Technologies of Unknown Origin

A new amendment offered by Representative Eric Burlison of Missouri on June 17, 2026, creates one of the most aggressive frameworks Congress has ever proposed for dealing with unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, and non-human intelligence. The legislation would establish a comprehensive records collection at the National Archives while also giving an independent Review Board the power to examine physical materials, compel testimony, and even support the government’s use of eminent domain over recovered objects or biological evidence held by private parties. Far from another study or voluntary disclosure effort, the bill builds a legal machine whose explicit purpose is to locate, secure, review, and ultimately release information and materials that have long been shielded from public view.

The amendment strengthens and expands upon the more limited UAP records collection created in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. It requires every government office to identify and transmit all relevant records relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, and non-human intelligence, with strict prohibitions against destruction or reclassification. A nine-member independent Review Board, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, would oversee the process, with authority to subpoena witnesses and documents, hold hearings, and make final determinations on what can be postponed. The board is required to include experts from national security, foreign service, science and engineering, economics, history, and sociology, and its members and staff are explicitly barred from having any prior or current involvement in legacy programs involving the collection, exploitation, or reverse engineering of technologies of unknown origin or the examination of biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence. This conflict-of-interest rule is telling in itself, as it assumes such programs and such biological materials have existed and that insiders connected to them cannot be trusted to manage disclosure.

The most striking provisions appear in Section 1747, which addresses recovered physical materials directly. The bill states that the federal government shall exercise eminent domain over any and all recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities in the interests of the public good. Any such material must be made available to the Review Board for personal examination at a suitable location. The board is then tasked with deciding whether the material constitutes technologies of unknown origin or biological evidence of non-human intelligence beyond a reasonable doubt, whether any portion qualifies for postponement of disclosure, and what changes should be made to its current disposition to facilitate full public release. The use of the legal standard “beyond a reasonable doubt” for these determinations is unusually strong and gives the civilian board a quasi-forensic role in authenticating alleged non-human technology or biological evidence if it is produced.

The legislation also ensures the Review Board has broad access to human sources. It grants the board access to all existing testimony from unidentified anomalous phenomena witnesses, close observers, legacy program personnel, and whistleblowers in the government’s possession. The board is further authorized to solicit additional testimony and must afford those individuals the whistleblower protections established in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. This structure appears designed to create a safe channel for individuals who have worked inside classified programs or observed sensitive materials to come forward under the protection of an independent body rather than through agency-controlled processes.

Section 1748 extends the board’s reach beyond government and contractor files into the judicial system. The Review Board may request that the Attorney General petition courts in the United States or abroad to release any information relevant to unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, or non-human intelligence that is currently held under court seal. It may similarly seek the release of material held under the injunction of grand jury secrecy, and such a request is deemed to constitute a showing of particularized need under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A sense of Congress provision urges the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and all heads of executive agencies to cooperate fully in unsealing or obtaining relevant foreign material. This means the disclosure effort is not limited to Pentagon or intelligence agency archives but can potentially reach court records and even international holdings.

With the current administration actively moving forward on UAP transparency through the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE), there is fresh momentum behind identifying which types of information should be released first. This creates a practical window in which strategic recommendations about declassification priorities carry real weight.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon has publicly outlined specific categories of UAP data he believes should be prioritized for release. In response to an Administration official asking about his priorities, Mellon listed UAP detected in space or entering and departing the atmosphere, satellite imagery of UAP that he has personally seen and described as impressive, and data from the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, including detections during the Nimitz incidents in which numerous objects descended from roughly 80,000 feet to 20,000 feet in seconds over several days directly in the coverage area of the powerful radar at Beale Air Force Base.

Mellon has argued that Congress has repeatedly asked about crash debris and recovered materials only to be told officials “don’t know what you are talking about,” and that simply repeating those questions has not been effective. He has described a deliberate strategy in which demonstrating, through sensor data, the existence of objects that enter and leave the atmosphere or exceed all known science and aeronautical principles regarding acceleration would build greater public consensus and congressional support. This, in his view, would improve prospects for eventually obtaining the release of recovered materials, if they exist, while preparing the public to accept such revelations. Mellon has characterized recovered non-human technology as the ultimate objective but has framed the sensor data releases as a logical and necessary step in a broader process that continues to include support for whistleblowers.

Discussions within parts of the UAP research community have increasingly focused on the potential for accelerated disclosure under the current administration, with some analysts arguing that President Trump holds unique leverage because of briefings he received during his first term. These conversations often highlight claims of multiple types of non-human intelligence, including entities described as Nordics and Greys, alongside recovered craft of various configurations and biological evidence from historical incidents. References to longstanding protective mechanisms, such as a classified 1950s memorandum from a Secretary of the Air Force, frequently appear in these analyses as barriers that political will at the highest levels might now be positioned to address. Whistleblower David Grusch has also expressed recent optimism about forthcoming disclosures, tying into broader speculation that shifting administration priorities could open pathways previously blocked by institutional resistance.

The Burlison amendment represents a more direct legislative attempt to address the very materials and programs that Mellon and others have discussed as the end goal. By creating eminent domain authority, mandating Review Board examination of physical evidence to a high evidentiary standard, and opening pathways to sealed records and legacy program testimony, the bill tries to build the institutional machinery that could bypass some of the incremental steps Mellon has described. Whether this approach succeeds will depend on the political support it attracts in the ongoing defense authorization process and on how effectively the Review Board, if established, can navigate classification barriers and agency resistance. The legislation does not prove the existence of non-human technology or biological evidence, but it codifies a process whose design assumes these categories are real enough to warrant seizure authority, forensic review, and a presumption of disclosure.