Rounds, Mike (R-SD)

ML: "Well, pretty simple terms, aren't they?"

MR: "Could be."

MR: "It could be."

MR: "Yeah."

ML: "So it's that broad."

MR: "Well, could be. It was not by accident, let's put it that way."

Asked about whether he personally believes military personnel and sensors are encountering extraterrestrial visitors, Rounds said: “I don’t think you can discount the possibility just simply because of the size of the universe.” 

“I don’t think anybody should say that they know for certain either way,” he said. “If we simply refuse to acknowledge there’s even a remote possibility, then we’re probably not being honest.” 

“Some of the items we simply can’t explain,” he said of the Naval videos of UAPs.

Rounds: “I had one classified briefing with Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, director of All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office.”

Matt Laslo: “How was your meeting with the head of AARO, Fitzpatrick. [Kirkpatrick]”

Mike Rounds: “I thought it was good. We've got some work to do there, but I think we can make them more effective than what they have been in the past.” 

ML: “What would that look like? Have you guys been unhappy with their reporting?”

MR: “No. I think it's a matter of participation by individuals who are concerned about the ability to be protected if they went to AARO. And so I think that's gonna be the challenge — is making sure that people who may have had any firsthand knowledge or wanted to share any information can do so.”  

ML: “Are they not? Are you hearing from whistleblowers that they're not feeling comfortable?”

MR: “Not so much that, but from other individuals who have expressed a concern on behalf of whistleblowers…” 

ML: “Yeah. That would make sense.” 

MR: “...but not from the whistleblowers themselves.”

ML: “Did David Grusch come up?”

MR: “Sorry?” 

ML: “Did David Grusch come up?”

MR: “I won't talk names.”

Matt Laslo: “Curious your thoughts, last week NASA announces this new office of UAPs, but at first they said, ‘We're not going to name the director publicly.’ What did you make of it? I kinda took it as a slap…”

Mike Rounds: “That kind of surprised me.” 

ML: “Right?” 

MR: “I wasn’t sure why they would do that, so—then they quickly walked it back…” 

ML: “And then they quickly walked it back…” 

MR: “Yeah. I don't know why they did that.” 

ML: “Because the sound and the fury I imagine it opened up.” 

MR: “Look, we can have discussions about UAPs. I think most people are more than willing. You know, my concern from the Department of Defense is, I just don't simply want our ongoing programs disrupted or limited because of additional scrutiny on what we are doing and what our adversaries are doing in some very unique programs. And these aren't new types of programs. They’re the types of programs that have always existed, stealth is a good example.”

ML: “Are you glad NASA is now taking this seriously? Are you going to work with him on it?”

MR: “I don't know if they're simply responding to public interest. I have not had an opportunity to talk to the NASA administrator about it.” 

ML: “Oh, you never worked with Nelson…”

MR: “Oh, yeah, I worked with him for a while. He was actually ranking member on the subcommittee for cyber. So no, we go back. I just haven't haven't seen him to have a conversation.”

ML: “You got a day job. Have you—I’ve heard some whispers that the House in the NDAA might try to take out some of the UAP language?” 

MR: “I haven't heard anything at all.”  

ML: “Premature?”

MR: “I haven't heard anything. We'll get into conference, then we’ll sit down and work through all that. Maybe some of the items, once they hear the logic behind it, maybe they'll come around on it.”  

ML: “But especially, your measure with Schumer—Schumer’s gonna fight for that one?”

MR: “Well, this is one that, I just simply don't want to lose whatever historical data we've got out there, and, you know, just by happenstance it got lost in a warehouse someplace or lost in a filing cabinet someplace or just simply misplaced. So it would be better if we directed that data on this particular item of interest be put into a single filing location.” 

ML: “Do you think the Senate has a really strong case to make to the House?” 

MR: “I hope so. I mean, at least let's focus on this so that folks that do have a concern about it, so we can at least show them a place where they can go to get good information on some of this stuff.” 

Matt Laslo: “Well, I’m curious, do you know—have you heard anything about NDDA negotiations with the UAP provisions?”  

Mike Rounds: “Yeah.” 

ML: “Are you on the conference committee?”

MR: “Yeah.”

ML: “I think I saw that.”

MR: “Yeah.” 

ML: “Did [NDAA] kind of take a backseat during the three week, like, Speaker-shutdown?”

MR: “I think lots of things took a backseat.”

ML: “Yeah. Because we haven’t really heard about it? Have you guys met?” 

MR: “It’s a—look, the UAP thing, I think it's something that we want to be able to control. And to have a long-term plan to be able to gather data.”

Sen. Rounds engages in a colloquy with Sen. Schumer about the passage of the 2024 NDAA and the House stripping provisions from the UAP Disclosure Act:

Rounds: "Thank you and I thank my colleague, the Democrat leader, for the opportunity to speak to this particular issue today. This is an issue that I think has caught the attention of the American people and most certainly the lack of transparency on the matter, which is of real interest to a lot of the folks that have watched from the outside. It brings together, I think, a notable parallel in the withholding of information about items that are in the government's possession regarding, in this particular case, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. That same approach by government in terms of the possible withholding of information, brings more questions and more attention to the issue of the assassination.

We wanted to take that same approach with regard to how we could dispel myths, misinformation about UAPs, about unidentified flying objects, unidentified objects that simply have come to the attention of the American people. Congress did pass legislation 30 years ago requiring the review and release of all records relating to that historic tragedy, the assassination of John Kennedy, which has led to the release of a great deal of information. The UAP Disclosure Act was closely modeled on the JFK Records Act."

"Agree, sir. And I think probably the most significant shortcomings that I think we need to visit about as well, shortcomings of the conference committee agreement that are now being voted on, where the rejection, first of all, of a government-wide review board composed of expert citizens -- presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed -- to control the process of reviewing the records and recommending to the President what records should be released immediately or postponed, and a requirement as a transparency measure for the government to obtain any recovered UAP material or biological remains that may have been provided to private entities in the past and thereby hidden from Congress and the American people. We are lacking oversight opportunities and we are not fulfilling our responsibilities."

"I agree with my friend and colleague to those who think that the Citizen Review Board that would've been created in our UAP Disclosure Act - that it would be unprecedented and somehow would go too far. We note that the proposed Review Board was very closely modeled on the review board, established in the JFK Assassination Records Act of 1992, which has successfully guided the release of records to the American public on another very sensitive matter of high interest to the American people. And it does one more thing that we really need to recognize, and that is that there is, we believe information and data that has been collected by more than just the Department of Defense, but by other agencies of the federal government as well. And by allowing for an outside independent collection of these records, we can make progress in terms of dispelling myths and providing accurate information to the American people."

Matt Laslo: Who do you make the changes to your UAP amendment?"

Mike Rounds: "It's not what we wanted, but it's a step in the right direction and it brings attention to the need for additional transparency. I would really like to have the commission and if we can negotiate on the commission, that's fine in terms of who is on it, but I think an independent commission is still the best way to go."

ML: "Do you know who pulled the levers? Was it Chair Turner?"

MR: "I don't. I had talked to them and I know there's some concerns, but I don't know if the concerns were such that it would stop it. So I honestly don't know where the actual stop was at within the process."

ML: "Going forward, how do you plan-- or you could watch implementation, keep your eyes on AARO and then potentially tweak it next year's NDAA?"

MR: "Here's the deal, and AARO is a part of DOD. Well, this goes beyond DOD. This requires attention or cooperation by other agencies as well. And that's the reason why we want it separated out, is we want it to be all encompassing."

... But that's the reason why we want it to be all encompassing. And AARO is working, but AARO is just for DOD and while they're collecting items, they're not really disseminating items. And so we would like to have some transparency, but we also want to make darn sure that we protect our national security interests as well."

“We want a central location where all of this data could be kept,”

“Right now, the Department of Defense has some of it, the Department of Energy has some of it, other departments may very well too. There has not ever been anything put out before creating a centralized collection location.”

Matt Laslo: “Hey, are you working with Schumer and his team on amending your guys’ UAP amendment from NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] last year?”

Mike Rounds: “We’re still — not a lot of activity on right now.”

ML: “Yeah?”

MR: “Doesn’t mean there’s no activity, but it’s nothing that we’re specifically going in and sitting down and changing language yet.”

ML: “Would you like to see changes though?”

MR: “Umm, the reality is that we’ll have to work with the House to find out what their concerns are and we’ll have to address them.”

ML: “Do you fully know those concerns or where they are coming from? Was it Armed Services Committee or was it from House Intel [Committee]?”

MR: “Well, that’s a really good question.”

ML: “Yeah?”

Laslo laughs.

MR: “I think there are some individuals that had some concerns — and actually some of their concerns with regard to privacy and confidentiality are valid — but we’ll do our best to work with them and get something done.”

ML: “It hasn’t quite percolated up yet?”

MR: “No, it has not.”

Matt Laslo: “Have you been able to check out that AARO report?”

Mike Rounds: “I have made arrangements to get the complete version, so that I can read it.”

ML: “Yeah? You get the good one.”

MR: “Yeah. So I'm gonna wait and read the classified one.”

Rounds laughs.

ML: “Yeah? Oh, I would too. That's the fun part of being on Intel. Do you or have you talked to — or tried to talk to — the new interim director, Timothy Phillips?”

MR: “I have not yet.”

ML: “Yeah?”

MR: “Just time and with us running everything else it’s been, required courses first, which is the appropriations stuff. And then we'll look at these other items that we're working on as well.”

ML: “Has there been any talk about your guys UAP amendment yet in the NDAA?”

MR: “No.”

ML: “Or still…?”

MR: “Nothing at this stage of the game, just because we're so early in the process, ya know. We’re going through…”

ML: “And government shutdowns hanging over everything. It's a weird start to this Congress.”

Rounds is now at the vehicle waiting outside the Capitol to take him to the airport.

MR: “So it’s a matter of priorities right now and putting it in the proper sequence, but we have an interest in pursuing some things yet.”

Matt Laslo: “Hey, did you see that Joint Chiefs of Staff statement — they sent out something last May — about all these UAP sightings? Kind of — you don’t look familiar with it?”

Mike Rounds: “I’m trying to think of which one it was. I mean, I’ve been watching the UAP stuff pretty carefully, but I’m trying to place which one you’re…”

ML: “Well, it just surprised me, because it’s on the Joint Chiefs’ radar. What do you make of that? Like, has…”

MR: “Well, I’m not sure which one it is. Fill me in a little bit more — the Joint Chiefs?”

ML: “Well, it’s from last May, and it seemed like they were…”

MR: “Last May?”

Rounds laughs

ML: “Yeah, that seemed like they were trying to facilitate…”

Rounds still laughing.

MR: “I’m missing it. I’m sorry.”

ML: “But it seemed like they were trying to facilitate what AARO was doing, and they just kind of mentioned that they’ve seen a spike. Like, how worried are you that we still are having these sightings over sensitive US military infrastructure?”

MR: “Well, let me share. Here’s — look, I sit on Armed Services. I sit on Intel. I care about the UAP issues, okay?”

ML: “Yeah.”

MR: “As near as I can tell based on everything I’ve been able to glean so far, the biggest concern that we should have is either our very sensitive programs being opened up or other countries’ very sensitive programs being actively engaged. Both of which would be of concern to me. So far it’s a matter of, let’s make sure that we don’t disclose what we actually have capabilities for in our investigations.

Second of all, if there are some items out there that are not ours, where are all those capabilities coming from? Which other country may very well have them, and what are we doing to counter them? Those are the — there’s always the possibility that we haven’t figured out where all of this stuff is coming from. If we can’t answer ’em, those are the two things that I worry about: is that we either expose one of our very sensitive programs or we’ve got an adversary who’s got a very unique one that we haven’t been able to explain yet.”

ML: “With the Pentagon having a nearly trillion-dollar budget, like, how do they not address this? How’s this been a persistent problem?”

MR: “Well, if it’s ours, they may not want to address it.”

Matt Laslo: “Do you remember the name ‘David Grusch’? The UFO whistleblower?”

Mike Rounds: “Yeah. Yeah.”

ML: “One of your House colleagues — a House Republican — wants to hire him on their staff so that he can help them with their investigations into SAPs — Special Access Programs. What do you make of that?”

MR: “I don't think there was anything that disqualified him from that. And we most certainly don't ask the House who they should hire and they don't ask us.”

Rounds laughs.

ML: “Yeah. Well it seems like, over here — it just seems like they’re doing a full-throated investigation into something very different over there. Looking into, like, extraterrestrial life or hidden programs. But it seems like over here, you guys are very focused on foreign nations and potential drone intrusions, stuff like that, or special development…?”

MR: “Y’know, I mean, look, we're recognizing that there are things that are difficult to explain sometimes, and our biggest concern is for national defense purposes: what are they? Where are they from? And the natural suggestion is they may very well be either ours or an adversary's. We do not want to get into a position of exposing any one of our very sensitive programs, but we're not sure where they're coming from. So, if the House wants to include specific language — we tried to and the House was…”

ML: “Are you read in on every program?”

MR: “Well, you never know if you’re read in or not.”

ML: “But the US contractors, there could be something that you don’t know?”

Rounds is now on the tram underneath the US Capitol. The doors bang closed, but he’s still wrapping up his conversation just out of mic range, so Laslo’s repeating each word he says.

ML: “‘Who knows’? Never know — ‘you never know.’”

Rounds nods and smiles — affirming he said ‘you never know’ — as the automatic tram pulls away.

Rounds: "There's no conspiracy here to hide anything. We just want to get the facts out....There are some things that we just simply have not explained. And it might be simply because not every department in our government knows what other departments are doing."

Matt Laslo: “Have you talked to Gillibrand? She met with Timothy Phillips over at AARO.”

Rounds — a former governor — flashes his blank poker face. Laslo’s unclear whether he understands the question, so he rephrases it.

ML: “Have you reached out to the interim director at AARO?”

MR: “I've met with the folks from AARO, yeah.”

ML: “Yeah? How long — recently?”

MR: “Oh, a month ago.”

ML: “Oh, yeah?”

Rounds nods affirmatively.

ML: “How's it feel? Cause I know after Kirkpatrick left…”

MR: “I actually think that they’re — from what I can see — I think, they're getting invited into areas where they're getting access to more and more information.”

ML: “Interesting.”

MR: “Which is good.”

ML: “Yeah.”

MR: “I don't know if we've solved the problem of the silos that you find within DOD [Department of Defense] where everything is so secretive at the special access level, between the IC community and the DOD community, in general, that there is not a lot of overlap between folks who see the different programs. And, I think, AARO is recognizing that. And I think they're probably going to be able to shed some light without threatening national security with some of the information.”

ML: “Yeah? Has it just been Pentagon? Not Department of Energy or…?”

MR: “There's — you know, it's more IC and Pentagon is where a lot of the special projects are at.”

ML: “Yeah?”

MR: “And, you know what? Every nation has these projects.”

ML: “Yeah?”

MR: “So — but it's a matter of not giving away your technical capabilities. And that's the part that I was concerned with, is that I didn't want to give away technical capability just to explain to somebody why what they think they've seen is — they might not be able to have an explanation for it, but there is an explanation for it in some cases.”

ML: “Are you confident that Congress now knows of every SAP?”

MR: “No.”

ML: “No?”

MR: “I'm not confident yet.”

ML: “Yeah?”

MR: “Yeah.”

ML: “Are you confident that AARO is on the hunt?”

MR: “I am. I think the preponderance of the evidence is that AARO is on the hunt.”

ML: “Yeah?”

MR: “Time will tell whether or not they are successful in actually getting into and asking the right questions. I think part of it is is, you have to ask the right questions to the right people in the right setting in order to get an answer.”

ML: “Some whistleblowers still don't trust AARO…”

MR: “Yes. I understand.”

ML: “Do they understand that?”

MR: “Yeah, I mean…”

ML: “Yeah?”

MR: “Well, you know, I'm not saying that I have full confidence in it. I'm just saying, right now, the evidence is that they're trying hard and that they seem to be making some inroads, but time will tell and we're not going to let up on our interest in it. Hopefully, we're successful in maybe answering some of those questions.”

ML: “Is your UAP amendment with Schumer — are we going to see a redux of that or…?”

MR: “Uhhh.”

ML: “…tweaks to it?”

MR: “Tweaks. But I can't talk much more than that about it.”

ML: “But the talks have started?”

MR: “Oh yeah, oh yeah.”

ML: “‘Oh yeah’? I asked you a month ago and there was none.”

MR: “There’s some work being done.”

Matt Laslo: "Have you talked to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) about the UAP hearing she’s planning with AARO?"

Mike Rounds: “I haven’t, not recently,”

ML: "Any talks on your amendment with Schumer?"

MR: "Nothing new."

Matt Laslo: "Any updates on the tweaks in your UAPDA amendment with Schumer?"

Mike Rounds: "No not a whole lot of anything there, just simply continuing to move forward and we'll see where it goes."

ML: "Cause that wasn't really debated at all, that issue in the House NDAA this year. Do you think there's appetite for it over here?"

MR: "We just gotta clarify what our goals on it are, and I think we can work through that. Bottom line is nobody is trying to release information on classified programs that would help our adversaries. That's not our goal. I think more openness in terms of what we can talk about can help clarify that maybe there's nothing to be afraid of out there."