those with military or energy applications. In addition to statutory secrecy, the reform effort must also scrutinize procedural mechanisms that allow entire programs to operate without accountability, especially the use of “waived” SAPs, which allow the very existence of certain programs to be withheld even from the congressional intelligence and defense oversight committees.

The proposed legislation should mandate a formal interagency review of all legacy secrecy orders. Such programs may also constitute violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from spending funds or incurring obligations without explicit congressional authorization.⁷⁸ Programs operated within ‘waived’ or unacknowledged compartments that bypass the appropriations process undermine Congress’s Article I power of the purse. The legislation should prohibit the abuse of waived SAP status, establish statutory limits on classification duration, provide more precise definitions of harm to national security, and establish independent mechanisms for challenging overclassification. If a classification cannot be justified under these new standards, public disclosure should be the default, not the exception.

While legislative reform is critical, it must be accompanied by meaningful access for those tasked with oversight. Too often, even duly empowered congressional committees and independent review bodies are denied access to essential information due to restrictive clearance protocols or compartmentalization schemes, e.g, “need to know.” A balanced oversight framework must ensure that those constitutionally charged with monitoring national security activities, particularly members of intelligence, defense, and appropriations committees, are not sidelined by the very secrecy they are supposed to regulate. Without secure, timely access to classified materials, oversight becomes performative rather than constitutional.

Congress should appropriate substantial funding to support civilian academic institutions and independent scientific organizations already engaged in UAP-related inquiry. Groups such as the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU),⁷⁹ the Galileo Project at Harvard University, and other university-affiliated efforts have demonstrated a credible, data-driven commitment to transparency and open science despite limited resources and no formal government backing. Empowering these institutions through public investment would decentralize control of research, break the monopoly of contractor-managed secrecy, foster interdisciplinary collaboration, and counterbalance the secrecy embedded in contractor-managed and classified military programs. Academic environments are structurally inclined toward disclosure, peer review, and public accountability, making them a vital bulwark against continued suppression of knowledge.

Finally, implementing the Research and Innovation at the Scientific Edge (RISE) initiative would help restore public trust, elevate suppressed research agendas, and ensure the United States remains globally competitive in emerging fields of transformative science and technology. RISE is a proposed federal program to legitimize and advance unconventional scientific fields (“edge science”), including consciousness studies, remote viewing, quantum sensing, and UAP-related phenomena. By establishing RISE within the president’s Executive Office, advocates seek to overcome the stigma, bureaucratic inertia, and overclassification that have historically hindered research in these areas. The initiative would promote collaboration among academia, government, and the private sector while embedding transparency and inclusion as core principles of scientific inquiry.⁸⁰

Even with structural reform, ongoing accountability will be essential. Panels composed of scientists, legal scholars, ethicists, and appropriately cleared investigators must be empowered to audit classified research for compliance with public interest standards, not merely national security criteria. These panels should receive structured, periodic reporting from relevant agencies, with public summaries released where appropriate. External oversight is essential to ensure that secrecy serves its limited protective function rather than shielding misconduct or suppressing disruptive knowledge.

Effective reform also requires robust statutory protection for UAP-related whistleblowers. As outlined in the Enhanced UAP Whistleblower Protection Act of 2025 proposed by the New Paradigm Institute, new legislation must expand beyond the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act to explicitly cover individuals within SAPs, USAPs, and contractor environments. The law should prohibit the misuse of classification to conceal illegal activity, ensure protected disclosure channels to Congress and oversight bodies, and impose legal consequences for retaliation or obstruction. Given past reports of intimidation and reprisals, most notably those alleged by whistleblower David Grusch, these protections are essential to uncovering programs that remain hidden even from elected oversight.

Additional statutory reforms are needed to prohibit disinformation against the domestic public. Congress should amend the Smith-Mundt Act to reinstate the original prohibition on the domestic dissemination of government-produced information intended to shape opinion. Likewise, Executive Order 12333, which prohibits intelligence agencies from engaging in covert domestic disinformation, must be codified in statute with enforcement mechanisms and penalties.

At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge that many individuals involved in disinformation or concealment efforts likely acted in good faith, believing they were protecting national security or fulfilling their patriotic duty. Particularly during the Cold War, when the threat of nuclear conflict and geopolitical instability loomed large, intelligence professionals, military officials, and scientific advisors often operated under immense pressure and with limited information. Within that context, secrecy and narrative control were framed as acts of strategic necessity, not deception. While the consequences of these choices have been far-reaching, acknowledging the sincerity of those who believed they were acting in the nation’s best interest is essential to building a path toward reconciliation, accountability, and reform. The aim is not to assign blame to individuals but to confront the systemic structures that have allowed secrecy to persist beyond their justifications.

However, legislative reform and declassification alone are insufficient without a comprehensive historical accounting of how secrecy and disinformation have been maintained. Any disclosure initiative must also include a record of the institutional mechanisms used to suppress UAP and advanced science information, including documentation of disinformation strategies, narrative management operations, legal obstacles, and interagency coordination to deter oversight and influence public perception. The roles of the DOD, the IC, and private defense contractors must be examined, particularly where activities were conducted under contract or within compartmented programs shielded from congressional view. Without this retrospective transparency, public trust cannot be meaningfully restored.

The restoration of open scientific inquiry is critical. For decades, interdisciplinary research into electromagnetic propulsion, alternative energy systems, and consciousness-related phenomena has been marginalized due to stigma, classification, and reputational risk. Targeted federal funding initiatives must be launched to support the profound exploration of these fields and remove the institutional barriers that have long suppressed legitimate scientific investigation.

Together, these reforms constitute the minimum conditions necessary to end defense and intelligence entities’ long-standing monopolization of transformative knowledge. Legislative passage of the UAPDA, implementation of enhanced whistleblower protections, recalibration of secrecy statutes, statutory prohibition of disinformation, and the reinvigoration of scientific inquiry are not optional; they are essential to ensuring that future discovery serves the common good rather than remaining confined within opaque institutions that answer to no one.

Without these reforms, the trajectory of discovery will remain shaped not by the boundaries of human imagination but by the limits imposed by institutional secrecy.