Since February 2026, the United States Department of War (DOW), under the direction of President Donald Trump, has released an unprecedented number of documents, videos, and firsthand witness accounts detailing the United States’ extensive history of encounters with unidentified anomalous phenomena, or “UAP.”

Despite the questions that remain, this initiative under the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE) has been nothing short of historic. For more than 75 years, Americans pleading for the truth on the issue have been routinely ridiculed and even misled by their own government. It’s difficult to imagine the nation’s posture being anything other than one of obfuscation, secrecy, and resistance to transparency.

Documents, particularly those detailing reports from senior intelligence officials encountering “orbs”, are a stark departure from the U.S. government’s nearly century-long position of secrecy.

Lawmakers, however, have been left with more questions than answers. Who or what flies with such impunity over our sensitive military installations? Who owns this technology? Are they a threat to national security?

Across the Pacific, members of Japan’s National Diet are confronting the same questions. The May 2026 file releases from the U.S. DOW disclosed two unresolved UAP incidents from the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Japanese legislators only learned the details of these cases near their own territory after the American file release—not through any internal channels.

Democratic allies, it seems, face a shared challenge. For too long, elected officials in our respective nations have been denied adequate information about the phenomena operating in our common security environment. And in the U.S., whenever we are informed, it’s only through the preferred methods and timing of unelected bureaucrats deeply entrenched in our national security apparatus. In Japan, by contrast, the Ministry of Defense has stated that information may be made public when something arises that it determines should be explained.

But this raises a fundamental question: should the government alone decide what should be explained to the public?

If a grave national security threat truly exists, then elected representatives have been left with little choice but to entrust the security of their nations to the very institutions that have obscured the truth from us and even each other.

It is therefore incumbent upon us—Representatives solely accountable to the citizens of our respective nations—to work together and to seek the truth wherever we may find it; both for the good of our people and to defend against whatever threats we face from strategic competitors.

As mentioned above, among the files released by the U.S. DOW were highly significant firsthand reports from high-ranking officials in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The documents detail a search operation at a classified missile testing site in the Western United States, explicitly for aerial phenomena:

En route, ground teams reported spotting a UAP on FLIR [Forward Looking Infrared], describing it as “super-hot,” low to the ground, and moving east then south at high speed. The object then split into two and changed direction. Upon arrival, we scanned the area using NVG [Night Vision Goggles], FLIR, and the naked eye. The ground team suddenly radioed that the object had risen from the ground, approached within ten feet of the helicopter, dropped below us, and then sped away.

The documents were accompanied by what the DOW labeled as “related photos.”

Accounts such as these are hardly “proof” of anything, but for elected officials, they do cement the reality of our national security concerns. Missing from this account—or any account we have been allowed to access—is an answer to a fundamental question: What do the various U.S. government agencies believe these objects are? Are they merely civilian drones? Do they represent technology belonging to a foreign actor? And if someone within the government does know, who decides that elected officials shouldn’t?

Members of Japan’s UAP Parliamentary League, led by former Japanese Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada, share similar concerns.

DOW data, released through the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) in August of 2023, identified specific regions of Japan, particularly in the western and southern parts of the country, as being among the world’s notable hotspots for UAP reports.

One such instance occurred as recently as July of last year. Security guards at the Genkai Nuclear Power Station in Saga Prefecture observed three luminous objects in the sky above the facility. The lights remained visible for nearly two hours; long enough for local police to arrive and observe them. The police stated that what they themselves observed was an airplane, leaving a discrepancy between the two accounts. The incident was also recorded by Kyushu Electric Power’s security cameras, but the footage has not been made available even to members of the National Diet. Police have likewise declined to disclose related information on the grounds that the matter remains under investigation. As a result, elected lawmakers still lack access to the information necessary to independently assess the incident, and to this day, members of Japan’s National Diet have no answers.

Like their American counterparts, Japanese lawmakers have been left without the tools or information for proper oversight despite reports of UAP operating near critical infrastructure within restricted airspace.

It is no longer acceptable for elected representatives to be agnostic on this issue. Events such as these, along with countless videos now made publicly available, are more than mere optical illusions and cannot be dismissed on account of prosaic explanations like parallax effect. For many members of Congress and members of Japan’s UAP Parliamentary League, the evidence presented before us indicates an unknown technology.

Our understanding of what is technologically feasible in propulsion, the manipulation of physical matter, and even space-time itself is being challenged. From what we know, our current defense capabilities appear insufficient. Furthermore, the origin of these phenomena remains unknown—not only to the U.S. and Japan, but seemingly to other nations as well. China, for instance, recently established its own military body dedicated to investigating UAP, even supplementing human resources with artificial intelligence dedicated to tracking what the People’s Liberation Army refers to as “Unidentified Air Conditions.”

We are, by all indications, in a global arms race for technological supremacy, one that is rapidly rendering today’s weapons obsolete through advances in quantum technology, artificial intelligence, and drone warfare. UAP and whatever technology allows them to operate with apparent impunity over sensitive military and nuclear installations could redefine the competition.

If harnessed by democratic allies, breakthroughs could bolster deterrence and stability in the South China Sea. Conversely, failure to establish a coordinated effort among democratic allies could give China an unforeseen technological advantage over a future invasion of Taiwan, making an already difficult fight impossible.

U.S. global leadership, along with the territorial integrity of the Pacific are at stake. For members of Japan’s National Diet, UAP investigations are of great national importance—an issue that demands cross-party attention.

As for their American counterparts, it’s clear representatives can’t reach the truth through traditional pathways that amount to asking the Central Intelligence Agency ‘nicely.’ It stands to reason that close alliances with democratic allies like Japan may be the most viable pathway for disclosure.

Indeed, if our tools are limited in scope, perhaps new revelations made by democratic allies provide a unique leverage point. After all, it was the Trump administration’s disclosure under the PURSUE program that significantly increased pressure on Japan’s Defense Ministry to acknowledge its own previously undisclosed UAP-related activities.

This is why we, as elected representatives of our nations, have engaged the Emerging Technologies Interparliamentary Caucus (ETIC) as a platform for international dialogue regarding emerging technologies and the security threats presented by UAP. Comprised of representatives from across the globe, the ETIC presents a rare opportunity to ensure elected representatives are equipped to assess potential threats, safeguard our nations, and prepare for the realities of emerging technologies in the 21st century.

Whether the phenomena we are encountering originate from an adversary or something else entirely, democratic nations cannot afford to be complacent.

The people of our nations deserve answers, and we intend to find them.

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO-07) is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs. 

Yasukazu Hamada is a Member of the House of Representatives, Japan, Former Minister of Defense, and Chairman of the UAP Parliamentary League.  

Yoshiharu Asakawa is a Former Member of the House of Representatives, Japan, and Assistant to the Chairman of the UAP Parliamentary League.

For decades, the possibility of discovering extraterrestrial intelligence has captured the imagination of scientists, sci-fi enthusiasts, filmmakers, and the public alike.

In line with such efforts, the IAA SETI Committee and the uNHIdden Foundation, two separate not-for-profit organizations, have recently released updated rules for evaluating and disclosing detections, and preparing for public preparedness in the event of potential disclosure of extraterrestrial intelligence.

With the release of director Steven Spielberg’s new alien film Disclosure Day, nearly coinciding with the recent release of the government records from the Department of War related to UAP, it seems a growing number of individuals, from the film industry to the science community, have extraterrestrials and “disclosure” on their minds. 

The IAA SETI Committee Rules 

In June 2026, the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) approved a major update to the protocols governing the evaluation, verification, and communication of evidence related to extraterrestrial intelligence. The revised guidelines were designed to address a modern information environment shaped by social media, artificial intelligence, and the rapid pace of the 24-hour news cycle.

Professor Michael Garrett, Sir Bernard Lovell Chair of Astrophysics, led the international effort to revise the long-standing post-detection protocols used by researchers engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The updated guidelines have since been formally ratified by the IAA.

“The information environment we operate in today is vastly more complex than it was in 2010,” said Garrett, Chair of the IAA SETI Committee, in a statement. “In an era of deepfakes, automated misinformation, and instant global connectivity, a single unverified claim could trigger confusion or panic. These new protocols ensure that scientists maintain the highest standards of evidence before making announcements to the world.”

The revised declaration reflects the broader scope of modern SETI and technosignature research. Since the previous guidelines were adopted in 2010, advances in technology have enabled scientists to investigate the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including excess infrared heat signatures that could indicate megastructures, optical laser emissions, and even multi-messenger signals.

The updated framework also addresses modern challenges, including protections for researchers who may face harassment, doxxing, or intense media scrutiny. It further emphasizes the importance of distinguishing verified scientific data from viral rumors, hoaxes, or terrestrial interference.

New Contact Rules at SETI

At the heart of the new guidelines is a familiar scientific principle: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Under the revised protocols, no public announcement should be made until a signal or artifact has been rigorously verified by independent organizations using different instruments and methodologies.

“We do not shout ‘alien’ the moment we see a strange blip,” said Garret in a statement. “The scientific method demands we check, check again, and then ask others to check. Only when we have reached a consensus that a signal is credible do we bring it to the world.”

While the protocols explain how to share discovery news, they make one rule clear: no reply should be sent.

“The threshold for ‘extraordinary evidence’ is subjective,” Siemion says. “Because of the vast diversity of modalities in which a technosignature might manifest, it is impossible to state explicitly the criteria that would meet this threshold under all circumstances.”

“In the case of a coherent electromagnetic signal, like a narrowband carrier or a series of laser pulses, an example of ‘extraordinary’ would be if we repeatedly detected the signal at the same location with multiple independent observatories,” Siemion adds.

He also noted that, for a transient signal, compelling evidence might include multiple lines of data indicating that it traveled through interstellar space. Determining whether a phenomenon truly originated from extraterrestrial technology would likely be a lengthy process, with evidence presented, challenged, and reassessed over time.

The declaration reinforces that any response to extraterrestrial intelligence would be a decision for all humanity and should only occur following international consultation, particularly through the United Nations.

With the updated declaration now ratified by the IAA Board, it will be shared with stakeholders, including the United Nations. A formal presentation of the protocols is scheduled for the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Türkiye later this year.

“The release of these updated rules and protocols marks an important step in acknowledging both the radically different media landscape that science functions within today, and the vastly expanded efforts in terms of technology and resources being deployed in the search for intelligent life beyond Earth,” said Bill Diamond, President and CEO of the SETI Institute and IAA SETI Committee member. “We applaud Prof Garrett’s leadership in developing these new protocols and the IAA for their ratification.” 

First Contact and Humanity’s Mental Health

Another nonprofit organization has taken a different approach, focusing on the potential psychological and public-health implications of disclosure. The uNHIdden Foundation, whose mission is to support mental health related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), recently released a preparedness framework addressing the societal impact of a paradigm-shifting discovery.

If governments prepare for natural disasters, pandemics, and other low-probability, high-impact events, should humanity also consider preparing for the possibility of contact with another intelligent civilization?

On June 8, uNHIdden Foundation Founder and Chairman John Priestland, alongside clinical spokesperson Dr. Martin Abbas, launched what they describe as the first public-health preparedness framework focused on disclosure-related scenarios.

Developed by healthcare practitioners, physicians, clinical psychologists, and public-health specialists, “Preparing for Disclosure: A Public Health Framework for Paradigm-Shifting Revelations” examines how society might reduce harm, build resilience, and support individuals processing a profound shift in humanity’s understanding of its place in the universe.

“This report is not a prediction. It is a preparedness exercise,” Priestland says. “Governments prepare for all kinds of low-probability, high-impact events.”

“Our view is that if a paradigm-shifting disclosure were ever to occur, we should at least have thought about the human consequences in advance,” Priestland added. 

The report suggests that certain groups could be more vulnerable to disclosure-related distress, including individuals with pre-existing mental health conditions, those facing socioeconomic hardship, UAP experiencers, highly religious individuals, and some STEM professionals. The authors emphasize that the report neither predicts disclosure nor attempts to judge future discoveries; rather, it argues that preparedness is a prudent response to the possibility of transformative new information.

David Whitehouse, former BBC Science Correspondent, wrote the report’s foreword, arguing that planning is essential should such a discovery ever occur.

The new framework proposes several practical actions to be taken, which include:

• Reducing stigma surrounding anomalous experiences and disclosure-related concerns
• Building public resilience and psychological flexibility
• Developing trusted sources of information and support
• Creating community conversation groups and peer-support networks
• Strengthening mental health preparedness and triage capability
• Encouraging collaboration between healthcare professionals, researchers, government, and civil society

The report argues that stronger community resilience, clearer communication during periods of uncertainty, and improved mental-health support would be critical not only during a disclosure event but during any large-scale societal disruption.

Ultimately, the question remains whether humanity is truly prepared—or whether a globally coordinated framework is still lacking. Voices ranging from the UAP community to figures within the U.S. government have argued that the public is ready. However, only time will tell what the result may be if confirmation of extraterrestrial intelligence were to arrive—and how humanity will collectively respond to the discovery.

Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.