The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released the congressionally mandated 2022 UAP report on January 12, 2023. This is the second such report. A 2021 Preliminary report was released in June 2021.
There are 13 distinct reporting requirements for this report, and I have applied a Disclosure rubric to measure how transparent the US government is willing to be with each one.
Read more about the requirements and how the rubric was constructed here: What to Expect from the 2022 UAP Report
The rubric has three categories, each assigned with a point value.
Full Disclosure (3): The report reveals detailed underlying evidence pertaining to the “shall include” elements, as well as specific conclusions drawn from that evidence. This does not mean total disclosure of any and all information the government possesses about UFOs. We assume that the authors will constrain their report to the specific asks listed in the NDAA, as well as classification laws that forbid revealing intelligence gathering sources and methods. That aside, this category suggests an intention toward openness with the public.
Partial Disclosure (2): The report provides general and generic discussion of the “shall include” elements, without offering any specifics. There may be acknowledgement that a situation is occurring, but no underlying evidence, and little to no analysis–in other words, similar to the 2021 Preliminary Report. This category suggests a muddled middle ground where the authors acknowledge a real phenomenon is occurring, but exhibit a continued extreme reticence to share details with the public.
Full Secrecy (1): The authors simply decline to provide any information to the public for the “shall include” elements.
Scoring & Analysis
- Overall Score for the 2022 UAP Report: 1.5 out of 3 – Full Secrecy
- 7 reporting requirements earn a score of Partial Disclosure
- 6 reporting requirements earn a score of Full Secrecy
For all of the report’s lack of detail, it does make a number of significant admissions and future commitments:
- There are 510 UAP reports, none of which have been formally resolved with a satisfactory explanation
- UAP restricted airspace incursions remain regular occurrences
- UAP are still thought to demonstrate unusual flight characteristics and abilities
- There have been no UAP-related collisions or heath effects for military personnel (as yet)
- The UAP investigation is now a whole-government coordination effort, and communication with international partners is ongoing.
These account for the Partial Disclosure scores. No reporting requirement earns a score of Full Disclosure due to extreme vagueness of the language, and the fact that, like the 2021 report, all references to underlying evidence has been stripped out of the public version. We are all forced to read the tea leaves of ODNI bureaucratic language, and are given no concrete, real-world facts that allow us to put those statements in proper context.
There are some encouraging bright spots in the report’s tone, all of which suggest that the ODNI and the Pentagon’s UAP office, AARO, are not trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
The report states that some “UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities.” While this is not as fulsome as the 2021 report, it does not endorse Scott Bray’s argument in the May 2021 congressional hearing that these observed characteristics and capabilities are due to sensor error and mere witness “stories.”
The report explains why there has been a recent spike in UAP reporting: “increase in the UAP reporting rate is partially due to a better understanding of the possible threats that UAP may represent… and partially due to reduced stigma surrounding UAP reporting.” The report does not repeat or endorse Scott Bray’s assertion that increased UAP activity is happening because of “an increase in the number of new systems such as quadcopters and unmanned aerial systems that are in our airspace.” No, reports are increasing because people are seeing a lot of UAP and are concerned enough to make a report.
There is an important (almost heartwarming) expression of trust on page 3 under the a section titled Assumptions: “ODNI and AARO operate under the assumption that UAP reports are derived from the observer’s accurate recollection of the event and/or sensors that generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to allow initial assessments.” The slogan for this might be Believe Pilots. The authors are sending the message that investigators will accept that men and women in the field actual saw and experienced what they describe in the report. This may be easier said than done, but it is important for destigmatization.
While the report provides no analysis of UAP data, it does promise to do so soon in the quarterly updates to Congress. Time will tell if AARO and ODNI are merely getting their feet under them, or if this is a stalling tactic.
If there is cause for concern, it is this creeping fear of a big stall. The 2021 report of 144 UAP cases was being drafted two years ago. Reading that report in June 2021, it was safe to assume that by now we would have know whether or how some of those cases were resolved. The authors of that report also spoke of the need for future “additional rigorous analysis.” We are still waiting. Will the ultimate explanation for UAP be just a year or two away, forever? Or will the team as currently constituted be the ones to finally put their names to some firm conclusions?
See full scoring and rational for all 13 report requirements below.
Requirement #1: Tally of UAP Events
| (A) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related events that occurred during the one-year period. (B) All reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related events that occurred during a period other than that one-year period but were not included in an earlier report. |
Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure
The report states the following facts for this requirement:
- 144 UAP reports were created and compiled by the UAPTF covering 17 years from 2004-March 5, 2021. (Note this number is still inclusive of the one UAP “determined with high confidence” to be a deflating balloon.)
- 247 UAP reports were newly generated by military personnel from March 6, 2021 to August 30, 2022.
- 119 UAP reports that occurred prior to 3/5/2021 “have been discovered and reported.”
- Total UAP reports in AARO’s data set: 510.
This is one of the only parts of the report where a straightforward answer is given, though as we will see in the next section AARO uses these numbers in deliberately vague and confusing ways. Also note the emphasis created by the persistent use of the term UAP report. The 2021 UAP report contained clear delineation of terms between UAP event, UAP incident, and UAP report. For example, we know there were some UAP incidents that generated more than one report. The 2022 report refers only to reports, almost to emphasize that AARO is investigating a report someone made and not the event itself. This is contrary to the language of the requirement: “unidentified aerial phenomena-related events.” Beyond the tally, we get no details at all about the events, the reports, or the reporters.
Also of note, in the December press roundtable Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, head of AARO, said the UAP reports currently in AARO’s data set now extend back to 1996. But this date range is not included in the report.
Requirement #2: Analysis, judgements, and explanatory categories
| (C) An analysis of data and intelligence received through each reported unidentified aerial phenomena-related event. (D) An analysis of data relating to unidentified aerial phenomena collected through–(i) geospatial intelligence;(ii) signals intelligence;(iii) human intelligence; and(iv) measurement and signature intelligence. |
Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy
The report states the following facts for this requirement [emphasis added]:
- “Since its establishment in July 2022, AARO has formulated and started to leverage a
robust analytic process against identified UAP reporting. Once completed, AARO’s final
analytic findings will be available in their quarterly reports to policymakers.” - “The broad scope of authority granted to AARO should enable them to leverage a multi-agency, whole-of-government approach to understanding, resolving, and attributing UAP in the future.”
- “Regardless of the collection or reporting method, many reports lack enough detailed data to enable attribution of UAP with high certainty.”
- 26 characterized as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) or UAS-like entities;
- 163 characterized as balloon or balloon-like entities; and
- 6 attributed to clutter.
Subsection C and D should have been be the heart of the 2022 UAP report, since this was the core of Congress’s request–an analysis of what UAP are. I was hoping for a good-faith effort to apply the IC’s Analytic Standards, including judgments and assumptions, and maybe some underlying evidence. Instead, all we are told is that AARO has a “robust analytic process” but they are not yet ready to share it or its findings.
There is also evidence of strained and misleading logic in this section. One clause states that “more than half” of the 366 newly reported UAP reports may be drones, balloons (ballon-like entities?), or clutter. But AARO says nothing about which of the initial 144 reports may be similarly “unremarkable.” Why do they place this divide in their data set between the original and new set of reports? If there is a reason, they don’t tell us. Is it that the recent reports are fresher with more timely evidence? Well, no. We know the majority of the original 144 were from 2019-2021, and that some of the new 366 reports were from earlier than 2021 and extend back to 1996. And what about that poor deflating balloon that was the single resolved UAP case form the first round? Has it been un-resolved?
In any case, when you divide 195 resolved UAP out of the full total of 510, you get 38% – decidedly less than half.
Curiouser!–AARO tells us that even those 195 have not been officially, formally resolved. This is only their “initial characterization” and may change pending more analysis. Why produce this half-way judgement? Well, the report explains, this allows AARO to “efficiently and effectively leverage resources against the remaining 171 uncharacterized and unattributed UAP reports.” In other words, they think that a UAP might be a balloon (balloon-like entity??) but they can’t prove it, and since those other cases are more interesting they are going to move on. Really? A pilot or aviator saw something so strange that they filed a UAP report. And AARO has just enough data on that case to say it might be a balloon or drone, but not enough data to prove it? Not in a single one of the 510 cases? That in itself is evidence of something weird going on, or incompetence.
Per this report, exactly 0% of the 510 UAP have been resolved as conventional objects, which is decidedly less than half.
Also of note: the report makes no mention of the 5 explanatory categories, no mention of the “other catch-all bin,” and no use of the word anomalous.
Requirement #3: Restricted airspace incursions (tally)
| (E) The number of reported incidents of unidentified aerial phenomena over restricted air space of the United States during the one-year period. |
Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure
The report states the following facts for this requirement:
- “UAP events continue to occur in restricted or sensitive airspace, highlighting possible
concerns for safety of flight or adversary collection activity”
This statement offers only a general reference to some amount of incursions without revealing the total number. No information is provided about the date and location of events, or how many of the 510 reports derive from restricted airspace.
Requirement #4: Restricted airspace incursions (analysis)
| (F) An analysis of such incidents identified under subparagraph (E). |
Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy
The report provides no further information or reference to incursions.
Requirement #5: National Security Threat of UAP
| (G) Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by unidentified aerial phenomena to the national security of the United States. |
Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy
Beyond the obvious flight safety concerns posed by UAP, the only national security threat mentioned is a vague and unelaborated reference to “potential adversary collection platforms.” The words “national security” do not appear in the report.
Requirement #6: Adversarial foreign governments
| (H) An assessment of any activity regarding unidentified aerial phenomena that can be attributed to one or more adversarial foreign governments. |
Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy
The report declines to provide any statement about “foreign adversary systems.” It does promise that AARO “will continue to investigate any evidence of possible foreign government involvement in UAP events.”
Requirement #7: Breakthrough aerospace capability
| (I) Identification of any incidents or patterns regarding unidentified aerial phenomena that indicate a potential adversarial foreign government may have achieved a breakthrough aerospace capability. |
Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure
The report states the following facts for this requirement:
- “Some of these [171] uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.”
This is as flashy as we get this time around. The 2022 report omits anything like the language from the 2021 report that captured so much public (and congressional) attention: breakthrough aerospace technology “without discernable means of propulsion.” But this is still an admission that some highly unusual aircraft have been observed.
Requirement #8: Coordination with allies
| (J) An update on the coordination by the United States with allies and partners on efforts to track, understand, and address unidentified aerial phenomena. |
Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure
The report states the following for this requirement:
- “ODNI and AARO have maintained communication with our allied partners regarding
UAP, keeping them informed of developments and U.S. initiatives.”
This is a general admission of at least communication with allies about the U.S. efforts regarding UAP, without giving specifics. No mention is made on coordination.
Requirement #9: Capture and exploit UAP
| (K) An update on any efforts underway on the ability to capture or exploit discovered unidentified aerial phenomena. |
Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy
This may be unsurprising, but no mention is made of the scenarios described by this requirement.
Requirement #10: Health-related effects of UAP
| (L) An assessment of any health-related effects for individuals that have encountered unidentified aerial phenomena. |
Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure
The report states the following for this requirement:
- “Regarding health concerns, there have also been no encounters with UAP confirmed to contribute directly to adverse health-related effects to the observer(s). Acknowledging that health-related effects may appear at any time after an event occurs, AARO will track any reported health implications related to UAP should they emerge.”
Even though this represents a flat denial, one of the only straight answers in the report, the language indicates there may be more going on than AARO is willing to share. By holding out the possibility that health-related effects may yet emerge, this suggests that at least some military personnel have come in close enough contact with a UAP for this to be the case. Yet they don’t say anything like this or provide any additional context.
Requirement #11: U.S. nuclear technology and UAP
| (M) The number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena associated with military nuclear assets, including strategic nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered ships and submarines. (N) In consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, the number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena associated with facilities or assets associated with the production, transportation, or storage of nuclear weapons or components thereof. (O) In consultation with the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the number of reported incidents, and descriptions thereof, of unidentified aerial phenomena or drones of unknown origin associated with nuclear power generating stations, nuclear fuel storage sites, or other sites or facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. |
Disclosure Score: Full Secrecy
Subsections M through O address U.S. nuclear technology, and together they represent one-fifth of the 2022 reporting requirements. Of all of Congress’s requirements, these contain some of the most specific language. Congress wants to know more about the relationship between UAP and nukes. This section could cover a range of cases, from the 2004 encounter with the nuclear powered USS Ronald Regan, to domestic cases similar to the mystery drones observed over the Swedish nuclear plant in 2021.
The report makes no mention of any US nuclear asset.
Requirement #12: Line organizations providing UAP data
| (P) The names of the line organizations that have been designated to perform the specific functions under subsections (c) and (d), and the specific functions for which each such line organization has been assigned primary responsibility. |
Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure
The report states the following for this requirement [emphasis added]:
- “The majority of new UAP reporting originates from U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force aviators and operators who witnessed UAP during the course of their operational duties and reported the events to the UAPTF or AARO through official channels.”
- “AARO’s authorities ensure that UAP detection and identification efforts will span across DoD and relevant interagency partners, as well as the Intelligence Community (IC), with the support and coordination of the National Intelligence Manager for Aviation (NIM-Aviation). NIM-Aviation’s and AARO’s coordination efforts will improve U.S. Government awareness of objects in the airspace and resolution of UAP events.”
- “This report was drafted by ODNI’s NIM-Aviation in conjunction with AARO.”
- “AARO has the authority to coordinate UAP efforts beyond DoD and is authorized to develop processes and procedures to synchronize and standardize collection, reporting, and analysis throughout not just DoD, but the IC as well, with the support and coordination of NIM-Aviation. AARO will coordinate with other non-IC agencies such as the FAA, NASA, NOAA, and the non-IC elements of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Energy (DOE), as appropriate. The broad scope of authority granted to AARO should enable them to leverage a multi-agency, whole-of-government approach…”
- “NIMAviation will remain the IC’s focal point for UAP issues, while AARO is the DoD focal point for these issues and related activities. AARO will represent DoD to the interagency, Congress, media, and public, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs and the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (OSD[PA]).”
On page 3, there is a long list of agencies that provided input into the report, which includes every military branch, as well as NASA, the FBI, and the FAA, among others. One stark difference from the 2021 report is the inclusion of UAP reports from the Air Force. The original 144 cases all came from the Navy. The Air Force adopted the Navy’s UAP reporting protocol in November 2020. Considering the Air Force’s long standing hostility to UFO disclosure, a cynic might wonder if the 366 newly reported cases, “more than half” of which are thought to be balloons and drones, are UAP reports that originated with the Air Force. It would not be the first time the Air Force tried to pad out its tally of “solved” UFO cases. It’s also worth considering that simply because a UAP report is submitted to AARO does not mean that all available data was included in said report. A cynic might think these things.
The role of the National Intelligence Manager for Aviation (NIM-Aviation) is prominent in the report, and seems significant. Both the 2022 report and the 2021 report were drafted by NIM-Aviation, part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. I’m not enough of a government insider to know precisely what the word “drafted” implies in this context, but I think it’s safe to say that the ODNI produces the reporting based on data from AARO. What has changed is that NIM-Aviation now has a formal role as the DNI’s lead on UAP issues. Since Congress has charged DNI and DOD with co-leadership roles over the UAP investigation, the two key players going forward will be AARO and NIM-Aviation.
The elevation of NIM-Aviation probably occurred on March 3, 2022. That week, Lue Elizondo made a claim on a podcast that the ODNI committed to “a historic action” and “a significant milestone” that “needs to applauded.” He did not go into detail about what that action was, but did imply it was made by the two-star general who was the National Intelligence Manager to Aviation.
Requirement #13: Unclassified format
| (3) Form.–Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. |
Disclosure Score: Partial Disclosure
Half of the required elements are present in the unclassified report, but (I presume) with significantly less specificity and no underlying evidence compared to the classified report.