Rubio, Marco (R-FL)

Senator Rubio, who was appointed Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in May, adds UAP mandates to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. The report begins:  

“The Committee supports the efforts of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force at the Office of Naval Intelligence to standardize collection and reporting on unidentified aerial phenomenon, any links they have to adversarial foreign governments, and the threat they pose to U.S. military assets and installations. However, the Committee remains concerned that there is no unified, comprehensive process within the Federal Government for collecting and analyzing intelligence on unidentified aerial phenomena, despite the potential threat.”

This legislation triggers the writing of a detailed preliminary report on UAP by the UAPTF, due to Congress by the end of June 2021.

Senator Rubio, as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, formally requests a UAP briefing by the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Pentagon’s OUSD(I). Scott Bray presents the briefing. In an internal Navy email reporting on outcomes of the briefing, Rubio is classified as a “UAP Advocate.” 

DeFede: Are we alone [in the universe]? 

Rubio: [chuckle] Here’s the interesting thing for me about all this, and the reason why I think this is an important topic. And that is, we have things flying over our military bases and places where we are conducting military exercises, and we don’t know what it is, and it isn’t ours. So that’s a legitimate question to ask. I would say that if it’s something from outside this planet, that might actually be better than if we’ve seen some technological leap on behalf of the Chinese or the Russians, or some other adversary that allows them to conduct themselves in this activity. 

But the bottom line is there are things flying over your military bases, and you don’t know what they are, because they’re not yours, and they exhibit potentially technologies that you don’t have at your own disposal, that to me is a national security risk, and one that we should be looking into. And so that’s the premise that I begin with. 

DeFede: …you’re not using the phrase Unidentified Flying Objects. You have another euphemism for it, Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. 

Rubio: I didn’t come up with that. That’s the one that the military uses internally, and ultimately that’s the one we used. The Office of Naval Intelligence–this has impacted the Navy for the most part. I’ve seen reports on this now for the better part of a decade. Other countries have seen similar reports. But our perspective is, there is someone flying in our airspace that no one else is allowed to fly in, and we don’t know who it is, and it isn’t something we have. We need to know what that is. I don’t know why we wouldn’t want to know what it is. Maybe there is a completely boring explanation for it, but we need to find out. That’s really what we’re asking about. And we’re asking them to make public, as much as possible, that information. None of that really fits into the mold of classified per se.

DeFede: So what’s your gut? Are we alone in the universe, or is there something else out there?

Rubio: I don’t have a gut feeling about it. It’s a phenomenon. It’s unexplained. I just want to know what it is. And if we can’t determine what it is, then that is a fact point we need to take into account. I wouldn’t venture to speculate beyond that.  

Rubio: For me the whole thing was this, and that’s why we put that language in there, people want space aliens, for me, there’s stuff flying over military installations, and no one knows what it is, and it isn’t ours. So for me, that’s logical, you want to know what it is, that’s common sense, if stuff is flying over the top of our most sensitive installations, it’s not our and no one knows what it is, you should find out what it is and tell us.

TMZ: “Who is the bigger threat right now? People say China’s a big threat, but shouldn’t we also be worried about what’s outside in the universe?”

Rubio: “Ahh I wouldn’t… Take it one step at a time, you know what I mean. I’m not saying that’s what it’s all about. Like I told you, I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to what it is, but it’s stuff that is there. ”

TMZ: “Everyone thinks we’re the smartest out there in the Universe. Are the aliens possibly smarter than what we are right now?”

Rubio: “Uh…well, if they made it all the way here they probably are, yeah. They’re probably more advanced. If they can get here and we can’t get there, that tells you they’re more advanced. But I don’t know there are aliens, I don’t know if they’ve ever visited here, I’m not, you know. When you talk about that stuff, everybody gets, you know, gets stigmatized about it, nobody wants to sound weird. My thing is very simple: We don’t know what that stuff is that’s flying over the top of our installations. Let’s find out. Maybe it’s another country and that would be bad news, too.”

TMZ: “But let’s just say, hypothetically, if somebody comes down, there’s aliens, should Biden and should the government, should we try to be friendly with these folks? Or should we look at them as…”

Rubio: “Oh, I don’t know, man. I’m thinking, we have so many problems going on as it is, that would be one a heck of way to top the last year and half.”

Rubio: “We have to try to know what it is,” the Florida Republican said. “Maybe there’s a logical explanation. Maybe it’s foreign adversaries who made a technological leap?”

Rubio also held up the prospect that agencies will need more time to complete the report.

Rubio: “I’m not sure they are going to come in on time,” he said. “I’m not sure by June 1 they have reached a hard conclusion about what they are dealing with and there may be more questions, or new questions, than full answers …”

Rubio: “I can tell you it is being taken more seriously now that it ever has been.”

Rubio: "Anything that enters an airspace that's not supposed to be there is a threat."

Whitaker: "After receiving classified briefings on UAPs, Senator Marco Rubio called for a detailed analysis this past December. While he was still head of the Intelligence Committee. He asked the Director of National Intelligence and the Pentagon to present Congress an unclassified report by next month.

"This is a bizarre issue. The Pentagon and other branches of the military have a long history of dismissing this. What makes you think that this time's going to be different?"

Rubio: "I mean, we're going to find out when we get that report. There's a stigma on Capitol Hill. I mean, some of my colleagues are very interested in this topic and some kind of giggle when you bring it up, but I don't think we can allow the stigma to keep us from having an answer to very fundamental question."

Whitaker: "What do you want us to do about this?"

Rubio: "I want us to take it seriously and have a process to take it seriously. I want us to have a process to analyze the data every time it comes in, that there be a place where this is cataloged and constantly analyzed until we get some answers. Maybe it has a very simple answer, maybe it doesn't.

Rubio Statement on UAP Report:

“For years, the men and women we trust to defend our country reported encounters with unidentified aircraft that had superior capabilities, and for years their concerns were often ignored and ridiculed,” Rubio said.

“This report is an important first step in cataloging these incidents, but it is just a first step. The Defense Department and Intelligence Community have a lot of work to do before we can actually understand whether these aerial threats present a serious national security concern.”

Senator Rubio releases a statement on the passage of the UAP amendment in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act.

Rubio:

“It is my hope that the creation of a new joint Defense Department and Intelligence Community office focused on UAPs will provide the resources, analytics and attention needed to determine what is loitering around our military training ranges,”

“The DoD and IC need to ensure a more uniform collection strategy is in place and that we continue to destigmatize reporting on UAPs, particularly from military aviators. Significantly, we also maintain the transparency and accountability that my provision in last year’s Intelligence Authorization Act report provided, by ensuring ongoing unclassified reporting.” 

In April the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees received the first UAP briefing required by the 2022 NDAA. Some members, including Senators Rubio and Gillibrand and Representative Burchett, used a Politico article to publicize their displeasure with the content of the briefing and the slow speed at which the new UAP office is being stood up:    

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the intelligence panel, also believes the Pentagon is not aggressively carrying out Congress’ direction.

“Rubio is definitely frustrated,” said one of the senator’s aides, who was not authorized to speak publicly. “They are not moving fast enough, not doing enough, not sharing enough.”

The second annual report on unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) has been submitted to congressional intelligence and armed services committees. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), praised the report and called for more transparency.
 

• “We are making important progress in our ongoing efforts to understand these activities and what threat they may pose to America’s national security. The report highlights 510 UAP national security incidents reported since 2004, a significant increase from the 144 in the 2021 report. It highlights the reason for standing up the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) to lead the whole-of-government effort.
  
  
• “However, more needs to be done across the Defense Department and Intelligence Community to utilize existing sensors to collect and analyze more data on UAPs. I am committed to ensuring we get to the truth for the American people.” — Senator Rubio

 
The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to submit a report to congressional intelligence and armed services committees on UAP. Rubio added the requirement to the committee report language during his tenure as acting chair of the SSCI.

Tweet about recent shoot-downs of balloons:

“The last 72 hours revealed to the public what has happening for years,unidentified aircraft routinely operating over restricted U.S. airspace This is why I pushed to take this seriously & created a permanent UAP task force two years ago

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/544933-rubio-on-pentagons-ufo-report-theres-stuff-flying-over-military-installations/"

Tweet:

"The issue of unidentified objects over U.S. air space isn’t about 👽

It’s always been about how someone is flying something over places they aren’t allowed

And they are neither new nor limited to the U.S.

What has changed is that now we finally started tracking them"

Senator Rubio records a statement before classified briefing on balloon shoot-downs:

“This is pretty extraordinary. This is not just a curiosity or any weird stuff about UFOs and aliens. For the first time in 65 years the United States has shot something down over our airspace, not once but four times, and three of those four things we have no idea what they are, and people deserve to know what they are. … We need to understand why we did it, and what these things are, where they come from, who owns them, who made them, and why are they here. Perhaps the explanation is easy, and maybe not. 

This is a topic I’ve been on for a long time. This is not new. It may sound new, but it really isn’t. We have been seeing objects flying over restricted airspace in the United States for a long time now. No one took it seriously because immediately it was about UFOs and flying saucers and aliens, and that’s not my concern. My concern is that some other country has developed a capability to monitor and enter our airspace and that we are not prepared to identify it because … we’re looking for airplanes, we’re looking for missiles, we’re not looking for objects that don’t fit that criteria. And strategic surprise is the way a lot of wars start and it’s they way a lot of wars and conflicts are lost.”

Tweet:

"Last year @DoD_AARO had 171 unexplained UAP reports, many eerily similar to descriptions of the ones this past weekend & some with “unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities”

The only thing “new” about this weekend is 3 were shot down 

https://dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-2022-Annual-Report-UAP.pdf"

After the classified briefing, Senator Rubio said this in a press interview:

WE KNOW WHAT THE SPY BALLOON WAS. THE OTHER THREE INSTANCES, AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED, BOTH PUBLICLY AND IN THERE, ARE NOT NEW. WE HAVE HEARD THE EXACT SAME DESCRIPTIONS IN HUNDREDS OF CASES, SO OBSERVING UNIDENTIFIED OBJECTS OVER U.S. AIRSPACE, PARTICULARLY OVER SENSITIVE AREAS OF THE COUNTRY IS NOT NEW. WHAT WE HEARD AND THEIR SOUNDS JUST LIKE THE STORIES WE HAVE HEARD REPEATEDLY. THAT IS WHY AN AGENCY WAS CREATED TO STUDY ALL OF THIS FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE. MY CONCERN NOW IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IS NOT SHARING THAT INFORMATION WITH THOSE SCIENTISTS SO THAT YOU CAN COMPARE THE DATA WE HAVE ON THESE FROM THE ONES WE HAVE RETROACTIVELY IN THE PAST. SOME OF WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED. SO THAT WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. I THINK THERE IS A STIGMA ASSOCIATED WITH IT, because of space aliens and all that stuff. This is now about that. THIS IS ABOUT AN ADVERSARY DEVELOPING CAPABILITIES THAT THEY KNOW WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR. because our systems are set up to see missiles and airplanes. They are not set up to see smaller objects at lower altitudes. …

We have hundred and hundreds of these over the years. The report that was issued by the Department of National Intelligence earlier this year LISTS OVER 500 SUCH CASES, DOZENS THIS YEAR ALONE. THE QUESTION HAS TO BE, WHY ARE THEY SETTING UP A NEW TASK Force? MAKE THIS DATA AVAILABLE, SO YOU CAN CROSS-REFERENCE IT AND COMPARE IT TO THE OTHER HUNDREDS OF CASES THAT WE HAVE. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU WILL BEGIN TO GET ANSWERS. I IMAGINE SOME OF THESE WILL HAVE EXPLANATIONS, OTHERS WILL BE MORE COMPLICATED. I IMAGINE SOME WILL BE CRAFTS THAT ARE LAUNCHED BY A COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL, AND OTHERS MAY NOT BE. THEY MAY BE NATION STATES THAT HAVE DEVELOPED SOME RUDIMENTARY CAPABILITY that can COLLECT INTELLIGENCE or test aerospace defense of the United States I AM SPECULATING. THAT IS WHY WE WANT THIS TO BE HANDLED FROM A DATA AND SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE. But it begins by using what Congress created for them, and so far it appears they’re not using that. …

WHAT BOTHERS ME THE MOST IS THAT EVERYONE IS ACTING LIKE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME we’ve ever seen these things, and so we reacted that way. NO, IT ISN’T. WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF HUNDREDS OF CASES REPORTED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR years. And THERE IS A PROCESS SET UP TO ANALYZE THESE. And this data should be a part of that process immediately. Not a year from now. Not six months from now. Righty away, SO WE CAN CROSS COMPARE TO THE PREVIOUS INSTANCES AND GET SOME ANSWERS FASTER THAN WE WOULD OTHERWISE….

The alien origin? I don’t know what we could do about that. I would almost hope it is, at some point. Because if this is the Chinese or the Russians or someone’s invented a capability that we can’t monitor, that sounds like a big problem. …

I THINK WHAT THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT has THE PROCESS IN PLACE TO ANALYZE THESE THINGS IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS US TO GET CLOSER TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH. I AM CONCERNED THAT IS NOT THE PROCESS THAT IS IN PLACE. THAT WE HAVE NOW CREATED A BRAND new process HEADED BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING PROCESS that is staffed with scientists and experts WHO HAVE ALREADY COLLECTED ON HUNDREDS OF PREVIOUS INCIDENCES almost identical to this one AND can use this data from this incident to compare to those and begin to get us closer to answers about whose flying this stuff here and what is it doing here.

Senators Rubio and Gillibrand draft a formal request for more AARO funding and a briefing:

“AARO 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. AARO’s success will depend on robust funding for its activities and cooperation between the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. As such, we respectfully request your assistance in securing the necessary funding and organizational support for AARO’s success and longevity.”

“The amount outlined in the classified attachment is crucial to AARO’s scientific plan, and the lack of funding for these capabilities presents a serious impediment to AARO’s mission.”

“In addition to securing necessary funding, we request a briefing from your offices on your agencies’ plan to implement the dual reporting of AARO to the leadership of the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. … The briefing should cover the balance between Intelligence Community and Department of Defense involvement, including how Title 10 and Title 50 authorities will be delegated to, and exercised by, the Director of AARO. We see it as essential that AARO’s activities are not viewed or managed as solely an intelligence activity.”

Letter to Secretary of Defense Austin:

"Although this correspondence is focused primarily on the Chinese HAB, we are equally disappointed with the Department’s lack of transparency when it comes to the unprecedented shoot down of three UAP over Alaska, Northern Canada, and Lake Huron. We are aware NORAD was actively tracking UAP over Northern Alaska as early as February 1 prior to the Department updating radar parameters. We were never informed about the Department scrambling fighters to Northern Alaska to address IUAP observed on February 1. Despite sixth generation sensor suites supported by ISR, U2, and AWACS, the Committees have seen zero data and reviewed few details about the UAP shoot downs."

"The other one, and I'll be even briefer on this one, but I think is also important to us is, you know, we had a Chinese balloon go across the middle of the United States. It wasn't a weather balloon. Everybody acknowledges that it was a collection platform. We've had very little information or data provided to us. And in particular, no one's even truly informed us what role the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, AARO, has played in that regard. Again, I don't know what--maybe this is because it's a DOD/Intelligence Committee sort of overlap or whatever it is. These are things that we need answers to and we just--to think about how important that was and how little information has been provided to the Committees, particularly to this one, is something that I hope you will also take back as concern number two, in this regard.

Now on the topic that we're on today, I think it's a pretty straightforward one, and that is we need to be able to hire good people to come in and work for the Government. We need to know who they are. I think this is a challenge because the backlog builds up. There's been improvement after the 2016 DOD system was implemented.

But obviously, that doesn't apply to all of the IC. I think there are some issues with one agency not reciprocating the other. And then there's this--and I'm not saying it's unnecessary--but this Byzantine system of read into some programs, but not others. All of the different layers of compartments, and so forth."

Senators Rubio and Warner submit a letter to Defense Secretary Austin, complaining about slow implementation of some AARO mandates: transferring management of AARO to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Principal Deputy Director National Intelligence; the appointment of an AARO deputy director; a request that Congress be informed of all of AARO’s witness interviews; a secure public-facing website to collect more witness testimony; AARO’s communication strategy for more robust public engagement.

"Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts with regard to unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). Understanding your views helps me to better represent Florida in the United States Senate, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Dozens of men and women entrusted with the defense of our country have reported encounters with UAPs over restricted U.S. military installations. This is a great concern and I remain committed to finding answers. In some cases, these objects seem to be evidence of technological advancements unknown to our military officials. Rather than speculate as to the nature of these objects. I rely on investigations by our military and intelligence community officials. Furthermore, my Senate colleagues and I view the inability to accurately identify these phenomena entering our airspace as a major vulnerability for U.S. national security. It is important that the U.S. government rid itself of the stigmas attached to UAP and refine its processes to report, analyze data, and arrive at answers.

The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 202/ (S. 3905), signed into law in December 2020, required the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and other agency heads, to submit to Congress an unclassified report on UAP by June 2021. On June 25, 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued their report on UAPs, representing an important first step in cataloging incidents raised by both military and civilian personnel. The report indicated that there was insufficient evidence to make a conclusive judgment about the phenomenon and that inconsistencies in the previous reporting further challenged their assessments. The report further highlighted the importance of developing relevant processes, policies, and other means for U.S. military and civilian personnel to identify and report instances of encounters with UAP.

Most recently, I worked with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to successfully include an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (P.L. 117-81), that would replace the current Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force with a new office, administered jointly by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence. This office will significantly improve data-sharing between agencies on UAP sightings, help address national security concerns, and report health effects people may experience in relation to UAP events. On July 20, 2022, this office, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) was created.

As Congress conducts oversight of AARO, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that the office remains committed to finding solutions to the challenging task of addressing what UAP means for our nation's security.I remain committed to ensuring AARO has the resources it needs to conduct their important work.

It is an honor and a privilege to serve you as your United States Senator. As Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I will keep your thoughts in mind as I consider these issues and continue working to ensure America remains a safe and prosperous nation."

Senator Rubio co-sponsors the Schumer/Rounds UAP Disclosure Act:

“There is a lot we still don’t know about these UAPs and that is a big problem. We’ve taken some important steps over the last few years to increase transparency and reduce stigmas, but more needs to be done. This is yet another step in that direction, and one that I hope will spur further cooperation from the executive branch.”

Matt Laslo: “Do you have any questions lingering for the whistleblower?”

Marco Rubio: “Um, do I have any questions?”

ML: “Do you think he classifies as a whistleblower?”

MR: “Well, the inspector general has deemed it an urgent and credible threat to the…so that’s how it’s been referred to us, so I have no reason…”

ML: “Yeah? So you’re taking it credibly? Do you want to hear from him and others—behind closed doors? In the open?”

MR: “Well, we’ve begun that process. Obviously, it’s up to the chairman [Mark Warner] to decide what direction to go, but I know we’ve already begun that process. I think, he’s interviewed with staff already, so.”

ML: “What do you think of the notion that there are SAPs hidden from Congress?”

MR: “Those claims have been made for years, and that’s certainly something we’d be very disturbed by—and that’s what the gist of the whistleblower’s claim is, that there are programs that should have been notified to Congress that were not. So we’re gonna be interested in that no matter what the topic is.”

ML: “And that’s kinda new compared to others in the past?”

MR: “Well, we’ve heard those claims in the past. This is the first one that’s gone through this process.”

Matt Laslo: “Do you have any questions lingering for the whistleblower?”

Marco Rubio: “Um, do I have any questions?”

ML: “Do you think he classifies as a whistleblower?”

MR: “Well, the inspector general has deemed it an urgent and credible threat to the…so that’s how it’s been referred to us, so I have no reason…”

ML: “Yeah? So you’re taking it credibly? Do you want to hear from him and others—behind closed doors? In the open?”

MR: “Well, we’ve begun that process. Obviously, it’s up to the chairman [Mark Warner] to decide what direction to go, but I know we’ve already begun that process. I think, he’s interviewed with staff already, so.”

ML: “What do you think of the notion that there are SAPs hidden from Congress?”

MR: “Those claims have been made for years, and that’s certainly something we’d be very disturbed by—and that’s what the gist of the whistleblower’s [David Grusch] claim is, that there are programs that should have been notified to Congress that were not. So we’re gonna be interested in that no matter what the topic is.”

ML: “And that’s kinda new compared to others in the past?”

MR: “Well, we’ve heard those claims in the past. This is the first one that’s gone through this process.”

ML: “Interesting.”

Senator Rubio’s Interview with News Nation:

So I want to start off with some UAP news and then we'll move on to Russia. But I would like to begin with the whistleblower story. David Grusch, who I know you are familiar with. I'm just wondering generally yes or no, you find his allegations that he has made are credible.

Well, I think more importantly, the Inspector General has referred it to Congress. We have a law for whistleblower, so they go to the Inspector general of the intelligence community, and then they have an obligation if they find it to be an urgent concern, credible and urgent concern, their job is to refer it to Congress and they have done so. Obviously there isn't anything formal we need to do, although I know we have spoken to him and are familiar with much of his testimony, which of course we're not at this moment because it's a whistleblower investigation. We really can't talk about in detail. Although he has talked about it quite detail. And the gist of any whistleblower testimony is that the intelligence agencies are doing something wrong, and in his case, and this has been publicly reported, the argument is that what they're doing wrong is they are not appropriately disclosing to Congress money that has been spent on programs and the like.

(01:13)
Now, I want to caution everybody that under the law you have to have firsthand knowledge. That doesn't mean the person isn't telling the truth, but it simply means that technically, as a technicality, if you don't have firsthand knowledge of what you are claiming, so I can say that someone told me that someone did something wrong and I have good reason to believe it because I heard it from a lot of different people and they're saying the same thing, but unless you yourself have firsthand knowledge of it, sometimes you get caught in technicality. That doesn't mean that the things he is saying are not useful to Congress. And I would put it to people this way. There are one or two things here are true. Either what he's saying is partially true or entirely true - or, we have some really smart, educated people with high clearances and very important positions in our government who are crazy and are leading us on a goose chase. One of these two things is true. Either what they're telling us is true, or we've got some people in important positions that are doing this for some reason. So either one is a problem. We got to figure this out, we can't ignore it.

Well, the reason his story is getting so much attention is because the nature of his allegations are that the government maintains we have a UAP retrieval program that in its possession has multiple aircraft that are not made by humans. I mean, what are we to make of that? The public that has to hear that?

Well, two things. Either it's not true - and I'm not claiming it is, and I'm not besmirching him or anybody else because, we passed the law to make it possible for people like this to come forward. Remember, a lot of these people sign these non-disclosure agreements and they're fearful of ever commenting because they think it's punishable by death. So we passed a law that basically said, you can come forward and talk to Congress or the UAP task force. So I don't want to say that anybody's not telling the truth. I understand that this is something that sounds fantastic and out of the ordinary. I would just say if it's even partially true, then somebody's broken the law. There's been some violations because these things have to be disclosed to Congress. I mean, Congress has been paying for it and probably for a long time. I am not in a position to tell you right now whether it's true or not true.

(03:17)
What I'm in a position to tell you is that people, and I think this is true, not just in this case, but going back to some of the things we've heard from Navy pilots, people who we entrusted to do some really important things for our country are saying some pretty incredible things that I think we have an obligation to take seriously and listen to because I don't think you go from being the commander of a naval fighting wing off an aircraft carrier to being some lunatic that's out to mislead the government. And there you have testimony from Navy pilots, things they've seen. So that's why this is something my biggest fear in all this, frankly, and I'm not ruling anything out obviously, but my biggest fear is that some adversary has made a technological leap that would be really bad news and that we have been caught flatfooted on it. So we're taking it seriously. It's bipartisan, everyone's working on it. But look, this is a tough thing to dig into. There's a stigma associated with it, right? Nobody wants to be known as the UFO guy, but these are things that are important for us to understand.

I feel that sometimes when I ask you these questions.

Yeah, no, I get it. No, look, but I mean stuff is flying. What is undisputed is that there are things flying over restricted airspace, sensitive restricted airspace in the United States, and they claim it's not ours. That alone is reason to be looking at this stuff.

He also claims that AARO is not being read in that whatever this program is allegedly is keeping the people who are supposed to be dealing with it in the dark. It's not just about funding, it's about disclosure to AARO as well. Do you think that's realistic, or how problematic is that, if that's accurate?

Well, it's very problematic if it's accurate because if that is accurate, and again, I'm not in a position yet to make that judgment, but if that is accurate, what you're basically saying is that within the government of the United States, there's a group of people who believe that they possess something that they don't need to share with anybody, including elected officials who they view as temporary employees of the government, and in essence, some sort of an internal military complex that's their own government and it's accountable to no one. So it would be a huge problem if it's even partially true. So look, I think AARO and its director, Dr. Kirkpatrick, from everything I've seen up to this point is trying to do the best they can to gather. There's a lot of information. We gave him a mandate to go back to historical records on this.

(05:38)
We'll know I think in time, and I mean not 20 years from now, but over the next couple of years, whether in fact enough information is being shared and whether the analysis is being done and whether there's any impediments. And I certainly think we are getting more information now and more people coming forward than at any time in the history of our country about this and somewhere out there, I think we need to find answers because at the end of the day, these are activities should never be unsupervised. Anytime agencies of the federal government are unsupervised and do whatever they want, it's generally not a good outcome for the country.

I'm wondering how much interaction you've had on Senate intel with David Grusch himself and potentially how much interaction you all have had with the people who do have firsthand knowledge. Have you talked to anybody who he says, these are my sources, these are the guys that have actually seen firsthand aircraft? Have you talked to anybody?

And I'm not sure he's disclosed these individuals, at least not to us. And so again, because it's a whistleblower process, not just him but others, I'll say there are people that have come forward to share information with our committee over the last couple of years. I would imagine some of them are potentially some of the same people that perhaps he's referring to. I want to be very protective of these people. A lot of these people came to us even before these protections were in the law for whistleblowers to come forward. And a lot of them come,

Sorry, people who have had firsthand knowledge, who claim to have firsthand knowledge of seeing this type of thing?

Or have firsthand knowledge or firsthand claims of certain things. Some are public figures and you've heard from them in the past, others have not shared publicly. And so we're trying to gather as much of that information as we can. And the reason why I'm being cautious, I'm not trying to be evasive, but I'm trying to be protective of these people. Some of these people still work in the government and frankly, a lot of them are very fearful of their jobs, fearful of their clearances, fearful of their career, and some frankly are fearful of harm coming to them. And so I want to be very respectful of that because I don't want to discourage others from coming forward.

And I totally understand. I will never ask you to reveal a source to us, but I'm just wondering, just so I can a hundred percent clarify, you are saying that the people who would be whistleblowers because they would have firsthand knowledge of seeing these kind of aircraft or they claim that they have seen, those are the category of people you've heard from?

We've heard from people that are both in the service of our government, and some who used to serve in the past and some of whom publicly out there saying these things, sort of saying to us what they've seen out there in the public record, whether it's about legacy programs or about current events and things that are going on at this moment. Again, all of them have, in many cases, understanding the different elements of this firsthand. They may have heard some of the other pieces. And so I think for us, it's really important to sort of just gather information and understand this. But I think the more we know, the better. We are prepared to go down the right roads or in the right paths or ask the right questions. But we're still sort of in that phase where this is new to a lot of people and there's still a lot of people that I think are starting to edge towards coming forward and we hear maybe coming forward, but we're still trying to see how it plays out for the people that came forward first.

So that category of people who have firsthand knowledge who say they have actually seen these kinds of things, do you find many of them credible?

Well, I don't find them either not credible or credible because we have no basis. Understand, some of these claims are things that are beyond sort of the realm of what any of us has ever dealt with. What I think we owe 'em is just a mature listening and trying to put all these pieces together and just sort of intake the information without any prejudgment or jumping to any conclusions in one direction or another. I will say I find most of these people at some point, or maybe even currently, have held very high clearances and high positions within our government. So you do ask yourself what incentive - which so many people with that kind of qualification, these are serious people - have to come forward and make something up. And on the other hand, like I said, I mean extraordinary claims is something that requires a lot of work and to back up. And so I don't know the answer to it. I think when you're in a fact finding mission, you try not to prejudge anything. You're trying to take in information and you're trying not to rule anything out or jump to any conclusions because this is new to everybody, frankly. I mean, this is not what I thought I would be focused on when I ran for the US Senate, but here it is and it's I think a serious issue.

Yeah, I understand that. Okay, I'm going to wrap up this topic just with one more question and that is that you have co-sponsored an amendment to the Intel Authorization Act where you said within six months you want a comprehensive list of all non earth origin or exotic, unidentified anomalous phenomena material to make that available to Arrow within six months. Can you tell me about that amendment and just the need to bring it up?

Yeah, and I mean, Senator Gillibrand deserves a lot of credit. She's sort of been the one pursuing that. And then we want to be supportive of it. And I think the gist of it is, if in fact these claims that are out there are true. That information needs to be provided to the task force that we set up to both protect whatever national security equities are in place, and at the same time gain access to all of this. Now, if the answer that comes back is no such material exists, then obviously that goes par for the course because you've already seen some of the public statements, but to that effect. But I think when it's in the law, career people, people that are in the service of our government have to make a decision. Do I just basically ignore the law and the consequences that come with it?

(11:13)
No one's ever asked these questions before. This has always been the realm of science fiction. So I think we're simply responding to some of the things that we've seen come out in the public record and ensuring that we're doing everything we can to make sure that this entity we've created called AARO actually has access to information or materials. If in fact, they exist. Again, I can't tell you that they do or they don't. I don't know. I don't think anybody knows yet. That's probably the gist of all this is we're trying to find out the answer.

Senator Rubio interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Hannity: "You're on the Foreign Affairs Committee and you're really involved in foreign affairs. There's been a lot of articles lately about UFOs. I know this question is a little out there. Is there any truth to any of this?"

Rubio: "Well, we don't know. All I've said is we have people that have very high clearances, both today and in the past, who did really important work for our government, or continue to do important work for the government, who have come forward with some claims about the US having in the past recovered exotic materials and then reverse engineered those materials to make advances in our own defenses and technologies. That's the claim they make. Now, I don't know if those claims are true or not. What I do know is that one of two things is happening here. Either they're telling the truth, and that is something that obviously would be the biggest story in human history. Or we have people in really important positions of government who are crazy, and who are out there making up stories, and who are still in positions of importance. Either one is a big problem, so we've got to figure out which one of these two it is, because the second one in particular would be very troubling. But all we know is claims that people have made. These are credible people that have done and continue to do important work for the country, and by law we're required when they come forward as whistleblowers to take their claims seriously and to investigate, but we just don't know. That's the answer."

Rubio:

“There is a lot we still don’t know about these UAPs, and that is a big problem,” 

“We’ve taken some important steps over the last few years to increase transparency and reduce stigmas, but more needs to be done. This is yet another step in that direction and one that I hope will spur further cooperation from the executive branch."

Senator Rubio interviewed by The Hill:

Rubio:

“My primary interest in this topic is if there are … object[s] operating over restricted air space, it’s not ours and we don’t know whose it is, that’s a problem that we need to get to the bottom of,”

“If there’s an explanation for it that’s being kept from Congress, then we need to force the issue. We’re not getting answers,” 

“Right now, what I know is reliable people tell us that and we’ve seen objects operating over restricted military and national security airspace. They claim it’s not ours. They claim they don’t know whose it is. That’s like the definition of a national security threat,” he said.  

“Either there’s an answer that exists and is not being provided, or there is no answer. Beyond that, I don’t want to speculate anything,” he added. 

Rubio said he was familiar with the claims of David Grusch, a career intelligence officer who worked for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. He claims the federal government has retrieved “non-human origin technical vehicles” that have landed or crashed on Earth.  

Rubio: “We have a number of people including that gentleman [David Grusch] who have come forward both publicly and privately to make claims.  One of two things are true. Either A, they’re telling the truth or some version of the truth or B, we have a bunch of people with high clearances and really important jobs in our government are nuts. Both are a problem. And I’m not accusing these people of being nuts. That said, that’s something we’ll look at and continue to look at seriously,”

Rubio said “we don’t know” if such a program exists and what evidence it might have collected. 

“Without speculating or adding to intrigue about this whole topic, there’s no doubt that in this field, generally, there’s more than what we know,” he said. “We’re trying to get to a process where at least some people in Congress do know.” 

Asked why he suspects there’s more for Congress to know about UAPs, Rubio said “there’s pieces of puzzles that don’t fit.” 

“Most certainly there are elements of things, whether historic or current, that potentially Congress has not been kept fully informed of — and that would be a problem,” he said. “There’s really no function of the executive that shouldn’t require congressional oversight at some level.” 

Reporter scrum question on David Grusch testimony:

“I don’t believe it departed much from other claims. Yeah, look, I’m familiar with what he’s put out there... To be clear, he’s not claimed he has first hand knowledge. He’s claiming other people have told him that."

“We’re not ignoring it. We’re just trying to deal with it in a very different way. You have to bifurcate this issue. The stuff that they’re seeing over restricted airspace, which everyone admits is real and needs to be addressed. And then the stories about historic programs, I mean, I don’t know, if that’s even true that’s gonna take a long time to unpack. And I’m not ignoring that either.”

Q: "Are you getting answers on this stuff?"

Rubio: “No. We’re getting a lot of information, I'm not sure we’re getting a lot of answers yet, but these things take time.”

Marco Rubio: "No."

MR: "Well, I know our staff interviewed him and we have those transcripts, but we usually let the inspector general process play out first."

MR: "He notifies Congress. but their process is separate from ours."

MR: "I don't think, we generally don't begin our own process until the Inspector General finishes theirs. So if someone files a complaint, they have to deem it credible and they have to deem it an urgent concern and then they notify Congress of it. Congress is obviously free to talk to the individual and so forth, but generally my experience and my time here has been that the Inspector general process runs on its own track and in most cases the committee doesn't, yeah, they're an independent inspector general, so they operate on their own track and generally Congress waits for those to work their way through. I don't think it's required by law from my experience."

MR: "No, the only thing they have an obligation under the law to notify us of initially is that, like I said, credible and it has to be an urgent matter."

MR: "It alerts you that they're undergoing the process. Correct"

MR: "I mean, potentially the more we learn about it, but my preference on that case is to allow it to work with the inspector general process first. I think they'll have more resources to dedicate to it and then from that it'll long cover whether it's testimony or evidence that we could potentially follow up."

MR: "Do I know who's on it?"

MR: "Well, yeah, so I think they've stood up. My understanding is that's more of a trying to comply with the statute that requires the task force to be the central repository of all report sightings and data. So my sense is that that's just an administrative effort to streamline how the reporting breaks through the silos, depending on whether it's the Navy, the army, the Department of Energy, whoever comes across the reporting or data they can. That's my understanding."

MR: "Yeah. Well, people always automatically assume that it's something other worldly. It's any anomaly that doesn't fit the criteria of what we normally see or expect. Obviously those balloons, maybe not highly sophisticated, but certainly fit the profile. Something NORAD wasn't on the lookout for. [Unintelligible]"

Matt Laslo: “Hey, did you see any of Sean Kirkpatrick’s — from AARO — his statements since leaving?”  

Marco Rubio: “I might have read a few of them about, you know...”

ML: “Well, he seemed to contradict you...”

ML: “He seemed to say that none of the witnesses that David Grusch says corroborate him — he says none of them have anything to do with these programs or whatever. And he kind of — you seemed to want more information from those whistleblowers?”

MR: “These are people that have clearances — high clearances — in the United States government, and it's not one. It's Navy pilots. It’s other people who have come forward. I don't know if they're telling the truth or not. I'm not going to call them a liar. I'm just saying, if people that have that level of clearance and responsibility are coming forward with stuff, we should at least sort of — it's not one person; it's multiple people.”

ML: “Are we gonna hear from those people within the Senate?”

MR: “There's a whistleblower complaint filed by one of them, and, ultimately, I mean, we haven't spent a tremendous amount of time on it lately but I was hoping that’s what AARO would do!”

Matt Laslo: “Spoken to Timothy Phillips yet? Over at AARO, [Sean] Kirkpatrick's replacement?

Rubio shakes head no.

ML: “Do you have any — what have you thought about that declassified report they put out? Like, what is AARO doing these days?”

Marco Rubio: “Theoretically, they’re supposed to determine — I mean, everyone's interested in the look-back and all those other things, but the most important thing is determining a process for reporting unidentified aircraft, primarily for purposes of preventing strategic surprise. So I hope that's what they continue to focus on, because that's what they're supposed to be focused on.”

ML: “But then talking to [Sen. Kirsten] Gillibrand, [Sen. Mike] Rounds, [Sen. Tim] Kaine complains about it over Langley. Like, they just say they were supposed to— [Sen.] Mark Kelly was complaining about it last week — this persistent problem of intrusion over US airspace...”

MR: “Yeah, it's a very serious problem. People always want to immediately default to, y’know, aliens and extraterrestrial, but the fact of the matter is if there are things flying overhead in our country that aren't supposed to be there and they aren’t ours, that should be among our highest priorities. That's really what we're trying to address here.”

ML: “Yeah? Thanks.”