This post originally appeared on DisclosureDiaries.com as part of the weekly update series, and has been syndicated here on DeclassifyUAP.org with full permission. We’re thrilled to bring you the internet’s best weekly updates on UAP Disclosure news, in partnership with Disclosure Diaries.
If you’re eager to stay up to date with UAP Disclosure news in a serious way with 0% tolerance for BS, don’t hesitate to share this post or subscribe to the Disclosure Diaries weekly updates here.
This past week in Disclosure:
Dec 31 – Harald Malmgren continues to air public statements suggesting knowledge of UAP programs
In a post on X, Dr. Malmgren had the following to say:
Mathew Pines just publicly explained in a London podcast interviews the elaborate, intricate US security controls by our DOD, DOE, & other agencies. I might add hidden links such as US Navy with UAP retrievals from Los Alamos nuke tests, not under DOD oversight
Malmgren, who served as an advisor to multiple US Presidents, has been on quite a streak of public comments regarding UAP… perhaps indicating a sense of willingness to support transparency efforts going forward
Jan 1 – the individual behind the cybertruck explosion/attack references UAP/drones and novel propulsion methods in his ‘manifesto’
While the manifesto is patently lacking in any substantive evidence to back up any of the wild claims, this author decided to include this incident as it certainly gained widespread media attention.
I will not speculate any further on the veracity of the claims made, until more (or any) evidence is brought forth to support them.
Jan 1 – FAA expands drone restrictions in New Jersey
According to CBS coverage, the FAA has added further drone flight restrictions to 9 more towns. It is still unclear what the motivations for these restrictions are, or at the very least, the messaging from various agencies has been contradictory.
Jan 3 – Rep. Ralph Norman claims there is “A thirst for having hearings that have some teeth to it”
Speaking on the Nov 13 UAP Hearing, Rep. Norman had this to add:
ML: “What are your lingering questions?”
Rep. Norman: “Well, who’s behind them? Who’s funding it? Those in the know are very quiet. Why?”
ML: “Yeah? Do you — have you heard talk of a Select UAP Committee, Comer said he’s open to it.”
Rep. Norman: “Oh yeah.”
ML: “Would you be open to that?”
Rep. Norman: “Absolutely.”
Jan 3 – Rep. Burlison wants “to hire Grusch and Elizondo” to staff Select UAP Committee
Speaking to Askapol on the topic of a Select Committee on UAP, Rep. Burlison stated:
“If I had any say in it, I would try to get them to hire Grusch and [Lue] Elizondo.”
Jan 5 – Tulsi Gabbard has allegedly received a briefing on the UAP issue
According to Matthew Pines –
“I was told that [Gabbard] was given some sort of briefing or informal conversation with individuals involved in this.”
This statement was part of a broader conversation highlighting the fact that Trump’s new cabinet will be historically pro-UFO/UAP disclosure (at face value, at least).
Things to look out for in the near future:
Beyond/currently unknown
- Following the UAP hearing on the 26th of July, Members of Congress have called for a select committee with subpoena authority, to “go about the task of collecting information from the Pentagon and elsewhere” on unidentified flying objects. There have been conflicting messages from various Members of Congress on whether this is likely to happen anytime soon. Note – a select subcommittee was formally requested on March 13th.
- Reps. Moskowitz, Luna, and Burchett have repeatedly stated their intent to hold field hearings to overcome stonewalling from the Pentagon and military establishment “I think we [Congress] should try to get into one of these places [housing UAP evidence]…and if they won’t let us in I think we should have a field hearing right outside the building…and the military will have to explain why that is.” – Rep. Moskowitz (D) It is currently unknown when exactly we might expect that to occur, however as of Jan 12 – Rep. Luna confirmed: “I feel confident that we have enough evidence to move forward with our first field hearing. We will be announcing details soon.“
- Several journalists have indicated that first-hand witnesses of the alleged UAP legacy programs are in the process of providing testimony/evidence to the relevant authorities (e.g. the IC IG) and/or are on the verge of making public statements in the near future (Example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4)
- David Grusch has received additional clearances through DOPSR to discuss some of his (alleged) first-hand knowledge of Legacy programs. He has mentioned he may be covering more of this information in an upcoming Op-Ed
Skimmed through this post but need a quick refresher on how we got to this point? Check out this handy Disclosure Timeline to get up to speed.