Gillibrand, Kirsten

“If it is technology possessed by adversaries or any other entity, we need to know,”

“Burying our heads in the sand is neither a strategy nor an acceptable approach.”

“We’ve not had oversight into this area for a very long time,”

“I can count on one hand the number of hearings I had in 10 years on this topic. That’s fairly concerning given the experience our service members have had over the last decade.”

Gillibrand, a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, said she was heavily influenced by the “repeated reports over the last two or three years of these increased sightings by Navy pilots and Air Force pilots.”

She believes the fact that the possible explanations are so varied is why a dedicated effort is required.

“You have a million questions that must be answered for a million reasons,” she said, citing “the entire spectrum of unidentified aerial phenomena.”

“You’re talking about drone technology, you’re talking about balloon technology, you’re talking about other aerial phenomena, and then you’re talking about the unknown,” she said. “Regardless of where you fall on the question of the unknown, you have to answer the rest of the questions. That’s why this is urgent. That’s why having no oversight or accountability up until now to me is unacceptable.”

Her amendment also would create a separate “aerial and transmedium advisory committee” made up of experts from NASA, the FAA, the National Academies of Sciences, the head of the Galileo Project at Harvard University,the director of the Optical Technology Center at Montana State University, the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, and the American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics.

“You have to have the smartest, most informed minds from the world convening on these issues so you know what you’re up against,” Gillibrand said.

Gillibrand, who chairs the personnel subcommittee on Armed Services, said she is also concerned for military service members, who she contends have often been ostracized, including some who have reported what they believe to be related health effects.

“When you tell people, ‘don’t report a sighting of something that’s odd or out of the norm because people will say ‘you’re crazy,’ or you’ll lose your credibility as an airman or as a naval aviator, you’re obviously not going to report it if something is wrong with your health. The same response was received with people who were experiencing Havana Syndrome,” she said, referring to the recent mysterious injuries experienced by diplomats and other personnel.

“The treatment with which our service members have been subjected is unacceptable,” Gillibrand added.

“When this happens over and over in the military, people learn to keep their mouth shut.”

She has enlisted several co-sponsors from both parties, including Republicans Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Roy Blunt and fellow Democrat Martin Heinrich. “I don’t see opposition to this on any level,” she said.

While she mostly couches her effort in national security terms, the former presidential candidate also acknowledges that the “sci-fi” implications of UFOs also compelled her to take action.

“The first question I got when I got on the Intelligence Committee was ‘Mom, tell us about the aliens.’ I go, ‘I know nothing about it,’” she recalled conversations with her two sons. “I’m getting the coolest mom jersey for sure this year.”

Indeed, she is clearly enjoying her role, joking how Congress’ oversight may lead to a congressional delegation visiting new destinations or dimensions.

“And then as soon as we plan a CODEL, I’ll let you know,” Gillibrand quipped. ”The outer space CODEL is coming.”

Gillibrand:

"Well, I'll be having a hearing on all of the unidentified aerial phenomenon this coming week...

I created, along with Senator Warner and Senator Rubio and Senator Heinrich and some others, an office within the DOD and the Intelligence Committee specifically to review every unidentified aerial phenomenon that the military has access to. And we have the most intensely specific technology that can video, different aerial phenomenon, that can get radar, heat sensing through our aircraft, through other radar detection.

And so we set up this office two years ago, and during that two years, they've reviewed over 300 different evidence of aerial phenomenon. About half of them were deemed to be weather balloons. These type of balloon technology, perhaps detection devices, about two dozen were deemed to be drones. A handful were debris or birds. And there was still 171 that they have not assessed what it is. And so this work has to be done if we're going to have domain awareness, if we're going to have aerial dominance, if we want to make sure that our adversaries aren't spying on us or using new technologies or have aircraft that we don't even know how it functions or how fast it is or how effective it is, that is a national security risk.

And so knowing what these aircraft are is essential. And the military, unfortunately, it just hasn't been doing that work. They've just assumed they are non-adversarial because of how they fly or how they function. But I think knowing whether you are being spied on through different kinds of technology is essential to our national security. So this office is up and running. I'm working with colleagues to make sure it's fully funded or pushing the Biden administration and the military to ask for full funding this year. And I think it's vital."

Gillibrand:

"The hearing will come to order. I would first like to thank our witness, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, for testifying here and in today’s earlier closed session, and for his long and distinguished career — both in the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense. Dr. Kirkpatrick is the Director of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office or “AARO.” Congress established this office in law to get to the bottom of the very serious problem of unidentified anomalous Phenomena or “UAP”. Dr. Kirkpatrick has a difficult mission. While we have made progress, there remains a stigma attached to these phenomena. There is vast and complex citizen engagement, and there are very challenging scientific and technical hurdles. So, we appreciate the willingness of Dr. Kirkpatrick to lean in on this issue and the work that he has accomplished thus far. And we look forward to both his opening statement and his presentation of examples of the work AARO has done.

In late 2017 media reports surfaced about activities set in motion by the late, long-serving Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid more than a decade ago. We learned that there was strong evidence of advanced technology reflected in the features and performance characteristics of many objects observed by our highly trained service members operating top of the line military systems. We learned that for the last 8 years at least, military pilots frequently encountered unknown objects in controlled airspace off both the east and west coasts and across the continental United States in test and training areas and ranges. We don’t know where they come from, who made them, or how they operate. As former Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist observed, had any of these objects had the label “Made in China” there would be an uproar in the government and media. There would be no stone unturned and no effort spared to find out what we were dealing with. We can look to the recent incursion of the identified PRC High Altitude Balloon as an example.

But because of the “UFO” stigma, the response has been irresponsibly anemic and slow. Congress established AARO. We made clear that we expected vigorous action. We added very substantial initial funding for the Office. But despite our efforts the President’s Budget for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 requested only enough funding to defray the operating expenses of AARO. It included almost no funds to sustain the critical research and development necessary to support a serious investigation. It took a letter to Secretary Austin from Senator Rubio and me and 14 other Senators to get the office temporary relief for the current fiscal year.

In this hearing, I intend to probe a series of specific issues. In the recent incidents where multiple objects were shot down over North America, it seemed that Pentagon leadership did not turn to the AARO Office to play a leading role in advising the combatant commander. We need to know whether this will continue. We need to know whether the leadership in DoD will bring AARO into the decision-making process in a visible way. And we need to know what role AARO will play in inter-agency coordination after the NSC working group disbands.

In the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense and Intelligence Authorization Acts, Congress established a direct reporting chain from the AARO Director to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The role of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security is limited to providing administrative support. We need to know how this direction is being implemented.

UAP are frequently observed flying at extremely high or very low speeds and come in various sizes and shapes. During the recent shoot-downs over North America, DOD disclosed that filters on radar systems were adjusted to allow for detection and tracking of a diverse set of objects for the first time. While opening the aperture can overload the real-time analytic process, we cannot keep turning a blind eye to surveillance data that is critical to detecting and tracking UAP. We need to know whether Dr. Kirkpatrick can achieve the necessary control over sensor “filters” and the storage and access to raw surveillance data to find UAP anomalies.

Finally, one of the tasks Congress set for AARO is serving as an open door for witnesses of UAP events or participants in government activities related to UAPs to come forward securely and disclose what they know without fear of retribution for any possible violations of previously signed non-disclosure agreements. Congress mandated that AARO set up a publicly discoverable and accessible process for safe disclosure. While we know that AARO has already conducted a significant number of interviews, many referred by Congress, we need to set up a public process and we need to know where that effort stands."

Gillibrand: 

“This work must continue and it must be fully funded because we still don’t have all the answers.”

"Those are theories. My job as a Senator is to get to the bottom and to know facts."

“We need to just look into whether there are rogue SAP programs that no one is providing oversight for,” says Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat who led the Senate’s April UAP hearing.

“The goal for me will be to have a hearing on that at some point so that we can assess if these SAP’s actually exist.”

Gillibrand is sponsoring an amendment she hopes to attach to this year’s must-pass National Defense Authorization Act to mandate that no money can be spent on SAP’s unless it's been reported to Congress.

“So if there are SAPs out there that are somehow outside of the normal chain of command and outside the normal appropriations process, they have to divulge that to Congress,” Gilibrand says.

As for whether she thinks there’s any veracity to the whistleblower’s claims? “I have no idea,” Gillibrand says.

“So I'm going to do the work and analyze it and figure it out.”

Today, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand announced that she had secured full funding for the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s markup of the FY24 National Defense Authorization Act. Earlier this year, Gillibrand and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) led a bipartisan push to fully fund the office after the previous year’s NDAA failed to provide adequate funding.

Gillibrand and Rubio’s groundbreaking AARO was created in the FY22 NDAA to focus the Department of Defense (DoD) on resolving UAP sightings, improving data sharing between DoD and the Intelligence Community on UAP sightings, addressing national security concerns, and reporting health effects people may experience in relation to UAP events. AARO has access to DoD and Intelligence Community UAP data and is required to provide Congress with briefings and reports on UAPs. 

“With aggression from adversaries on the rise and with incidents like the Chinese spy balloon, it’s critical to our national security that we have strong air domain awareness over our homeland and around U.S. forces operating overseas,” said Senator Gillibrand. “Fully funding AARO is essential to our national security; the office provides the opportunity to integrate and resolve threats and hazards to the U.S., while also offering increased transparency to the American people and reducing the stigma around this issue of high public interest.”

Matt Laslo: “Any update on the UAP stuff?”

Kristen Gillibrand: “So, we’re trying to schedule a meeting with the whistleblower, so we can ask him questions directly. And then we are also going to try to schedule meetings with the people he mentions in his whistleblowing complaint.”

ML: “And that will be classified or private?”

KG: “We’ll try to do part of it—we’ll do whatever the whistleblower wants. If the whistleblower wants it classified, we’ll do it classified. If he’s willing to do it open, we’ll do it open. And I don’t know—I’ll have to assess if there’s classified information that he’s giving us. So, we’ll create the right setting regardless, and then hopefully, he’ll come in.”

ML: “Is this really layered trying to get to the bottom of it?”

KG: “Yes, it’s extremely layered, because the allegations are very serious.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) says Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s new UAP measure seems to have more to do with his predecessor, Harry Reid, than with UFO whistleblower David Grusch.

“You have to ask Sen. Schumer the genesis of his interest, but I think it was because he kind of took the mantle from Sen. Harry Reid and wanted to just continue the rights of the public to know information,” Gillibrand tells
Ask a Pol.

“Very similar to the JFK requirements of revealing information over time.”

While Gillibrand says her and Schumer’s new bipartisan measure to shed light on the federal government’s UFO / UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) programs is separate from her ongoing investigation into Grusch, she says the two complement each other.

“It's not the same work we're doing in the Armed Services Committee,” Gillibrand says.

“But this is a good measure that very much dovetails with the work that we do with both Intel. and Department of Defense.”

In our exclusive interview, Gillibrand gives Ask a Pol subscribers a glimpse into her investigation into David Grusch.  

“It's very interesting, and we're continuing to probe and get information. No developments yet,” Gillibrand says.

“But if I had them, I would give them.” 

While Reps. Tim Burchett (R-TN) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) have faced some pressure, eye rolls and shade ahead of next week’s House UFO hearing, Gillibrand says she’s got no concerns with the House investigation. 

“No,” Gillibrand replies. “No.”  

KG: "I didn't see his testimony, whistleblower's testimony, but I've read all the testimony and I know what the nature of all the allegations are, and they're very serious allegations that we have to get to the bottom of what I did three years ago is create an office to do this work. It's called Arrow. And the purpose is to look at all of these unidentified aero phenomenon and all of these anomalous incidents and analyze them and tell us is it a Chinese drone? Is it a Chinese spy balloon? Is it Russian, is it Iranian, or is it something else? And they are now reviewing 600 of these incidents, including the video that the pilots talked about yesterday, what they saw."

Gillibrand tells Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo, she recently met with Kirkpatrick, and now she wants him to sit down with Grusch. 

Gillibrand: "He [AARO Director Sean Kirkpatrick] is trying to interview all the people who would know anything about any past [UAP] programs...I've asked for a meeting [with David Grusch]... and I've asked for Dr. Kirkpatrick to meet with him, too."

Question:

"What were your biggest takeaways from the recent testimony about alleged secret government programs involving UFOs?"

Gillibrand:

"They are very serious allegations. The hearing had two sets of testimony. The first was from pilots who saw an object flying in the sky that looked like a Tic Tac that had very strange patterns and abilities. Those pilots were retaliated against, and their careers were derailed, which is how I got involved in the issue. We want our pilots and our service members to come forward when they see things that they cannot identify, which is why I created the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office to review all of these unidentified aerial phenomena in a scientific and thorough way.

So far, they are looking at about 600 (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) reports and data sets and they’ve only finished about half of them. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence made a report on what AARO accomplished in January. There they assessed the first 366 unidentified aerial phenomena, about 26 were basically drone-like systems, 163 were balloon or balloon like-entities, six were birds or debris, but they couldn’t identify 171. We realized for AARO to really work better we are going to need a lot more sensors around military bases, nuclear sites, on our aircrafts. That is going to be one of my to-dos for the new Congress. Some of the unidentified aerial phenomena is going to be Chinese, some is going to be Russian, some is going to be Iranian and some may be others. But we need to know what we can know and at least identify the knowable so our pilots are safer, so that we know what else is in the sky. We were not tracking these spy balloons when the AARO office was created. That’s a problem. We need to know when our adversaries are spying on us. We need domain awareness, and we need air superiority. If our adversaries have technology that we don’t have, we need to know about it.

The second testimony was about a service member whose job was to investigate all UAP programs and co-locate them and write an assessment. Through that effort, this whistleblower met several people who said they had worked on alien-related programs where they either had crash material or that crash material resulted in dead aliens. I have no ability to verify that testimony because we’ve not been told of any such programs. We’ve asked for all information related to all programs and have not been given that detail. One of three things are true: Either it doesn’t exist and they worked on programs that were alien-related which weren’t, or they are making it up, or these programs do exist and the Department of Defense is not either read in on it, or the need to know is so small that the people that have been testifying in front of us don’t know about it, or they are just misrepresenting the facts.

I intend to get to the bottom of it. I think these service members – certainly the whistleblowers that I’ve met – are very thoughtful, serious people. So I really want to investigate it to its fullest. An arrow stands for (All-domain) Anomaly Resolution Office."

Gillibrand:

"I started meeting with pilots, and pilots were very upset because they kept running into these drones and other aircraft that they were really worried that they would crash into, and they kept giving the DOD, the data, the videos, the information, and saying, what's going on? This is a UAP, so you got to do something about it. Whose is it? What is it? And in some instances, they retaliated against the service members, the pilots, and said, you're just crazy about aliens and we are not going to take you seriously anymore. And it ruined their careers. While I was chair of the personnel subcommittee, I said, that's not acceptable. These are men and women who serving bravely for our country, and they're just reporting what they see. You need to look at it and analyze it and figure out whose it is. Well, we set up the office three years ago and we fully funded it in the defense bill.

And this is fascinating because we don't know who's making these types of aircraft. I'm sure some of it's China, I'm sure some of it's Russia, and I'm sure some of it's Iran. They're at the forefront of drone technology. We already know one weather balloon was Chinese and they're spying. They're spying on our bases, on our nuclear sites and overhead. So I've made this office, I created it. It's up and running. I made sure the DOD, we fully funded it because they didn't even want to fund it, and we will get to the bottom of it. But did anybody watch the hearings last week? We had some strange testimony. We had some pilots say, we saw this craft. It's a tic-tac. Here's the video. It had strange flying patterns. We don't understand what it was. Those pilots should not be discriminated against. That information's there.

And then the second guy I think was in Navy intelligence and he said, well, I was in charge of looking at all the existing UAP programs and I talked to everybody I could and found out what I could. And I talked to a bunch of people who said, not only do we have a program, but it's super secret and we have dead aliens and we have crashed aircraft. What? I don't know what this is. They will not tell me about it. I cannot get to the bottom of it. I cannot get any data and information. So we don't know if it's exists. We don't know if that's real. Those individuals will have to testify in front of the Arrow office. So far, whistleblowers have been reluctant to testify to the Arrow office. It's part of the Department of Defense. They're afraid of retaliation. They're afraid of lots of things that they cannot come forward.

So we made sure in the arrow provisions that it has a whistleblower protection. We made sure that if you sign an non-disclosure agreement, that you can come forward and share your testimony. But how many people saw Oppenheimer? Okay, so Oppenheimer is about developing the bomb during World War ii. And all those scientists who worked on that project had to sign non-disclosure agreements. And what I've heard about those non-disclosure agreements is that because it was wartime, it had provisions that said, including if you disclose, under penalty of death. And so the big worry is that people who sign non-disclosure agreements to work on any type of program for the military, that it had language in there that made them think that that was true. So there's a lot of fear. And so I don't know if we'll ever get to the bottom of it. I don't know if we'll ever get the information about special access programs that are need to know only that Congress has not read in on.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. I put a provision in the defense bill this year that said, you can't fund any special access programs if you don't come through Congress. So that's one push. And then the other push is just trying to get these whistleblowers to talk to the guy who's head of Arrow, who's very competent and very capable. The last way I'm going to try to find out is the way Arrow is going to operate because we keep seeing all these drones and weather balloons and spy balloons, is we're going to get better sensors. We're get better sensors on our aircraft, better sensors on our bases, better sensors at these nuclear sites. So whatever's flying around them, we know whose they are because they're most likely adversarial, they're most likely Chinese, they're most likely Iranian, trying to get intelligence, trying to get data. And if it's not, we'll catch them. So we'll know what it is, whatever it is."

“I’ve got to follow up on getting the meetings. I don't know what happened to the requests for meetings with the whistleblowers, but I don't know where it is right now so I gotta find out,” Gillibrand tells Ask a Pol. “Just have to get things on the schedule.”

ML: “I’m curious, there’s rumors floating around—I asked Warner about it earlier, but…—claims that Warner himself shut down any UAP hearings in the Senate. What do you…?”  

Gillibrand’s face instantly says, “WTF?”  

ML: “I know!” 

KG: “I've not heard that.” 

ML: “But he doesn't have that power?”  

KG: “Yeah. I've definitely not heard that before.”

ML: “Any update on your…?”

[Subscriber-only content.]

KG: “I've asked for a meeting, and I think it's going to be scheduled soon—especially with that one whistleblower.”  

ML: “Any update on…” 

I stop myself and confirm.

ML: “‘That one whistleblower’—Grusch? David Grusch?” 

Gillibrand nods in affirmative. 

ML: “Any update on your desire for an open hearing on UAPs?” 

KG: “I did one open hearing, and you came to that, right?” 

ML: “Yeah.” 

KG: “Yeah. So I did one open hearing. And there's going to be a public report by AARO very soon, so that’s due in probably like a month or so. So I'm looking forward to that, and I'll probably have another hearing aligned with that public report.” 

ML: “Oh, interesting. And, like, after the House had their Oversight hearing with Grusch. What, like, 50% of his claims—or when he testified, he said, ‘I have to be in a SCIF…’”

KG: “These claims are very serious, and I take all of them very seriously. And I want to make sure our service members know they can come forward and disclose all projects they worked on. And it's important that the whistleblower community feels comfortable talking to AARO and having those conversations in SCIFs so that AARO can do its job thoroughly. Otherwise, they can't. So if the whistleblowers don't come forward, they can't assess their claims, they can't find programs that they're talking about.”

ML: “This other thing Warner said, he said, him and Rubio sat down with Kirkpatrick themselves. I inquired about whether they brought up [Sen. Mike] Rounds’ concern, which is just that, whistleblowers feel like they can’t…” 

KG: “They have to trust the process that Sen. Rubio and Sen. Rounds and I have set up to do this work, and if they don't trust it we can't get to the bottom of anything because we can't do all the interviews that are needed to figure out what's existing, what's not existing and, frankly, what creation of programs we need in the future to better to monitor our skies, have air dominance, have—pilot safety. Things that really matter.” 

ML: “It just feels like there's less impetus, less pressure…”

Matt Laslo: “So right now, there’s reports that the House, they’ve gonna be able to bring in Grusch in a SCIF.”

Gillibrand: “Oh, that’s great!” Laslo: “Along with with some other folks.” Gillibrand: “Oh, I’ll try to get invited to that.”

Laslo: “Oh, will you?” 

Gillibrand: “Yes, I will ask to be invited. When are they doing that? 

Laslo: (inaudible) 

Gillibrand: “But he lives in California (Colorado). There’s no reason he can come in and testify in a SCIF."

Laslo: “I know, right?“ 

Gillibrand: “He spoke to our intelligence staff at some point in time." 

Laslo: "Have you had trouble?" 

Gillibrand: “Yes.” 

Laslo: “Have you been able to work it out?” 

Gillibrand: “He doesn’t wanna… He needs me to pay for his flight.”

Laslo: “Oh yeah?”

Gillibrand: “Because I don’t have a budget to pay for his flight or hotels. So, I can talk to him on the phone but then he can’t tell me anything classified.”

Laslo: “But maybe you can piggyback on?”

Gillibrand: “Yeah, if the House has anything I can go to, I’ll go.”

Senator Gillibrand has phone call with David Grusch.

ML: “Curious, do you — have you looked at that report from AARO and Kirkpatrick?”

KG: “Not yet.”

ML: “That declassified one?”

KG: “Is it out yet? When did it come out?”

Joe Khalil: "I spoke with @SenGillibrand yesterday exclusively about the UAP amendment. She tells me opposition to it has been quashed (others aren’t so confident)."

Gillibrand: “It was a misunderstanding,  I feel like we fixed it. But maybe not…I've been working on this issue. I feel like it was resolved.”

“I thought we had prevailed on describing why our [Senate] language was better. Because it was, as you know, some of the language suggested by the House really would have created loopholes, which would have been unwise.”

Matt Laslo: “How do you think this UAP amendment came out?” 

Kirsten Gillibrand: “I need more information.”  

ML: “Did you see Schumer's floor speech?”

KG: “I did, and I need more information about that.” 

ML: “Have you met Kirkpatrick’s new replacement?” 

KG: “Not yet, but I will. But I had a long debrief with Kirkpatrick. It went very well. So I'm gonna meet the new guy, and we’ll assess what the status is because I wasn't sure about it. I didn't know about Chuck [Schumer]’s speech, but I happened to be there. So I’m gonna assess it.”

ML: “It feels like the mood’s changed on the issue related to Grusch stuff.” 

KG: “How do you see it changed?” 

ML: “It’s just—less interest. There's not much of an investigation going on over here, it doesn’t seem.” 

KG: “No. I need to look into it. I need to figure out what's going on. I don't know yet, so I'll give you more later, as soon as I figure more things out.”

Sen. Gillibrand takes part in a classified UAP hearing.

Matt Laslo: “Still standing. Did you meet with the interim head of AARO yesterday [CORRECTION: Tuesday]?”

KG: “No. Who is it? Do you know who it is?”

ML: “No. They named somebody. You had something classified in your thing [ie, public schedule] yesterday.”

KG: “Oh, no.”

ML: “That was separate?”

KG: “Yeah. It was separate, but I’ve asked them who it is and they didn’t know.”

ML: “Really?”

KG: “Yeah.”

ML: “Because they named someone initially.”

KG: “The staff didn't know who it was.”

ML: “So what do you make of that?”

KG: “Slow.”

ML: “Yeah?”

KG: “They’re just slow.”

ML: “Case of the bureaucracy?”

KG: “Ahuh.”

ML: “That’s pretty wild.”

ML: “Is that frustrating though?”

KG: “It is, because I want to meet the new person. I want the new person to be named. And if there's an interim person, fine, but we should really have someone in line.”

ML: “There's no Senate confirmation for that is there?”

KG: “No. It's a DOD [Department of Defense] choice — DOD-Intel.”

ML: “Interesting. Are you still in talks with [David] Grusch?”

KG: “It’s Grusch’s lawyer who seems to be making the decision, so I would talk to his lawyer. So I think maybe with the next person [at AARO] they might meet. I don't know. He wouldn't meet with Kirkpatrick unfortunately.”

ML: “Because the House, they just had their second SCIF briefing on him specifically.”

KG: “On Grusch?”

ML: “Yeah.”

KG: “Oh interesting.”

 Steven Greenstreet: Can you please comment on Kirkpatrick's claim that Congress has been duped by a small group of UFO "conspiracists"?

 A: “AARO plays an important role in support of our national security. Resolving UAP reports is necessary to avoid technical surprise and ensure we have an understanding of what is happening in our airspace. Senator Gillibrand believes in a scientifically rigorous and data-driven approach to analyzing unidentified anomalous phenomena and will continue to ensure AARO upholds this mission.” -Gillibrand spokesman Evan Lukaske

Matt Laslo: “Having fun secret meetings underground?”

Kirsten Gillibrand: “We do. They’re always fun.”

ML: “I just saw [Sen. Susan] Collins (R-ME) go down [to the SCIF].”

KG: “Oh, I’m just going to the Dominican Republic…”

ML: “Was curious, what was your guys’ classified UAP briefing in January? You have it on your public schedule.”

KG: “Umm. It wasn’t about UAP.”

ML: “Oh really, it wasn’t?”

Gillibrand shakes her head.

ML: “Typo.”

KG: “No. It was in the context of that, but it was not about that. It was about broader…”

Gillibrand flashes, ‘I can’t say’ look, as they pass through the heavy fireproof doors leading into the CVC. 

ML: “Have you reached out to AARO [All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office] at all?“

KG: “Not yet, but I’ve asked to meet the guy. Remember, I’m going to meet with the interim guy?”

Gillibrand looks to her staffer. 

ML: “I think it’s Tim Phillips?”

They agree. 

KG: “Yeah, I mean, Tim Phillips.”

ML: “You’ve already met with him in the past, you just didn’t know he was interim?”

KG: “Have I met with Tim Phillips in the past?”

ML: “I don’t know.”

KG: “I don’t think I have.”

ML: “I haven’t.”

KG: “I’m going to meet with him. I’m gonna meet with him. Umm.”

ML: “Feels like this is still the start of — oh no, kind of a slow start to the year, but it’s a campaign year and all that. The border deal kinda sucks a lot of the oxygen out of the town?”

KG: “Yeah.”

ML: “Yeah? Umm.”

KG: “But we’ll get back to it, I promise.”

SCENE: Gillibrand just cast a vote on the Senate floor and is heading for the closest elevator, when she’s surprised to bump into Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo.

Matt Laslo: “Hey senator.”

Kirsten Gillibrand: “Oh hey.”

ML: “Separate topic.”

KG: “Yeah.”

ML: “I’m wondering about your trip to Nevada with the Air Force.”

KG: “Excellent.”

ML: “What [were] the topics de jour? I was a little surprised to see you out there.”

KG: “Manufacturing.”

ML: “Manufacturing?”

KG: “Yeah.”

ML: “Cause, you know, in the House they’re investigating whether…”

KG: “I was in Nevada and California, and so I got to tour a couple of different manufacturers, and what they’re

doing for the Air Force is very exciting.”

ML: “Cause in the House they’re investigating the UAP issue and whether Northrop Grumman and Lockheed

are part of the ‘cover-up.’ Did that come up at all?”

KG: “Yeah, I know that allegation. I know the allegation. Did not come up in my review.”

ML: “No?”

KG: “But I was very grateful to see the excellent work that our military’s doing.”

ML: “Yeah? Was that campaign stuff for your colleagues?”

KG: “Everything I was doing was classified that was Air Force-related. But what I was doing in Nevada after and California after, was for my campaign.”

ML: “You guys have so much fun with your classifications.”

KG: “I know!”

ML: “Have fun, ma’am! Preciate ya.”

ML: “Have you had time to check out that new AARO report yet? The declassified one?”

KG: “Haven’t read it yet.”

ML: “No?”

KG: “I read the reports on what it said, but I don’t have it yet.”

ML: “Yeah? I’ll look for you next week on it.”

KG: “Yeah. I’ll read it. Thank you.”

Matt Laslo: “I wanted to ask you, did you see that Joint Chiefs of Staff letter last May? The one about — or on UAPs but kind of just alerting…?”

Kirsten Gillibrand: “I don’t remember what it said. I imagine I saw it, but I think what they’re most worried about is safety for pilots and domain awareness around bases and around nuclear sites. It’s essential that we have full domain awareness in our most specialized, most top-secret locations. We don’t want spying by adversaries. and so, we hadn’t developed the technology or the ability to detect all these items, and there’s been a couple of drone attacks* that are concerning.”

*Gillibrand misspoke.

ML: “Yeah?”

KG: “So…”

ML: “Oh interesting, ‘attacks’?”

KG: “What?”

ML: “Attacks? Or surveillance?”

KG: “That’s not the right word.”

One of Gillibrand’s aides went ahead to the Senate Dining Room — which is Senators Only — and keeps sticking his head out every lil bit to speed her and her other aide up.

Gillibrand aide: “Senator, you really have to get going.”

KG to aide: “I know. Oh my gosh.”

Gillibrand turns back to Ask a Pol. 

KG: “You’re right, drone ‘attack’ isn’t the right word, but drone…”

ML: “Incursions?”

KG: “Incursions. That are disturbing and need to be known and seen and be able to be taken down. So we had that — we had some hearings on that already.”

ML: “Interesting. ‘Preciate ya.”

Matt Laslo: “I haven’t seen you since you met with Timothy Phillips at AARO — their interim director.”

Kirsten Gillibrand: “Yes, I did.”

ML: “How did that go?”

KG: “Very well. I think he's incredibly competent. He was working with Dr. [Sean] Kirkpatrick all along. I let him know that I'd like to have a public hearing this summer. And so he's gonna put together some data and information to disclose in a public hearing to show what work they've done, especially examples of things that were unknown that they've been able to figure out and examples of things that were unknown that they still haven't figured out…”

ML: “Interesting.”

ML: “That's interesting, cause their declassified report kinda made it feel like case closed. But so you want…”

KG: “Oh, it's definitely not case closed. I think that their report was just that their analysis of everything they were shown and everyone they talked to, cause they had no basis to say there's a secret program. But of note, the two whistleblowers that I've met with did not meet with AARO and refused to meet with AARO. And so maybe the next director they'll meet with, but I can't assess them unless AARO can talk to them, cause I don’t — I mean, AARO knows what they know and what they've seen and what they've been shown.”

ML: “Have you met with David Grusch yet?”

KG: “No. We invited him to come, and I was supposed to meet with him and Dr. Kirkpatrick together, but they ultimately declined that meeting.”

ML: “Interesting. I'll keep my ears out for the hearing this summer.”

KG: “Yeah, so we're gonna try to do something this summer to just, again, keep the public aware of where we are, what we know, what we don't know and how we're going to gather data from here going forward so we have more robust information.”

ML: “Interesting. Have you heard anything about people at the Pentagon, like [National Security Advisor] Jake Sullivan or [Defense Secretary] Lloyd Austin working to kinda gut the Schumer — your amendment last year in the NDAA with [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer?”

KG: “I did not hear about that. I think it was very important that the way the amendment was worded, that it didn't disclose SAPs [Special Access Programs] related to US-based programs. I think it was much more about, let's frame this the right way so that we're not disclosing programs that we don't think should ever be made public, that have nothing to do with the issue of concern, unidentified aerial phenomena.”

ML: “Because they've never really had these conversations or had to release it publicly?”

KG: “Right. I think it was maybe just worded too broadly. So, I think, if there was any effort, it was to just make sure it disclosed UAP-specific things.”

ML: “Any work on that amendment for this NDAA?”

KG: “The required disclosure?”

ML: “Yeah, or expanding it or...”

KG: “I don't know. I thought we passed the provisions of that amendment.”

ML: “Yeah, but some people — like folks on the House Congressional UAP Caucus — they want it.”

KG: “They wanna have a different version of it?”

ML: “I think so…”

KG: “I'll take a look at whatever — I thought we passed what we were hoping to pass.”

ML: “….about them saying Schumer — or your amendment with Schumer got really watered down.”

KG: “Mine's different. I thought Chuck got done what he wanted to get done, but maybe I'm mistaken. I thought he accomplished what he wanted. The work I wanna keep doing is to have much more thorough data collection, because we are still seeing so many unidentified aerial phenomena and we don't know what they are. And that's very frustrating.”

ML: “It's terrifying.”

KG: “It's terrifying from a national security perspective and just for these pilots to have to fly and do their jobs to not be safe and to not know what they're running up against. And I'm just very worried about technology that we're not aware of, particularly if it's from an adversary that's doing it for malign interests, whether it's Russia, China, Iran or others. Very important.”