The biggest new actor in the UAP story is not a shadowy program or an exotic craft; it is an office with a bureaucratic name and a rubber stamp.
The Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review, or DOPSR, sits inside the Pentagon and decides what current and former insiders are allowed to say in public. It is the gate that every cleared insider is supposed to pass through before talking about UAP on camera, in a book, or even on a podcast.
In the UAP circles that raises a sharp questions. When someone speaks after DOPSR review, are they a whistleblower, or are they part of a controlled narrative?
What is DOPSR, actually?
On its own site, Washington Headquarters Services describes DOPSR very plainly. The office:
Manages the Department of Defense security review program, reviewing written materials both for public and controlled release. This includes official government and defense industry work products, as well as materials submitted by cleared or formerly cleared individuals pursuant to their voluntary non-disclosure agreement obligations. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
DOPSR’s authority comes from two core Department of Defense instructions:
- DoD Instruction 5230.09, Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release
- DoD Instruction 5230.29, Security and Policy Review of DoD Information for Public Release (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
Key points from those instructions and associated guidance:
- Any current or former DoD employee, contractor or military member who writes about DoD-related topics is required to submit their material for prepublication review if it is based on information gained through their work. That obligation is described as lifelong. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
- The goal is to prevent release of classified or controlled information, not to settle scientific disputes or decide what is true.
- Once material is cleared by a DoD component or by DOPSR itself, release to the public is the responsibility of the originating office or person. DOPSR does not run press strategy, it only handles security and policy review. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
In practical terms, if you ever held a clearance and you want to publish something that touches on military operations, intelligence, or UAP, prepublication review is the official path.
To request that review, DoD members typically use DD Form 1910, titled Clearance Request for Public Release of Department of Defense Information. The form routes a manuscript, slide deck or interview script to DOPSR, which then consults relevant components and returns a decision such as “Cleared for open publication” or “Cleared with recommendations.” (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
The DOPSR site and its FAQ make two ideas very explicit:
- Protection of DoD information is a lifelong responsibility for anyone who had access.
- Prepublication review is about security and policy compliance, not about endorsing the factual accuracy of what the author says. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
That last point becomes critical when we look at UAP.
Whistleblower versus controlled narrative
Inside the national security ecosystem there are two very different ways information reaches the public.
- Whistleblowing
Lawful whistleblowing is when an insider reports evidence of wrongdoing through protected channels such as an Inspector General or Congress. For the Intelligence Community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence summarizes these protections under statutes like the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act and Presidential Policy Directive 19. These frameworks are meant to protect people who report fraud, abuse or illegal activities, including “urgent concerns” about intelligence programs, from retaliation. (ODNI) - Controlled narrative
Controlled narrative is not a legal term. In UAP culture it refers to information that has been curated and shaped by official processes before the public ever sees it.
DOPSR review, internal policy approvals and strategic communications decisions all act as filters. The resulting story may be accurate, partial, or in error, but it is still the version that cleared the system.
The DOPSR process sits at the intersection.
- A whistleblower might first go to an Inspector General with classified details, then seek DOPSR clearance for a limited, unclassified version of their story for the media.
- A controlled narrative document, such as an official UAP report, will usually be drafted inside the government, coordinated among agencies, and then cleared through DOPSR before release.
From a distance those two paths can look similar. Both involve DOPSR. Both end with a public statement. The difference is in who initiates the disclosure, what their goal is, and how much of the underlying evidence is visible.
How the DOPSR process actually works
The DOPSR FAQ gives a clear description of prepublication review as DoD understands it.
A prepublication security and policy review is defined as a process to check that proposed public material:
- Complies with national and DoD policies.
- Does not contain classified, controlled unclassified, export-controlled or operational security information. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
The practical steps look like this.
- Author prepares material
A current or former insider drafts a manuscript, op-ed, speech, set of interview answers, or slides. If they are still within DoD they route it up their chain of command; if they have left, they can submit directly. - DD Form 1910 submission
For DoD members the request is packaged on DD Form 1910. The form identifies the document, the subject area, and the author’s component. It is signed by a superior who is authorized to recommend release. (AARO) - DOPSR coordination
DOPSR forwards the material to any DoD components that may have an equity in it. For example, a UAP manuscript might be sent to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), the Navy, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. (U.S. Department of War) - Decision
The reviewers can recommend:- Cleared
- Cleared as amended
- Cleared with recommendations
- Not cleared
In UAP-related FOIA releases we see DOPSR stamping products “Cleared For Open Publication” once this process is done. (AARO)
- Release is up to the originator
Official guidance stresses that once material is cleared, it is up to the originating office or author to decide whether and how to publish. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
Internal emails produced under FOIA show DOPSR explaining another important nuance to a journalist. In a 2018 exchange about UAP videos associated with Luis Elizondo, a DOPSR staffer wrote that clearance by DOPSR “does not equate to permission to release property owned by DoD” and is only one step in a broader release process. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
So even when DOPSR says yes, other offices still decide whether specific imagery, documents or videos will actually appear on a website or in the press.
Who has used DOPSR in the UAP space
Because of FOIA and congressional pressure, we now have unusually clear examples of DOPSR in action around UAP.
1. The AARO Historical Record Report
In February 2024 the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) published Volume 1 of its historical review of United States government involvement with UAP.
The public PDF file name includes the phrase “DOPSR-CLEARED,” indicating it went through the formal prepublication review process. (U.S. Department of War)
The report surveyed 70 years of UAP investigations and concluded that:
- AARO found no evidence that any U.S. government investigation or review had confirmed a UAP sighting as extraterrestrial technology.
- Allegations of secret crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering programs either mapped onto unrelated sensitive programs or could not be substantiated. (U.S. Department of War)
In academic commentary, psychologist Tim Lomas notes that many observers saw the report as another attempt to downplay the subject, even as AARO acknowledged unresolved cases and safety concerns. (ResearchGate)
For UAP watchers this is a textbook controlled narrative product. It is:
- Written inside the government.
- Coordinated across agencies.
- DOPSR-cleared.
- Presented as the official historical line.
2. AARO’s UAP trend graphics and self-reporting guide
FOIA releases from AARO’s own site go deeper. In late 2023, AARO cleared a one-page graphic titled “Trends as of 20 Nov 23” that summarized unclassified UAP reporting trends for the aaro.mil website. The associated DD Form 1910 shows:
- Subject area “Unclassified UAP Reporting Trends.”
- Recommended for open publication by AARO Deputy Director Timothy Phillips.
- A DOPSR worksheet recording “NO OBJECTION” and a final stamp “Cleared For Open Publication.” (AARO)
A separate FOIA file shows a similar DD Form 1910 for the “UAP Self Reporting Mechanism User Guide,” a 20-page AARO document explaining how service members can report UAP encounters. This too was routed to DOPSR for clearance. (AARO)
These documents are modest, but they prove that even routine UAP communications from AARO are filtered through the prepublication system.
3. David Grusch as a hybrid case
Former National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency officer David Grusch is a key example of a whistleblower who also used DOPSR.
In June 2023 The Debrief published an article by Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal featuring Grusch’s claim that deeply covert programs have retrieved “intact and partially intact craft of non-human origin.” The article notes explicitly that:
- Grusch provided the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review with the information he intended to disclose.
- His on-the-record statements were “cleared for open publication” in early April 2023. (veritauniversale.it)
FOIA later produced DOPSR’s correspondence with Grusch. The records show:
- A letter in April 2023 approving his “Speaker/Author Summary” for public release.
- A separate approval the same week for “Interview Question Submission 20230406 UAP = Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.”
- Internal DOPSR emails where a reviewer notes that Grusch’s statements contain only “vague references to sensitive areas” and therefore do not pose a classification problem.
Crucially, DOPSR’s letter to Grusch contains a standard disclaimer:
Our concurrence for release does not imply DoD endorsement or factual accuracy of the material.
At the same time, the Intelligence Community Inspector General deemed Grusch’s underlying classified complaint “credible and urgent,” and members of Congress have said that many of his claims appear to have merit, although the evidence remains non-public. (ResearchGate)
Grusch’s path combined:
- Protected whistleblower channels for the full classified story.
- DOPSR-cleared statements for a limited public narrative.
4. The Elizondo video controversy
In 2017 three UAP videos later known as FLIR, GIMBAL and GOFAST surfaced publicly and were widely associated with former DoD official Luis Elizondo. For years one point of contention has been whether the videos were properly cleared.
A 2018 FOIA release from DOPSR shows staff discussing multiple FOIA requests for “any correspondence submitted to and returned from DOPSR concerning the clearance of videos for Mr. Luis Elizondo.” After a search, they found a small set of responsive emails. The same exchange includes a comment that DOPSR initially believed it had no such records. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
The emails also reveal DOPSR explaining to a Wired journalist that:
- Clearance on a DD Form 1910 does not by itself mean a DoD-owned video can be released by anyone.
- Public Affairs offices and the originating component also have roles in authorizing release. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
For UAP watchers this episode illustrates how messy the boundary between official release, leaks and controlled narratives can be. It also shows that relying on DOPSR paperwork alone to reconstruct what happened is difficult.
5. Books cleared to say astonishing things
Academic work on UAP has highlighted one more class of examples. Several papers note that James Lacatski, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer who led a UAP-related program from 2008 to 2010, co-authored a 2023 book that states “the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin.” According to these sources, the book was cleared for release by the Pentagon, and when asked on a podcast about this, Lacatski replied “Yes, I was allowed to tell you.” (Fox News)
We do not yet have the internal prepublication paperwork for that case, but if those reports are accurate it is a vivid example of DOPSR permitting very provocative UAP claims to appear in print, with the usual disclaimer that clearance does not make them official fact.
How whistleblowing works in parallel
While DOPSR handles what can be said in public, whistleblower protections define how insiders can raise alarms inside the system without being punished.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence summarizes Intelligence Community whistleblower protections this way:
- Employees who make lawful disclosures of fraud, waste or abuse in intelligence programs are protected from reprisal, including retaliatory personnel actions or security clearance decisions.
- Presidential Policy Directive 19 and subsequent statutes require Inspectors General to investigate reprisal claims.
- The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act allows employees to report “urgent concerns” to Congress through a defined procedure that preserves classification. (ODNI)
In UAP-specific terms, recent National Defense Authorization Acts created secure channels for service members and contractors to report UAP-related information, including alleged non-human craft, to AARO and the Intelligence Community Inspector General. (veritauniversale.it)
This creates a two-layer system:
- Full classified disclosures about UAP programs can go through Inspectors General and congressional committees.
- Limited, unclassified narratives about the same issues can be crafted for public release via DOPSR, as in the Grusch case.
From a transparency perspective, that is both a safeguard and a potential choke point.
How to use DOPSR to release UAP information lawfully
UAPedia cannot and will not encourage anyone to break classification law. What we can do is outline how DOPSR can be used as a legal tool by people who feel they have important UAP-related information to share.
Step 1. Understand your obligations
If you ever held a clearance or signed a nondisclosure agreement related to classified information, you almost certainly have a contractual duty to submit relevant material for prepublication review. Court decisions such as Snepp v. United States have upheld the government’s power to enforce these obligations, including by seizing profits from unreviewed books or speeches. (Justia Law)
DoD guidance stresses that this obligation is lifelong and applies even after you leave government service. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
Step 2. Separate whistleblowing from publicity
If your concern is that programs involving UAP are illegal, mismanaged or concealed from Congress, the first priority is to use lawful whistleblower pathways.
- Contact an Inspector General with jurisdiction over your agency.
- For Intelligence Community personnel, the ODNI site explains how to report “urgent concerns” to the Intelligence Community Inspector General and to Congress. (ODNI)
Only once you have used those channels should you think about public communication.
Step 3. Craft a public narrative that avoids obvious classification
This is where DOPSR becomes a tool rather than just a gatekeeper.
Authors like Grusch have structured their public comments around:
- High level descriptions of what they allege.
- Avoidance of specific technical details, code names, sensor capabilities, or operational methods that would obviously be classified.
DOPSR’s internal email about one of Grusch’s submissions notes that “vague references to sensitive areas” are acceptable, while more substantial detail would have triggered deeper review.
Hypothesis (Researcher opinion)
A carefully drafted public narrative that focuses on broad claims, personal experiences, and already public facts while omitting operational specifics is more likely to pass DOPSR without heavy redaction.
Step 4. Submit to DOPSR with full context
For DoD-affiliated authors, the standard path is:
- Complete a DD Form 1910.
- Attach the full text of your speech, article, interview answers or book chapter.
- Route it through your chain of command if you are still in government, or submit directly if you are no longer employed but writing about former duties. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
Grusch’s FOIA-released records show that even as a former government civilian he made clear in his submission email that his interview Q&A had been created on his “own personal accord” and was not an official document, which likely helped clarify the context for reviewers.
Step 5. Read the clearance letter carefully
DOPSR approval letters almost always contain two standard caveats:
- Approval does not include any extra photos or supplemental material that was not reviewed.
- Clearance does not imply endorsement or factual accuracy of the claims.
In other words, “Cleared For Open Publication” means only that the material is not judged to expose protected information. It is still up to the media, the public and researchers to decide whether the claims are credible.
Step 6. Consider the narrative effects
Researcher opinion
Using DOPSR can be a double edged sword for UAP witnesses.
- On one hand it offers legal protection. You can speak without risking prosecution for unauthorized disclosure, and you signal that you are trying to play by the rules.
- On the other, critics may argue that anything which survives this process is by definition comfortable for the system and therefore suspect.
Academics such as Lomas have suggested that some official products, including AARO’s historical report, appear to downplay anomalous data even while acknowledging that a portion of UAP reports remain unresolved and potentially extraordinary. (ResearchGate)
That tension is at the heart of the whistleblower versus controlled narrative debate.
Expert and academic views on prepublication control
The DOPSR system is part of a wider prepublication regime that covers the Intelligence Community and other national security agencies. Legal scholars and civil liberties groups have criticized it from several directions.
- A 2016 report by the DoD Inspector General found inconsistencies among components in how prepublication policies aligned with DoD Directive 5230.09 and Instruction 5230.29, recommending that Washington Headquarters Services bring them into line. (U.S. Department of War)
- Commentators on platforms such as Lawfare and the Knight First Amendment Institute have described prepublication review across agencies as “broken,” citing delays, overreach and the tendency to censor even unclassified material or impose editorial disclaimers. (Default)
- A Cato Institute analysis framed prepublication review as “court-sanctioned censorship,” arguing that court decisions like Snepp have given the government a very broad tool to control what former officials can publish, even when their intent is public interest disclosure. (Cato Institute)
At the same time, national security lawyers point out that:
- Classified information is not automatically declassified just because it has leaked or appeared in the media.
- Agencies rely on current and former personnel to exercise restraint, and when in doubt, to use prepublication review to avoid accidental damage. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
In UAP-specific academic work, Lomas and colleagues repeatedly note the way official reports and cleared books can both reveal and conceal. For example, they highlight the paradox of Lacatski’s book allegedly being cleared to assert that the United States possesses a craft of unknown origin, yet still not triggering a formal acknowledgement that non-human technology exists. (Fox News)
From the perspective of many UAP advocates, that looks like the system selectively authorizing shocking statements without ever providing the underlying data, which feels like narrative management.
From a data-first viewpoint, what we can actually show is that:
- Prepublication review is real, legally grounded, and widely used.
- It often slows or shapes what insiders can say.
- Heavy criticism exists, yet courts have upheld the basic mechanism.
Whether that adds up to a deliberate strategy to drip-feed UAP truths while maintaining plausible deniability is an open question, not yet settled by documentary evidence.
References
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office. (2024). Report on the historical record of U.S. government involvement with unidentified anomalous phenomena (Volume I). Department of Defense. (U.S. Department of War)
Department of Defense. (2014). DoD Instruction 5230.29: Security and policy review of DoD information for public release. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
Department of Defense. (2019). DoD Instruction 5230.09: Clearance of DoD information for public release (as amended). (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
Department of Defense. (2016). Review of the policies for prepublication review of DoD classified or sensitive information to ensure no DoD sensitive or classified information is released to the media (Report DODIG-2016-101). DoD Inspector General. (U.S. Department of War)
Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review. (n.d.). Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review: Mission and FAQs. Washington Headquarters Services. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
Executive Services Directorate. (2023). David Grusch DOPSR request (FOIA release 23-F-0946-0958-1317). Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review.
Executive Services Directorate. (2025). 22-F-0956: Doc for release (Elizondo UAP video correspondence) (FOIA release). Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
Kean, L., & Blumenthal, R. (2023). Intelligence officials say U.S. has retrieved craft of non-human origin. The Debrief. (veritauniversale.it)
Lomas, T. (2024). Unidentified anomalous phenomena disclosure as ontological shock? Exploring diversity among social media responses to a congressional UAP hearing. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. (ResearchGate)
Lomas, T., et al. (2024). The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis: A case for scientific openness to a concealed earthly explanation for unidentified anomalous phenomena. Philosophy and Cosmology. (Fox News)
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (n.d.). Making lawful disclosures. Intelligence Community Inspector General. (ODNI)
United States Department of Defense. (n.d.). Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review: Prepublication and manuscripts FAQ. Washington Headquarters Services. (WHS Electronic Subcontracting Directory)
United States Supreme Court. (1980). Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507. (Justia Law)
Goldsmith, J., & Hathaway, O. (2016). More problems with prepublication review. Lawfare. (Default)
Hathaway, O., & Goldsmith, J. (2020). The government’s prepublication review process is broken. Washington Post. (Default)
Cato Institute. (2020). Prepublication review: Court-sanctioned censorship. (Cato Institute)
AARO FOIA Reading Room. (2025). Prepublication security review requests for materials relating to or requested by Mr. Timothy Phillips (Case 25-F-3452). All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office. (AARO)
SEO keywords
DOPSR UAP, Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review, UAP whistleblower protections, David Grusch DOPSR clearance, AARO historical record report DOPSR-cleared, DD Form 1910 UAP, prepublication review national security, controlled narrative UAP disclosure, Pentagon UAP reporting trends, Lacatski craft of unknown origin cleared for release.