Last updated on March 31, 2025
“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”
– George Orwell
The hidden study of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) has drawn considerable interest in recent decades. Although the public is told that the U.S. government has limited data on UAP, many observers suspect much deeper research is underway.[i] Special Access Programs (SAPs) and Unacknowledged Special Access Programs (USAPs) serve as major tools for the Intelligence Community (IC) to prevent details about the study of UAP from public scrutiny. Lawmakers have been told that secretive groups use SAPs to sequester data about extraterrestrial spacecraft and non-human entities.[ii]
SAPs exist to control information about vital national security programs. By design, these programs often conceal budgets and objectives. USAPs extend secrecy even further. They are ‘unacknowledged,’ thus officials must deny that they exist at all.[iii] Proponents argue that USAPs are vitally necessary to guard advanced military assets and protect national security. Critics argue that USAPs are nothing more than vehicles for misconduct since they hide more than typical intelligence programs. UAP research falls under these programs because the subject must be treated as a threat to national security. As a result, scientists, policymakers, and even most members of Congress have limited access to UFO data.[iv]
Historical Roots of Classified Programs
The roots of official secrecy about new technology date back to World War II. Military planners realized that certain research programs were too sensitive for general classification. The Manhattan Project demonstrated that layers of secrecy protected vital nuclear secrets. Over time, the concept of “restricted data” shaped the modern framework for the tight control of novel defense secrets.[v]
During the Cold War, major aircraft and weapons projects were placed in the so-called “black” budget. These included spy plane developments at Area 51. The Lockheed U-2 and SR-71 programs are prime examples. Only a handful of officials knew about them. Even after test flights caught public attention, the government offered misleading explanations. This pattern set the precedent for the broad usage of covert programs in conjunction with the dissemination of disinformation. Some would argue that the same approach applies to UAP research.[vi] It is difficult to argue that such an approach has been unsuccessful.
As the Cold War progressed, Congress and the White House came to rely on SAPs. They added layers of approval and “need-to-know” rules. This ensured that top-secret material became even more insulated from disclosure. With USAPs, entire projects became invisible to most of the government. This model offered strong protection but has stirred debate about whether it undermines legal checks. Many who study UAP claim that secrecy has fostered an environment where data is not only hidden from public view but from any reasonable oversight. Such claims are difficult at best to verify due to the wall of silence surrounding these programs.[vii]
Structure of SAPs and USAPs
The Department of Defense (DoD) uses strict definitions for SAPs. According to DoD Directive 5205.07, a SAP is “a sensitive program … imposing additional security safeguards to protect information and limit the number of personnel who have access.”[viii] There are three types of SAPs:
- Acknowledged SAPs: The existence of these programs is public, but details remain classified.
- Unacknowledged SAPs (USAPs): The existence of these programs is not publicly acknowledged. Access is limited to designated officials.
- Waived SAPs: These are USAPs with the added feature that reporting to Congress can be restricted. The Secretary of Defense certifies that “special rationale” exists for deeper secrecy.[ix]
Restricted Access and Compartmentalization
SAPs restrict access by dividing information into compartments. To enter a program, an official must have the correct clearance and a verified “need-to-know.” This prevents broad sharing, even among those with top-secret clearance. Documents related to a SAP are stored in secure vaults or digital networks with advanced measures. The small group with access typically signs extra nondisclosure agreements that carry strict penalties.[x] Some agree to waive their right to due process.
Secrecy in Practice
All SAPs involve intense secrecy, but USAPs push it further. They exist in a state of denial by design. If asked, officials may say, “No such program exists,” or offer an evasive answer. Funds for USAPs can also be hidden in generic budget lines. Thus, it becomes challenging for outsiders—or even many inside government, to know they exist at all.[xi]
Relation to UAP and NHI
When UAP or other exotic subjects present themselves, the government’s default stance is often to treat them as possible threats. This approach justifies classification. If an unknown craft might offer a foreign state a huge technological edge, the secrecy is rational in a defense sense. Conversely, some argue that if the craft or entities are not from Earth, the secrecy has another motive: controlling advanced data that might change public views about intelligence beyond Earth.[xii] Of course, it is difficult to argue that technology from an extraterrestrial civilization would have no national security implications.
Legal Framework and Oversight
The U.S. legal system recognizes the need for secrets that protect national security. Title 10 and Title 50 of the U.S. Code grant the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Intelligence Community (IC) broad powers.[xiii] However, Congress also requires that certain committees be informed about key programs. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have a mandate to know about major intelligence projects. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees also have oversight over the DoD.[xiv]
Reporting Requirements
By law, the DoD must provide “congressional notification” of any new SAP. The problem arises when a SAP is “unacknowledged.” A USAP has fewer reporting rules. The Secretary of Defense can grant a waiver if they decide that normal disclosure would risk key security interests. Even with a waiver, there is supposed to be at least some notification to the “Gang of Eight.” This group includes the House and Senate leaders from each party, plus the heads of the intelligence committees. Yet critics argue that limited briefings and the broad use of vague language in those briefings make real oversight difficult.[xv]
Secrecy vs. Accountability
Many officials say that they cannot do their jobs without the highest level of secrecy. Stealth aircraft research, nuclear arms programs, and cryptographic breakthroughs need thick security. Still, there is a difference between protecting vital secrets and hiding entire programs. Watchdog groups argue that USAPs erode accountability.[xvi] Some members of Congress have voiced concerns about a structure that can shield large budgets and unknown activities from most elected officials. When the subject is UAP, the secrecy becomes even more pronounced, since few want to risk their careers by raising the topic in open congressional hearings.[xvii]
Judicial Review
Courts rarely intervene in SAP or USAP matters. Judges tend to defer to the Executive Branch on national security issues. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits face an uphill battle when they target SAP or USAP records. The government often cites national security exemptions, and courts are likely to accept them. As a result, litigants have found it very hard to force disclosure of any material tied to classified UFO or UAP programs.[xviii]18
Evidence of UAP-Related SAPs and USAPs
In recent years, there have been a few revelations that point to UAP research under SAPs or USAPs. The best-known example is the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). This program was not formally a SAP, but its existence was kept hidden for several years. The New York Times disclosed its operation in 2017, revealing that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had a small effort to study unknown aircraft and advanced phenomena.[xix]
AATIP
AATIP did not reach SAP status, but some suggest it served as a feeder program for deeper efforts. One claim is that there are “legacy” crash retrieval programs that date back decades. Such claims assert that materials from unknown craft were stored at private sites. These private sites might have special security arrangements that match the structure of USAPs. Former officials, such as Christopher Mellon and Luis Elizondo, have hinted that they came across barriers when they tried to learn details about these older programs.[xx]
Statements from Insiders
A few individuals with prior clearances have discussed this issue. They claim that, upon asking about UAP materials, they met stonewalling or were told they lacked “need-to-know.” Elizondo, who oversaw AATIP, has stated that he found references to hidden efforts that dwarfed his program’s budget and scope.[xxi] While such statements are not conclusive proof, they align with the pattern of USAP usage: a big goal with an extremely small circle of participants.
Notable Documentation
Public documents on UAP programs within SAPs or USAPs remain scarce. Much of the evidence is anecdotal or based on leaks. In 2020, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to prepare a report on UAP events.[xxii]22 The ODNI released a short version in June 2021, which did not address any SAP or USAP. Yet the classified version might include references that remain withheld. Some lawmakers have alluded to more details in that version, though no direct mention of USAP or SAP classification was made public.[xxiii]
The Role of Private Contractors
One of the lesser-known aspects of SAPs and USAPs is the major role played by private contractors. Defense firms such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing have long provided advanced technology for classified projects.[xxiv] These firms often have secure facilities where they can store and study materials. When questions about UAP research arise, some researchers suspect that private contractors hold the real data. This creates extra layers of secrecy because corporate information is protected by trade secrets and proprietary rights. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not apply to private corporations.
Flow of Funds
One reason to involve contractors is that appropriations for special projects can be distributed in obscure line items. A chunk of money in a known program might, in fact, fund an undisclosed offshoot handled by a private entity. This is where oversight fractures because congressional committees see a normal line item, while the deeper effort remains buried. This arrangement is not unique to UAP. It has been used for the development of stealth aircraft, advanced weapons, and other “black” projects. In the case of UAP, it fuels rampant suspicion that the government is hiding world-altering details about exotic craft or artifacts.[xxv]
Proprietary Shell
Once a private firm holds sensitive hardware or data, it can apply proprietary claims to block outside inquiries. That firm can also impose special nondisclosure pacts on its workers. This approach cuts off potential leaks. The normal channels for classified government programs have at least some official routes for whistleblowers to approach Congress. However, a private contract environment can hamper that route. Some who suspect hidden UAP materials believe that the government used these methods to move the subject out of direct federal reach and into the black budgets of contractors.[xxvi]
Implications for UAP Disclosure
If advanced alien bodies or craft exist, a contractor may likely be in charge of their study. Investigators who try to find a “paper trail” within the government come up empty. This leads them to think that only a small group of authorized persons in industry and a few in government have any direct knowledge. This structure, if true, is the epitome of an unacknowledged project—hidden behind corporate and governmental secrecy at once.
Ethical and Legal Ramifications
Hiding UAP findings within SAPs or USAPs clearly raises deep ethical and moral concerns. One glaring issue is that the decision to keep such data from the public is made by a small circle of officials. They argue that releasing such information could create panic or reveal sensitive technology to rivals. Critics respond that withholding evidence of non-human intelligence if that is the case, denies humanity the chance to learn and prepare. They also question the fairness of letting private firms profit from breakthroughs that might come from recovered craft—if such craft exist at all.
Consequences for Scientific Inquiry
Scientists often call for open data sharing, especially when analyzing phenomena with major implications. If knowledge of UAP is locked in unacknowledged programs, experts in academia or industry may not be aware of the research questions, let alone the findings. This can stifle progress in astrophysics, materials science, or biology—depending on what the data reveals. The gap grows even wider when there is no official admission that such programs exist.
Democratic Principles
A fundamental idea in American governance is that the people have a right to know about major affairs, except where true security threats exist. When an entire subject is walled off under the label of “national security,” there is a risk that secrecy becomes self-serving. Some might exploit it for personal gain, or to avoid the scrutiny that open debate would bring. Skeptics counter that the public is not ready for any shocking data about non-human craft. Yet many argue that an informed public is better than one that is kept in the dark.
Potential Disinformation
A final concern relates to the spread of disinformation. Secrecy invites rumor. The vacuum of official facts encourages wild speculation. In the absence of direct evidence, any explanation can flourish. This confusion can be exploited by hostile actors or even by parts of the government to confuse foreign intelligence services. The line between strategic deception and the public’s right to truth can blur, raising moral and legal problems about the manipulation of citizens and lawmakers.[xxvii]
The Condon Report
In 1969, the University of Colorado’s “Condon Committee” concluded there was nothing of scientific value in UFO phenomena and that the Air Force should end its formal inquiry, Project Blue Book.[xxviii] However, some found the Condon Report flawed. They noted that many documents related to advanced military programs were off-limits, and that the study was incomplete. Later disclosures about intelligence efforts suggested there might have been more data than the Air Force shared with the committee. If much was hidden in special programs, the Condon Committee’s findings would have been compromised from the start.
AAWSAP
As mentioned, AATIP was revealed in 2017. AATIP itself was not a SAP or USAP. But the presence of what is now known as the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (AAWSAP) suggests a complicated structure of defense efforts exploring “unconventional” flight technologies.[xxix] Some documents from AAWSAP reference exotic materials. If any deeper programs exist, they might be SAP-level or higher, but no direct evidence has emerged in public. The glimpses we have are partial, and likely overshadowed by far more secretive efforts.
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Activities
The NRO oversees spy satellites and data collection platforms. It has a history of deep-black programs, often with private aerospace partners.[xxx] Some UAP researchers suspect that the NRO might capture data on unknown craft but classify it under advanced intelligence systems. If so, the relevant programs could be USAPs. Officially, there is no statement from the NRO on UAP. Yet it is plausible that the agency’s global coverage might yield signals or imagery of UAP. Those records, if they exist, remain hidden within some special access system.
Navy Encounters
In 2019, the U.S. Navy confirmed that certain leaked videos showing unknown craft were authentic.[xxxi] These encounters involved advanced sensor data and triggered interest from multiple intelligence divisions. Navy officials stressed that they had not identified the craft. Some suspect that, behind the scenes, a special access arrangement may have been invoked. The precise data from these encounters is still classified. While not proof of non-human intelligence, these sightings highlight the possible role of SAPs if any deeper analysis took place.
Calls for Transparency and Reform
In the last few years, some members of Congress have asked for greater openness. The Senate Intelligence Committee requested an unclassified report on UAP in 2021. They also asked for a formal process to collect UAP data across agencies.[xxxii] These steps aim to reduce the secrecy that hinders deeper understanding. Lawmakers also asked for ways to encourage whistleblowers with knowledge of UAP programs to come forward without fear of legal reprisal. Some have proposed new legislation that would require regular briefings on UAP-related SAPs, if any exist.
Civil Society and Legal Actions
Groups like the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the National Security Archive have pushed for more open records on advanced defense projects. Journalists and researchers have filed FOIA lawsuits. But these efforts run into black walls when programs are protected under SAP or USAP status. Some activists claim that only a strong political move—such as a directive from the President—can unseal possible troves of data on UAP or NHI.[xxxiii]
Cultural and Global Pressure
Pressure for more UAP disclosure is not limited to the United States. Other countries, such as France, have produced public studies (e.g., COMETA Report) that address advanced sightings and mention potential non-human origins.[xxxiv]34 Some argue that if foreign governments begin to share credible evidence of unknown craft, the U.S. government might be forced to respond with more transparency. In an era of social media, many citizens reject vague denials and demand proof. This global push for data could erode the old structure of secrecy.
The use of Special Access Programs and Unacknowledged Special Access Programs by the Intelligence Community creates a secrecy fortress around certain subjects. This secrecy extends to the study of UAP, UFOs, and possible non-human intelligence. While national security concerns justify secrecy in many cases, the question remains: have these methods gone too far in hiding knowledge that belongs in a broader conversation?
SAPs, and USAPs in particular, prevent most people in government from knowing about key efforts. Even those with top-secret clearances might not gain access. The budget lines are vague, and official statements are deniable. Evidence suggests that, within these programs, serious work on UAP has taken place. A handful of insiders have hinted at recovered materials, advanced craft, and attempts to reverse-engineer unknown technology. Others claim that such accounts are either disinformation or hype for unknown ends.
Legally, the system places strong trust in a small group of officials to act in the best interest of the nation. In practice, oversight by Congress and the judiciary is limited. Whistleblowers face steep penalties, and the public is rarely informed about the results of any secret study, especially if it falls under a USAP. These policies might protect legitimate state secrets. They might also block open scientific exchange and prevent the public from understanding significant findings. The line between real need for secrecy and potential misdeeds can be blurred.
Ethically, if there is any truth to stories of non-human craft or advanced artifacts, the implications are profound. Locking away such knowledge within special access vaults prevents the kind of joint effort that sparks breakthroughs and fosters trust. If the question is cosmic in scope, many believe it merits honest exploration by scientists and the public alike. Critics of SAP-based secrecy say that the “public can’t handle it” argument is outmoded and paternalistic. They point to the potential benefits of open inquiry and constructive debate. Proponents of tight secrecy maintain that potential threats—whether foreign or otherwise—justify these strict measures.
The call for reform has grown in recent years. Lawmakers, journalists, and citizen groups have demanded more transparency. The official interest in UAP rose after Navy pilots documented strange craft. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s push for official UAP reports, and the public release of some videos, point to a slight shift toward openness. Nonetheless, significant details about advanced aerospace programs remain locked in the same old system.
Moving forward, the tension between secrecy and disclosure will shape how the IC handles UAP. New laws or executive orders may force changes in how SAPs are managed or disclosed to Congress. Public interest, combined with growing acceptance of the UAP topic, might spur more debate on how we manage information about possible non-human entities. If the claims of major breakthroughs are even partly true, the stakes are high. A more balanced approach to secrecy could allow legitimate defense needs while respecting the public’s right to understand phenomena that could alter our view of our place in the universe.
SAPs and USAPs are potent tools. They protect deep secrets but also beg the creation of a hidden bureaucracy with insufficient checks. The same cloak that guards strategic research can also shroud discoveries that might benefit humanity in ways we cannot even begin to comprehend. The UAP question, with its far-reaching implications, highlights this tension. Whether the system changes or remains the same depends on lawmakers, intelligence leaders, and public pressure. Without a shift toward transparency, knowledge about UAP and potential non-human intelligence will remain in the shadows, fueling more suspicion and debate for years to come.
[i] See United States Senate, Committee on Intelligence: Hearing on Advanced Aerial Threats, transcript, 2021.
[ii] Rep. Tim Burchett, “Briefing on UAP and the Need for Further Disclosure,” House of Representatives Subcommittee Statement, 2022.
[iii] Department of Defense Directive 5205.07, Special Access Program Policy, January 2010.
[iv] Sen. Marco Rubio, “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021,” Senate Intelligence Committee Report, 2021.
[v] U.S. Department of Energy, History of the Manhattan Project, accessed April 15, 2023.
[vi] Richard M. Dolan, UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up, 1941–1973 (Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads, 2002), 112–127.
[vii] Timothy Good, Above Top Secret: The Worldwide U.F.O. Cover-Up (New York: William Morrow, 1988), 66–70.
[viii] Department of Defense Directive 5205.07, Special Access Program Policy, January 2010, Section 3.
[ix] Id., §4.
[x] Id., Appendix B
[xi] Federation of American Scientists, “Special Access Programs: Oversight and Reporting,” 2015, https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/sap.html.
[xii] Dolan, UFOs and the National Security State, 203–210.
[xiii] See Title 10 U.S.C. §§ 119 and Title 50 U.S.C. §§ 3091–3093.
[xiv] U.S. Congress, Congressional Oversight of Intelligence Activities, CRS Report RL33789, updated 2021.
[xv] Id.
[xvi] Federation of American Scientists, “Secrecy in the Intelligence Budget: A Brief History,” 2014.
[xvii] Steven Greer, ed., Disclosure: Military and Government Witnesses Reveal the Greatest Secrets in Modern History (Charlottesville, VA: Crossing Point, 2001), 25–40.
[xviii] John Greenewald Jr., Inside The Black Vault: The Government’s UFO Secrets Revealed (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2019), 58–70.
[xix] Helene Cooper, Leslie Kean, and Ralph Blumenthal, “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program,” New York Times, December 16, 2017.
[xx] Christopher Mellon, “The Pentagon UFO Study,” public interview at the UFO Congress, 2018.
[xxi] Luis Elizondo, “Testimony on AATIP and UAP,” interview with George Knapp, KLAS-TV, 2018.
[xxii] Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021,” Report 116-233, 2020.
[xxiii] Bryan Bender, “Lawmakers Briefed on UFO Threat,” Politico, June 2021.
[xxiv] Bill Sweetman, “Black Projects: What We Know,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 2009.
[xxv] Dolan, UFOs and the National Security State, 270–277.
[xxvi] Greer, ed., Disclosure, 85–93.
[xxvii] Mark Pilkington, Mirage Men: An Adventure into Paranoia, Espionage, Psychological Warfare, and UFOs (New York: Skyhorse, 2010), 45–51.
[xxviii] Edward U. Condon and Daniel S. Gillmor, eds., Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (New York: Bantam, 1969).
[xxix] Cooper, Kean, and Blumenthal, “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money,’” New York Times, December 16, 2017.
[xxx] Jeffrey T. Richelson, The Wizards of Langley: Inside the CIA’s Directorate of Science and Technology (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002), 201–210.
[xxxi] Bryan Bender, “Navy Acknowledges UFO Videos,” Politico, September 2019.
[xxxii] Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021,” Report 116-233, 2020.
[xxxiii] Federation of American Scientists, “Open Government Efforts and Special Access Programs,” 2019.
[xxxiv] French Association for Aerospace Studies, “COMETA Report: UFOs and Defense—What Should We Prepare For?” 1999.
Be First to Comment