The 2024 UAP Hearing
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.
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.
Key Testimony
Sworn statements delivered to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 13 November 2024.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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