2027 will mark 10 years since Navy fighter jet footage revitalized public interest in UFOs (now more commonly known as UAPs), and while this moment did indeed prove to be a breakthrough for the issue, a key question, no doubt shared by enthusiasts and skeptics alike, remains:
Where are the aliens?
After years of government hearings, not to mention some recent choice remarks from former POTUS Barack Obama and this week’s release of what Trump’s Department of Defense claims are “never-before-seen files,” the admittedly nuanceless question is likely one you’ve at least posed to yourself, if not to anyone willing to listen.
In an effort to gain some insight on the issue, we’re taking a closer look at Obama’s remarks, plus the latest advocacy efforts aimed at getting the public the answers they deserve.
What did Obama say about aliens?
“They’re real,” Obama offered when asked about extraterrestrial life during a podcast interview with Brian Tyler Cohen in February. “But I haven’t seen them. And, they’re not being kept in Area 51.”
As should have been expected, these comments inspired a slew of headlines and generated a boost of excitement among those keen on closely following the UAP issue. In a somewhat disappointing development, Obama later turned down the hype brought on by his remarks, noting in a statement shared to social media that he “saw no evidence” during his presidency of extraterrestrials having successfully “made contact” with Earth.
More recently, Obama broached the topic once more, this time during a Late Show conversation with Stephen Colbert.
“I thought it was so obvious what I meant,” Obama said when asked about his initial remarks and subsequent effort to walk them back. “Here’s the thing. For those of you who still think that we’ve got little green men underground somewhere, one of the things you learn as president is government is terrible at keeping secrets.”
Obama went on to address what he described as “conspiracy theories,” arguing that if proof of extraterrestrial life was indeed in the possession of the United State government, “some guy guarding the installation would have taken a selfie with one of the aliens and sent it to his girlfriend” by now.
Still, the ex-POTUS is open to being involved should such lifeforms make themselves known in the future.
“I’m putting in a plug now,” he told Colbert. “First contact, I think I would be a good emissary for the planet.”
Clearly, interest remains high, both in the governmental context and in American pop culture (Kacey Musgraves went public with an alleged UFO sighting in April, while Steven Spielberg is back in his extraterrestrial bag with Disclosure Day in June).
Pentagon announces release of what are claimed to be “never-before-seen files”
On Friday (May 8), the Department of Defense, sometimes referred to as the Department of War under Trump, directed the public to a government site where what’s described as “new, never-before-seen files” will be shared on a rolling basis. To be clear, the effort, which also involves NASA and other agencies, was not paired with any assessment on the nature of the files. Instead, the public “can ultimately make up their own minds,” per a press release.
“We will remain candid about what we know to be true, what we have yet to understand, and all that remains to be discovered,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said Friday. “Exploration and the pursuit of knowledge are core to NASA's mission as we endeavor to unlock the secrets of the universe.”
But, seriously, where are the aliens?
The emphasis among the general public, understandably, largely falls on the possibility of an extraterrestrial explanation for UAP incidents; however, others have pushed in an entirely different (and arguably more alarming) direction by positing that the most widely acknowledged UAP examples could instead originate from advanced technology developed by mere humans.
Complex recently reached out to the Disclosure Foundation—an organization “dedicated to advancing the understanding of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP)” through policy research, legal support, and public education—and posed this question, among others.
Below, see our full conversation with Hunt Willis, the Foundation’s chief legal officer.
This conversation was conducted prior to this week’s Pentagon announcement.
COMPLEX: The Disclosure Foundation’s mission, from my understanding, is to promote transparency on UAP (f.k.a. UFO) issues while also protecting those who may come forward, i.e. potential whistleblowers. What else can you tell us about the foundation’s larger goals and history?
Hunt Willis: The Foundation in its present form resulted from the merger of three great organizations under a single umbrella. At the time of its founding last year, the predecessor non-profit known as ‘UAP Disclosure Fund’ was actively working on UAP transparency issues on Capitol Hill, and found itself working alongside two other organizations on various projects. Namely, a legal non-profit formerly known as ‘Disclosure Advocacy Group’ and a data-driven UAP analytical project known as ‘UAP Caucus.’
After working on several major projects together, it became clear that aligning and consolidating these 3 groups was the obvious next step. As a result, the Foundation now has considerable cross-disciplinary talent to bring to bear, including all the volunteers and professionals who have since joined the effort in recent months. The Foundation's core mission under its new banner is policy research, legal support, and public education, each strengthening the foundation for transparency and responsible public disclosure.
Over the past nine years or so, namely in the wake of a New York Times piece featuring UAP footage that was widely reported on (plus the work of what was then known as To the Stars Academy), it would appear that the issue has achieved a new level of sustained mainstream attention. With hindsight, did this arguable breakthrough moment lead to what you had hoped for? Also, were there shortcomings? What work still needs to be done?
There is little doubt that the New York Times piece was a watershed moment in the public awareness of this topic. You may be aware that the Chairman of our Foundation, Christopher Mellon, was one of the instrumental forces behind that event. The mainstream attention to this topic since those articles cannot be overstated. Coverage of this topic, from traditional print media to 24-hour cable news, has been and still is accelerating.
To your point about hindsight, it's clear now that the public at large needed more than stories and accounts of anomalous events. They wanted imagery provided by trusted sources, sworn testimony before the appropriate congressional committees, and statements from the highest levels of government to start taking this seriously. So yes, those articles seem to have provided the breakthrough moment that led to where we are today.
Shortcomings absolutely remain, and considerable work is left to be done. For example, despite the unprecedented level of interest in Congress on this topic, the legislature has yet to pass serious reforms related to whistleblower protections, or mandatory disclosure statutes with real consequences for noncompliance. One of those proposals, referred to in past years as the ‘UAP Disclosure Act,’ was supported by some of the most powerful members of Congress, and yet passage still remained out of reach. Considerable policy work remains in Congress and our Foundation is actively educating lawmakers on the profound importance of UAP oversight, and the considerable need for additional reforms.
Amid the initial period cited above, blink-182 and Angels & Airwaves (and To the Stars) co-founder Tom DeLonge was often cited in coverage, lending a headlines-ready flair to UAP developments. Again, with hindsight, do you feel that having the ear and endorsement of a prominent public figure—be it a musician or even someone like Steven Spielberg, who has also spoken publicly about UAPs—helps bring public attention, and by extension, governmental action to this issue?
Absolutely. Participation by public figures—whether famous musicians, filmmakers, or even professional athletes—is critical for amplifying this discussion and reaching new audiences. A major difficulty in the current information landscape is delivering consistent and reliable information across the widely diversified platforms the public uses to access news.
We know for a fact that the government pays attention to public discussions in the media and heightens its awareness when a given topic dominates public discourse, or when a major motion picture captures public discussion on a topic. Steven Spielberg's upcoming film Disclosure Day is poised to do exactly that, and we expect a surge of public and Congressional interest in the topic following its release.
Of course, deeming something an example of UAP does not inherently mean that it’s extraterrestrial in origin. Still, this possibility has sustained as a source of great debate and excitement among the general public, be it through pop culture or beyond. Among the speculation that still surrounds the UAP topic for a large swath of the general public, particularly given discussions of seemingly physics-defying behavior of noteworthy UAP examples, is an emphasis on the possibility that such craft are extraterrestrial in origin. Do you consider this a very real possibility? If so, what might you say to someone whose lone question about the topic could perhaps be summed up as, simply, “Where are the aliens?”
Perhaps a good way to begin answering this question is to discuss the importance of definitions and terminology. For example, we referenced earlier the sweeping proposed legislation known as the ‘UAP Disclosure Act.’ This bill included a robust section dedicated to the consistent use of terminology and the definitions of those words and phrases, ensuring clarity about what the law seeks to address. One example is the law's definition of ‘Prosaic Attribution’ and the unambiguous intent that the law's provisions do not address matters related to the operation of proven, generally understood scientific and engineering principles or established laws of nature.
Another section defines ‘Non-Human Intelligence’ and ‘Technologies of Unknown Origin’ to show that these terms require a single, consistent meaning used across all US government agencies and Congress, ensuring no confusion about what is being addressed. That is to say, yes, the goal of this effort is not to address the latest defense aerospace platform that could be mistaken for something fantastic; rather it is to directly inform and educate the public on the truly anomalous.
Regarding your question about the frustration concerning the precise origin of the phenomenon, that is exactly the answer our Foundation believes the public deserves. Every day we work to eliminate the sense of uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding that question, which is at the core of the Foundation's work.
Those who’ve followed the issue closely are likely aware that more militaristically concerned explanations have also been floated. Which option, in your view, is more likely when looking at some of the more high-profile examples of UAP footage: extraterrestrial in nature, or heretofore unseen tech from human beings?
When discussing this topic, you cannot avoid considering the intersection between cutting-edge aerospace technology and UAP. Our Foundation generally avoids commenting on the explanations or origins of specific UAP events or imagery because this usually requires a highly sophisticated analysis and depends on many factors including authenticating the imagery and matters of custody related to the imagery. That being said, we strongly advocate that any government agency possessing anomalous imagery fully brief the appropriate congressional committees so the sophisticated analysis just referenced can be undertaken. When Congress is briefed on these anomalous events, it is better positioned to fund the agencies with the tools necessary for that analysis, which in turn informs the public.
Finally, some have posited that the bulk of these examples could indeed be human in nature, and thus, a more earthbound national security issue. To that end, what would you say to someone who might raise concerns that this angle could lead to a more nefarious co-opting of the issue in pursuit of, say, reckless warmongering?
Our Foundation is very aware of the risks associated with this topic being mistaken for prosaic attributions (hence our previous definitions discussion), including false or outright misleading events. It is precisely this concern that warrants considerably more transparency on this topic. The public generally agrees on the need for a strong and reliable national security apparatus accountable to the people and their representatives. UAP transparency does not come at the cost of national security issues. If anything, our national security interests are damaged by not having open and transparent discussions with taxpayers about the priorities of those stewarding our considerable defense budget, which most recently amounted to over $800 billion annually.
Again, to your question about co-opting the phenomenon for nefarious purposes of any kind, the answer is more transparency and less secrecy. Straightforward answers from elected officials and others in positions of trusted authority will reduce the stigma surrounding this topic, quiet some of the noise generated by potential bad-faith use of the phenomenon, and answer profound public questions that the people deserve answers to. To that end, in June our Foundation is hosting its inaugural Forum event on Capitol Hill. This public event will feature influential legislators such as Senator Mike Rounds, Congressman Eric Burlison, and others. We invite you to join us there to continue this discussion.
