UAP Disclosure Act

UAP Disclosure Act (UAPDA) — the recurring legislative package, originally drafted in the 118th Congress by Senators Schumer, Rounds, and Gillibrand, that would establish federal eminent domain over UAP-related materials, create a nine-member presidentially appointed Review Board, and impose a presumption of disclosure on classified U.S. government UAP records.

The UAP Disclosure Act — commonly abbreviated UAPDA — is the umbrella name for a legislative package first drafted in the 118th Congress (2023) that would compel the federal government to catalog, adjudicate, and release its classified holdings on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. The Act has been reintroduced or attached as an amendment in every subsequent National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) cycle. As of publication, no version containing the Act’s architectural core has been enacted into law.

This entry summarizes the Act’s origin, its four load-bearing provisions, and its status across the FY24, FY25, FY26, and FY27 NDAA cycles.

Origin and sponsors

The UAPDA was drafted in 2023 by then-Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and introduced as an amendment to the FY24 NDAA. The Act was reportedly modeled in structure on the 1992 President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act, which established a records review board with authority to compel declassification.

A House-side companion effort has been carried in successive cycles by Reps. Eric Burlison (R-MO), André Carson (D-IN), and Eli Crane (R-AZ), all associated with the House Oversight UAP Task Force. As of the FY27 cycle, the House-bill route has no discrete Congress.gov entry; the live UAPDA vehicle has been the House NDAA amendment.

The four load-bearing provisions

The Act as originally drafted contained four architectural provisions that distinguish it from prior UAP legislation:

Federal eminent domain over UAP-related materials. The Act would grant the U.S. government eminent domain over any biological or technological material of non-human origin, as well as any documentary or engineering records relating to such material, in the possession of any federal contractor, subcontractor, or private entity operating under federal authority.
A nine-member Review Board. The Act would establish a presidentially appointed Review Board — the “UAP Records Review Board” — with authority to determine whether classified UAP records may be withheld, and on what basis. The Board’s structure and independent authority mirror those of the JFK Records Review Board.
A presumption of disclosure. The default posture would be release; withholding would require the government to make an affirmative showing to the Board that a specific record meets defined exemption criteria.
A controlled-disclosure pathway for non-human intelligence claims. The Act contains procedures under which classified holdings, personnel, and testimony related to alleged NHI programs would be transferred to the Review Board for adjudication under statutory secrecy protections.

Removal of any of these four provisions in conference — particularly the eminent-domain provision and the Review Board — is generally described in the disclosure-community record as “gutting” the Act.

Legislative history: FY24, FY25, FY26, FY27

The UAPDA has cleared the U.S. Senate in some form once, and has not been enacted with its core architecture intact in any cycle.

FY24 cycle (2023, Senate route). The original Schumer–Rounds–Gillibrand text was attached to the FY24 NDAA. In House-Senate conference, the eminent-domain provision and the independent Review Board were struck. The remaining provisions — largely narrower records-collection language — were carried forward into the enacted FY24 NDAA. This is the version most frequently cited by both proponents and critics as the “watered-down” UAPDA.
FY25 cycle (2024). The Act’s sponsors continued to work its architectural core back into the FY25 NDAA. The stronger provisions did not survive conference.
FY26 cycle (2025, Senate route). Senate Amendment 3111 to S.2296 — Schumer / Rounds / Gillibrand — was the FY26 Senate vehicle. The amendment was ultimately excluded from the enacted FY26 defense bill.
FY27 cycle (2026, House route). Rep. Burlison introduced the UAPDA as an amendment to the FY27 NDAA. He testified before the House Rules Committee on 29 June 2026 in support of the amendment. On 30 June 2026 the Rules Committee voted 8–4 along party lines to adopt a structured rule on H.R. 8800 that did not make the Burlison amendment in order — foreclosing an independent House floor vote in this cycle.

The multi-cycle pattern — Senate FY25 (weakened) → Senate FY26 (excluded) → House FY27 (killed at Rules) — is itself the load-bearing finding of the Council’s UAPDA tracker. Each cycle has produced a narrower attack surface than the prior one, not a wider one.

Relationship to AARO

The UAPDA and AARO are distinct instruments operating on different theories of change.

AARO is an executive-branch office established by the FY23 NDAA, operating under the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. Its authorities flow downward through the DoD chain of command and are exercised within the classification system.
The UAPDA is a legislative framework designed to force material out of the classification system through eminent domain and an independent review board reporting to the President and Congress.

The two are not substitutes. AARO can request and, under FY24 NDAA whistleblower provisions, receive classified UAP-related information; it does not have authority to compel a private contractor to surrender materials or to override classification decisions of another executive agency. That authority — if it exists in U.S. law — is what the UAPDA would create.

Council usage

The Council uses UAPDA and UAP Disclosure Act interchangeably in case files. When distinguishing versions across cycles, the Council uses the pattern UAPDA (FY-NN vehicle) — for example, UAPDA (FY27 Burlison amendment) or UAPDA (FY26 Senate Amendment 3111). The Council does not treat the residual records-collection language enacted in the FY24 NDAA as the UAPDA in the architectural sense; the eminent-domain and Review Board provisions are what the term denotes in the disclosure-community record.

AARO · AATIP · UAP · NHI · ODNI

Anchor cases: Burlison FY27 NDAA Amendment Killed at Rules · Senate Intel April 2026 Hearing

Related entries

AARO

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office — the U.S. Department of Defense entity established in 2022 to detect, identify, and attribute unidentified anomalous phenomena across air, sea, space, and transmedium domains.

AATIP

Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program — the secretive U.S. Department of Defense unit that ran from 2007 to 2012, studying anomalous aerospace events for potential threat implications.

UAP

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (formerly Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) — the U.S. government's preferred term for what was historically called UFOs, deliberately broader to include maritime, space, and transmedium objects.

NHI

Non-Human Intelligence — a term increasingly used in U.S. government UAP discourse to refer to any intelligence not of human origin, with deliberate breadth (terrestrial-but-non-human, extraterrestrial, interdimensional, etc.).

ODNI

Office of the Director of National Intelligence — the U.S. cabinet-level office overseeing the 18 components of the Intelligence Community, and the publisher of the 2021 Preliminary Assessment that catalyzed the modern UAP disclosure cycle.