Sean Kirkpatrick

As you note, by statute, the Director reports to both PDDNI [Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence] and DSD [Deputy Secretary of Defense]. The delay in sending out Vol 1 from the time my team and I finished it, was solely due to both PDDNI and DSD staffing for their review and approval. Putting aside his demeaning attitude, Mellon [in his critique in The Debrief] clearly wasn’t reading the legislation very well, as the statute says the Director of AARO signs off on the Historical Report, not the DSD and PDDNI. However they [DSD and PDDNI] have to approve it. Which is what they did prior to release and delivery. As for the timeliness of responses to your queries [to the Pentagon and ODNI spokespersons] I’m going to guess that other world events took precedence. I think you might be reading too much (or little) into the DNI response. I also know that several folks have been in and out on personal leave in both organizations. The report was endorsed by both of my bosses – the DSD and the PDDNI. The findings and the evidence are clear.

Questions: 

"(1) I understand some of your public statements to assert that there is "no evidence" of nonhuman agency as a plausible explanation for any UFO incidents, and to dismiss as irrational any government security professional's belief that some components of the federal government possess knowledge or artifacts of nonhuman technology and are actively concealing that information from designated members of Congress (and, of course, from the public). Are these accurate summaries of your views? If so, how do you respond to observations that such sweepingly dismissive statements will deter potential witnesses/whistleblowers from approaching AARO to tell their stories, and thereby impede AARO's ability to perform one of the key missions which Congress has entrusted to AARO– the gathering and objective investigation of accounts pertaining to technologies of nonhuman origin?

(2) Among the widely diverse ranks of persons who believe there is evidence that some UAP are manifestations on nonhuman intelligence, it is now common to encounter degrees of skepticism regarding AARO's objectivity, and in some quarters, even negative judgments about AARO's authenticity and good faith. What can be said or done by current or future AARO leadership to assure persons with credible backgrounds that if they approach AARO, their stories (however remarkable) will be recorded methodically and taken seriously, that their testimony will be investigated aggressively and employing the full investigative authorities that Congress has conferred on AARO, and that those who participate will not end up branded as alien-believer security risks?"

Sean Kirkpatrick:

"First, I am certain you can discern the two whistleblowers that Gillibrand referred to. One of which has been quite vocal in the media about his lack of engagement with AARO, the evidence of which was released with a FOIA request about a month ago. We discerned all of the relevant information he and the other one have provided Congress but not AARO through investigations of their sources, and other interviewees who came forwarded to discuss their interactions with those individuals. Sen Gillibrand and I have spoken about that often, and while we both agree we believe we covered all of the ground, we cannot say 100% unless they come forward to discuss."

Your first question/summary is not quite accurate. I dismiss as irrational and unprofessional any national security official who comes forward with a story to the Congress or the public, who believes and propagates such a conspiratorial allegation without any evidence. I also caution as a risk any national security professional in a position to obstruct, interfere, or otherwise affect AARO because of their unfounded belief. Evidence is more than “I heard this, or I read this, or I believe this.” Even if they say “I was there and this is what I saw” there needs to be enough details provided to investigate. Names, places, dates, specific buildings, documents, anything. Everything that anyone presented to us was proven to be either false, misinterpreted, and mistaken identity. So in light of that summary of my conclusions from investigating these allegations, my message to people is come forward with your story, but be prepared to provide your evidence. National security professionals should know better.

As for the second one [question], I don’t think there is anything that is going to be said to convince the people who believe in the conspiracy that AARO is going to pursue the truth. That’s never going to change because the truth conflicts with their belief. That is the irrationality I will fight against.

Question:

"What was the rationale for recommending retention of proposed new provisions of law that would have provided something of a legal foundation for AARO or other federal entities to assert control over hypothetical technologies of unknown origin or hypothetical evidence of non-human intelligence (at least, apparently, in such cases in which the President deemed it appropriate)? Was this a 'just in case' provision?"

Sean Kirkpatrick:

"At the time, the conspiracy frenzy was pushing this narrative of some prime contractor having this material, and there were these lingering allegations of AARO not having authorities, despite it being written into law previously. So a compromise was proposed to allow for the exercising of eminent domain under AARO’s authority to underscore that AARO could compel disclosure of anything, should anything exist. Since we know nothing exists, we didn’t feel it made our job harder, and felt this could close a gap in uninformed allegations." (email, July 23, 2024)