Skip to content
Public Congressional Record

The 2024 UAP Hearing

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability | November 13, 2024

Sixteen months after David Grusch, Ryan Graves, and David Fravor sat before the same committee, a second panel of witnesses raised the stakes. Luis Elizondo, the former director of the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, testified publicly for the first time. A retired rear admiral described transmedium objects tracked by Navy sensors. A journalist named a classified programme the Pentagon denied existed. A former NASA official argued the scientific establishment had abdicated its responsibility. The hearing produced no single revelation on the scale of Grusch's claims, but it widened the evidentiary base and brought new institutional voices into the congressional record.

4 Witnesses
16 Months After First Hearing
2nd Oversight Hearing
Bipartisan Support

Supplementary Video: The May 2022 Hearing

The House Intelligence Subcommittee held its first open session on UAP on 17 May 2022. Scott Bray and Ronald Moultrie testified about approximately 400 UAP incidents. It was the first congressional hearing on the subject since 1966, when Donald Keyhoe and NICAP finally succeeded in getting the Air Force questioned on the record.

Source: Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain, U.S. Government work)


The Witnesses

Four witnesses, each bringing a different institutional perspective to the same set of questions.

Luis Elizondo
Former Director, AATIP | Department of Defence
Elizondo ran the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program from 2010 until his resignation in 2017. He left the Pentagon over what he described as institutional resistance to UAP reporting and investigation. His 2024 book Imminent laid out his account of classified retrieval and reverse-engineering programmes. This was his first appearance before Congress under oath. He testified about the existence of multi-decade UAP programmes operating outside normal channels of accountability.
Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet (Ret.)
Former Acting Administrator, NOAA | Former Navy Oceanographer
Gallaudet served as a career naval officer and oceanographer before leading NOAA. During his Navy service he became aware of UAP encounters involving naval assets. He testified about transmedium objects, those observed transitioning between air and water, and argued that ocean-based UAP monitoring represented a critical gap in national awareness. He brought flag-officer credibility to the panel and described a culture of secrecy that prevented proper investigation.
Michael Shellenberger
Investigative Journalist | Author
Shellenberger presented a 12-page report on a purported classified UAP programme referred to as "Immaculate Constellation." The report, compiled from a whistleblower with knowledge of the programme, alleged that the executive branch had been managing UAP imagery collection without congressional knowledge for decades. He described accounts of military encounters, including an incident in which an F-22 was reportedly intercepted by multiple UAPs. The Pentagon denied the programme existed.
Michael Gold
Former Associate Administrator for Space Policy, NASA
Gold had worked to establish interagency coordination on UAP research during his time at NASA. He testified about the need for standardised data collection protocols across government agencies and called for NASA to play a direct role in UAP investigation. He argued that stigma continued to prevent scientific engagement with the topic and that structured, transparent frameworks were the only way forward.

Key Testimony

Sworn statements delivered to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 13 November 2024.

Luis Elizondo
Elizondo confirmed under oath that he had firsthand knowledge of classified UAP retrieval and reverse-engineering programmes within the U.S. government. He described a pattern of institutional obstruction, where information was compartmented away from congressional oversight and legitimate reporting channels were suppressed. He stated that these programmes had operated for decades outside normal accountability structures.
On UAP programme existence and government secrecy
Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet
Gallaudet described encounters with transmedium objects tracked by Navy sensors, objects that moved between air and water in ways that defied conventional explanation. He expressed concern about a culture of secrecy that prevented proper investigation and advocated for expanded ocean-based UAP research, noting that current monitoring capabilities had a significant maritime gap.
On transmedium phenomena and Navy encounters
Michael Shellenberger
Shellenberger presented his "Immaculate Constellation" report, alleging a classified UAP imagery collection effort run by the executive branch without congressional authorisation. His whistleblower source described a programme that had accumulated UAP imagery from military and intelligence platforms over decades. The 12-page report included descriptions of specific encounters, including an F-22 intercept involving multiple unidentified objects.
On the "Immaculate Constellation" allegation
Michael Gold
Gold argued that NASA and the broader scientific community needed structured, standardised frameworks for UAP investigation. He described his efforts to build interagency coordination during his tenure and called for the removal of stigma that continued to discourage open scientific engagement with anomalous phenomena. He supported greater transparency and direct congressional oversight of UAP-related programmes.
On scientific framework and institutional engagement
Pentagon Response
The Department of Defence denied the existence of any programme called "Immaculate Constellation." This denial followed the same pattern established after Grusch's 2023 testimony: categorical rejection of specific claims, no acknowledgement of the underlying evidence, no offer to brief the committee in a classified setting. The denial did not address the specific incidents described in Shellenberger's report.
Official response to the Immaculate Constellation allegation

What Was Disclosed

The second oversight hearing expanded the evidentiary record in four directions.

Elizondo's appearance carried particular weight because of his trajectory. He had directed AATIP from inside the Pentagon, resigned in protest, spent years building a public case through media appearances and his book Imminent, and then sat before the committee under oath. His testimony transformed him from a public advocate into a sworn witness. Everything he said became part of the congressional record, subject to perjury laws. He chose to say it anyway.

The "Immaculate Constellation" allegation introduced something new: a named programme with described capabilities and specific operational details. Shellenberger's 12-page report was not vague. It described a UAP imagery collection effort with access to military and intelligence sensor platforms, accumulating data without congressional knowledge. The Pentagon's denial was swift and unambiguous. But Shellenberger's source had provided the name, the operational scope, and specific encounter descriptions. A flat denial did not address any of that.

Gallaudet brought institutional credibility of a different kind. A retired rear admiral and former head of NOAA is not a whistleblower from an intelligence programme or a journalist with anonymous sources. He is a flag officer describing what he observed and what he was told to ignore. His emphasis on transmedium phenomena, objects transitioning between air and water, highlighted a gap that the committee had not previously explored. The ocean does not have the sensor coverage that airspace does. Gallaudet made the point that whatever is being observed in the sky may also be operating below the surface, and nobody is watching.

Gold rounded out the panel with an institutional perspective from outside the defence and intelligence apparatus. NASA had published its own UAP study in September 2023 and appointed a Director of UAP Research. Gold argued that this was not enough, that the agency needed structured protocols, interagency agreements, and a mandate to investigate rather than merely observe. His testimony was less dramatic than the others, but it placed the scientific establishment's failure to engage on the record.

Taken together, the four witnesses covered classified programmes (Elizondo), alleged hidden collection systems (Shellenberger), military sensor observations (Gallaudet), and the scientific framework deficit (Gold). The 2023 hearing had been dominated by Grusch's explosive claims about crash retrieval and non-human biologics. The 2024 hearing was broader, more institutional, and harder to dismiss as a single disgruntled employee.


The Broader Picture

What happened between the 2023 and 2024 hearings, and where the trajectory pointed.

Between July 2023 and November 2024, the landscape shifted in ways that both helped and hindered congressional efforts. AARO published Volume 1 of its Historical Record Report in March 2024, a document that was widely criticised by members of Congress, witnesses, and the UAP research community. The report concluded that there was no evidence of extraterrestrial technology or hidden programmes. Critics pointed out that AARO had not interviewed key witnesses, had relied on incomplete records, and had framed its conclusions in ways that pre-empted the questions rather than answering them.

The National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2025 contained further UAP provisions, building on the disclosure framework that Senators Schumer and Rounds had introduced in 2023. The UAP Disclosure Act had been stripped of its strongest enforcement mechanisms in conference, but the NDAA still directed further reporting requirements and expanded whistleblower protections. The legislative machinery was grinding forward, if slowly.

The bipartisan UAP Caucus in the House continued to grow. Representatives Tim Burchett and Anna Paulina Luna remained vocal advocates for hearings and transparency. The fact that a second hearing happened at all, sixteen months after the first, indicated sustained political will rather than a single moment of curiosity. Members of Congress from both parties were asking the same questions: what programmes exist, who authorised them, and why was Congress not informed?

Internationally, the period saw continued movement. Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom each faced their own calls for transparency, though none matched the pace of U.S. congressional action. The Sol Foundation, launched in late 2023, held its first conference and began publishing academic work on UAP governance. The conversation was no longer confined to Capitol Hill or cable news. It had spread into policy institutes, academic journals, and allied government channels.

AARO Historical Record Report, Volume 1 (March 2024)

The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office published Volume 1 of its Historical Record Report on 8 March 2024. The report reviewed U.S. government UAP investigation efforts from 1945 to the present and concluded that no evidence supported the existence of extraterrestrial technology programmes. Multiple witnesses, including Elizondo and Grusch, publicly stated that AARO had not interviewed them. Members of Congress called the report incomplete and misleading. Volume 2, covering the post-2022 period, was not yet published at the time of the November hearing.


Committee Documents

Official submissions to the record for this hearing, now held in the NHI Archive.

The House Oversight Committee published six official documents for this hearing under the serial designation HHRG-118-GO12-20241113. The archive holds the complete set.

Immaculate Constellation Report (SD003, 12 pages)

Michael Shellenberger submitted a report describing a multi-year internal investigation into UAP, Technologies of Unknown Origin (TUO), and Non-Human Intelligence (NHI). The report was cleared for open publication by the Department of State, Bureau of Global Public Affairs, on 6 September 2023 and reviewed by the Department of Defence Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR). It organises evidence into seven categories: an unacknowledged SAP (uSAP), imagery intelligence (IMINT), human intelligence (HUMINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), USG bureaucratic records, USG historical records, and other sensitive sources. The report describes specific military encounters catalogued within the programme, including CENTCOM footage of metallic orb formations skimming the ocean surface, fast movers transiting sensitive coastal facilities, and INDOPACOM infrared imagery of equilateral-triangle UAP hovering above vessels in the Pacific.

Supplementary Document (SD004, 21 pages, DOPSR Cleared)

A DOPSR-approved supplementary submission containing referenced open-source material and first-hand accounts. Includes descriptions of a facility known to contain crash retrieval material from the 1950s, a UAP material divestment plan proposed to AAWSAP leadership by Lockheed Martin Space Systems, and accounts of presidential briefings on legacy UAP programmes. The document also reproduces a 1950 USAF Office of Special Investigations memorandum (File No. 24-8-28, 25 May 1950) summarising aerial phenomena observations near sensitive military installations in the New Mexico area from December 1948 to May 1950, including green fireball incidents near Los Alamos and Holloman AFB.

Addressing the UAP Data Gap (SD005)

A written statement submitted for the record describing satellite imagery of a fast-moving UAP reviewed by the author years prior. When congressional staff requested the report from AARO, AARO replied it held no record of any UAP satellite imagery. The statement argues this reflects a systemic failure: critical UAP data remains inaccessible to both Congress and AARO. Submitted jointly with Rear Admiral Gallaudet.

Additional Committee Materials

The archive also holds the hearing notice (SD001), committee memorandum (SD002), and member attendance roster for the joint session of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation and the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs.


From the Archive

The July 2023 hearing is documented on the 2023 Hearing page, which covers the Grusch, Graves, and Fravor testimony. The September 2025 hearing, which introduced new witnesses and addressed the fallout from Shellenberger's allegations, is on the 2025 Hearing page. The Congressional UAP Oversight article tracks the full legislative timeline from the 2017 New York Times revelations through to the present. The Grusch Deposition Transcript article covers the classified deposition that preceded the 2023 hearing.


The American people deserve to know what their government knows about UAP. The current system of secrecy is failing both the public and the national security apparatus.
Representative Tim Burchett, Opening remarks, 13 November 2024

2023 Hearing: Grusch, Graves, Fravor 2024 Hearing: Elizondo, Gallaudet, Shellenberger, Gold 2025 Hearing
Legend