OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Pentagon Issues UAP Secrecy Waivers for Potential Disclosures

6 sources · updated 2026-09-16
Left 0% Center 80% Right 20%
0 left · 4 center · 1 right

What happened

The Pentagon announced a legal waiver allowing current and former U.S. service members, civilians, and contractors bound by secrecy rules on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) to share that information with the government without penalty. The waiver authorizes those personnel to provide UAP-related National Defense Information to official representatives of PURSUE, identified as the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters, and states that it overrides existing non-disclosure agreements and Special Access Program Indoctrination Agreements when disclosures are made through that channel. Officials said people who come forward to PURSUE cannot be punished, stripped of security clearance, or face legal or administrative penalties for those authorized disclosures. The step expands a July directive that had already instructed the Pentagon and the intelligence community to let former employees with UAP knowledge speak to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) or PURSUE. AARO’s public reporting channel remains limited to current or former U.S. government employees, military personnel, or contractors with direct knowledge of U.S. government UAP-related programs or activities dating back to 1945.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 5 articles

5 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 5 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Avi Loeb, PURSUE, Marik von Rennenkampff and Department of War
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: official announcement, July directive
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 15, 01:11 UTC by NewsNation, naming its source. First document 5 hours later, from New York Post (official announcement).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT. Only right-leaning outlets are covering this story — the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning outlets have not covered the story, so their readers would not know the Pentagon issued a waiver letting personnel sworn to UFO secrecy report to the government without NDA penalties. Right-leaning coverage reports that the waiver authorizes current and former service members, civilians and contractors to give UAP-related National Defense Information to PURSUE, the Trump administration's UAP task force. The New York Post says the waiver overrides existing secrecy agreements when that authorized channel is used. Right-leaning coverage leads with the legal pathway and a Trump transparency mandate, then later notes that AARO still will not take public reports. It cites Dr. Phil McGraw on more than 1,800 private-database sightings classified as the most credible on record. Will anyone covered by the old secrecy agreements actually come forward, and what will PURSUE do with what they say?
Bottom line

Left-leaning outlets have not reported the Pentagon’s UAP waiver at all. The New York Post says it lets secrecy-bound personnel disclose to PURSUE without losing their clearance.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The Pentagon created a legal waiver allowing current and former personnel to provide UAP-related National Defense Information to PURSUE without NDA penalties official statementin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Those who come forward to PURSUE cannot be punished, stripped of their clearance, or face legal or administrative penalties official statementin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The waiver expands on a July directive ordering the Department of War and the intelligence community to permit former employees with UAP knowledge to come forward to AARO or PURSUE contextin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • AARO said reporting is limited to current or former U.S. government employees, military personnel, or contractors with direct knowledge of UAP programs dating back to 1945 official statementin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Government employees witnessed a triangle UFO near Colorado Springs in 2023 individual casein New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • A journalist said the waiver may allow disclosures on recovered non-human craft contextin NewsNation · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage, principally the New York Post, presents the waiver as a Trump administration transparency measure that removes legal barriers which, it says, kept UAP-knowledgeable personnel silent for decades. It reports that the Pentagon—referred to in that coverage as the Department of War—created the waiver so past and present personnel can give UAP-related information to PURSUE, that the waiver overrides NDAs and SAPIAs for authorized disclosures, and that it aligns with a presidential mandate to review and potentially declassify UAP documents. That reporting also notes Trump’s expressed skepticism about alien life, cites former President Barack Obama’s February remark that “They’re real, but I haven’t seen them,” mentions a recent file release describing a 2023 triangle UFO sighting near Colorado Springs, and relays Dr. Phil McGraw’s claim that the Pentagon has disregarded more than 1,800 public “Tier 1” reports held by private groups such as NUFORC and MUFON. Center-leaning NewsNation coverage treats the announcement as part of a wider disclosure push after whistleblower claims, quoting journalist Marik von Rennenkampff that the waiver may allow disclosures on recovered non-human craft and that it connects to a task force associated with Stephen Miller, and quoting astrophysicist Avi Loeb that the waivers could yield insight into UAP claims but that new data still need to be collected.
Our Take (balanced)
The core story is substantive: it concerns a named government announcement of a specific legal instrument (a waiver of NDAs and SAPIAs for UAP disclosures through an official channel called PURSUE), with named offices (PURSUE and AARO), a stated legal effect (no punishment or clearance loss for authorized disclosures), and an expansion of a prior July directive. Those claims are checkable against an official text or statement. Established in the available reporting is that such a waiver was announced and that AARO still does not accept public sighting reports. Not established are claims that the waiver will produce evidence of recovered non-human craft, that any such craft exist, or that AARO has ignored a verified set of 1,800 public cases; those remain allegations or interpretations. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for the waiver’s published text, PURSUE or AARO confirmation of incoming reports, named personnel using the channel, and whether any declassified documents follow.

6 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.