Across four consecutive National Defense Authorization Acts, the United States quietly constructed a legal scaffolding for unidentified anomalous phenomena.
The 2021 act flagged “unidentified airborne objects” in statute, the 2022 act created a formal office to manage UAP across the defense and intelligence communities, the 2023 act expanded that office into the law with a secure reporting channel that pierces secrecy agreements, and the 2024 act ordered a government-wide UAP records collection at the National Archives and placed targeted limits on funding for any UAP activity that evades required reporting.
Together they turned a scattered topic into a repeatable process with deadlines, oversight, and publicly verifiable outputs. (Congress.gov)
What this explainer covers
The statutory text and where to read it, the office and reporting system these laws created, the resulting publications and datasets, the known figures, the points of contention, and the downstream implications for research and public transparency.
The backbone: four NDAAs and their UAP-relevant clauses
FY2021 NDAA (Public Law 116-283), signed January 1, 2021
While the famous one-time UAP report to Congress actually came from a separate appropriations directive, the 2021 defense act matters because it placed “unidentified airborne objects” in the statute book. Within Title XVI, military space activities, Congress included a section titled “Reports on unidentified airborne objects.”
It is an early sign that air and space safety concerns around unclassified or unattributed objects had reached the level of formal reporting expectations. The Congress.gov table of contents for the enacted law lists that section explicitly.
Why this is more than a footnote
By naming the class of “unidentified airborne objects,” Congress normalized the reporting problem in the same neighborhood as space domain awareness and range safety. It also set the stage for later, wider definitions that move beyond “airborne.”
FY2022 NDAA (Public Law 117-81), signed December 27, 2021
The 2022 act is the moment Congress moved from ad hoc task forces to an office with a charter. In conference materials and the enacted text, you will find Section 1683, “Establishment of office, organizational structure, and authorities to address unidentified aerial phenomena.”
This directed the Department of Defense to stand up a formal office, a move that culminated in the Pentagon’s public announcement on July 20, 2022 that it had established the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO. The law referenced cross agency coordination and systematic data collection; the Department’s announcement framed the office as the focus for detection, attribution, and mitigation across domains. (Congress.gov)
Key ideas locked in by the 2022 act
A central office with authority to harmonize data and analysis, a mandate to coordinate with intelligence partners and civil agencies, and a commitment to standardized reporting. In practice, this turned a short lived Navy task force into a persistent institution. (Congress.gov)
FY2023 NDAA (Public Law 117-263), signed December 23, 2022
The 2023 act is where the legal gears bite down. Congress codified AARO in Title 50 of the United States Code and widened scope from “aerial” to “anomalous.” The provisions now appear at 50 U.S.C. § 3373 (establishment, duties, science plan, definitions) and 50 U.S.C. § 3373b (secure reporting and protections). Several parts deserve plain-language translation. (Congress.gov)
- AARO’s placement and reporting lines
The Director is appointed by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and reports to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Principal Deputy DNI.
This dual chain is designed to break silos between defense and intelligence. (Legal Information Institute)
- Scope and definitions
Congress replaced “aerial” with “anomalous” and defined UAP to include airborne, transmedium, space-adjacent, and submerged observables.
The statute also calls out adverse physiological effects as a reportable dimension. (Legal Information Institute)
- Deliverables and timelines
Annual unclassified reports with classified annexes, semiannual classified briefings through 2026, a science plan to test candidate explanations, and a historical record report from 1945 forward. (Legal Information Institute) - Secure reporting channel and protections
Section 3373b orders a protected mechanism for current or former government personnel and contractors to report both UAP events and any government or contractor program related to UAP. Congress is explicit about the types of activities that can be reported here, naming material retrieval, material analysis, reverse engineering, detection and tracking, testing, and security.
Disclosures through this channel are authorized and protected, Congress barred reprisals, and it required a seventy two hour notification to congressional leaders if an authorized disclosure indicates an unreported restricted or special access program. Agencies must also search for UAP-related nondisclosure orders and deliver them for congressional access.
Why this is the turning point
The 2023 act writes into law the parts that previously existed as policy or directive. It creates the legal on-ramp for witnesses, sets oversight tripwires, and defines UAP across domains in a way that aligns with real world sensing. (Legal Information Institute)
FY2024 NDAA (Public Law 118-31), signed December 22, 2023
The 2024 act did two things of lasting importance for the UAP record, even as a more ambitious disclosure proposal was trimmed in conference.
First, it created an “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Records Collection” at the National Archives and required every federal agency to review, identify, and organize its UAP records by October 20, 2024 for public disclosure and transmission to NARA.
Second, it added a targeted limitation on funds for activities involving UAP that are protected within restricted compartments but have not been properly reported in the manner Congress now requires. The law’s text and the Archives’ own guidance make these obligations explicit. (Congress.gov)
A note on the debate that shaped the final 2024 act
Senate leaders had proposed a more sweeping package modeled on the Kennedy records law. The final law narrowed that approach, but the records collection and the spending limitation survived. Major outlets chronicled how the broader proposal was reduced in negotiations.
Impact measured, not guessed
1) A single office with a cross-domain mandate
Before 2022, responsibility bounced between a Navy task force and a short lived DoD group. The 2022 act ordered a standing office, and DoD announced AARO within months. The 2023 act then locked AARO into statute with a clarified chain of command.
That institutional continuity is why you can now read a consistent series of annual reports and a historical review. (Legal Information Institute)
2) A protected reporting lane that pierces secrecy agreements
Section 3373b is the quiet game-changer. It authorizes disclosures about UAP events and about any government or contractor activity touching UAP. Congress named categories like material retrieval and reverse engineering to remove ambiguity.
The statute protects authorized disclosures from reprisal and directs rapid congressional notification if the disclosure indicates an unreported restricted program. That is the most forceful oversight backstop this topic has ever had.
3) A repeatable reporting cadence and a growing dataset
ODNI’s 2022 report counted 510 total reports as of late August 2022. AARO’s 2023 consolidated report added 291 new submissions through April 30, 2023 for 801 total holdings at that time.
ODNI and DoD then issued the 2024 consolidated report under the amended cadence. Whatever one believes about individual cases, the dataset exists and grows because the statute requires it. (Director of National Intelligence)
4) A records architecture that will outlive news cycles
The 2024 act ordered a UAP records collection at the National Archives and set a near term deadline for agencies to identify and prepare records.
The Archives has already published guidance that cites the controlling sections of the law and lists compliance dates. This moves the subject from rumor to records management. (National Archives)
5) Early signals on spending discipline
Congress also placed limits on funding for any UAP activity that sits in restricted compartments but has not been reported in the manner required. Congress.gov’s summary of the enacted act catalogs this provision.
That is a practical way to force compliance without naming specific programs.
Known figures and their roles
- Senator Kirsten Gillibrand led the push to create a durable office and chaired the Senate Armed Services subcommittee that held the first dedicated AARO hearing. Her staff work in 2021–2022 shaped the architecture that became law. (Congress.gov)
- Senator Marco Rubio supported the framework as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, advocated for full funding of AARO after enactment, and publicly encouraged protected disclosures.
- Senate leadership on the 2024 records provisions included Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Mike Rounds, who promoted a broad disclosure package. The final law narrowed the proposal but retained the records collection at NARA; reporting by major outlets documented the negotiations.
- AARO leadership moved from Dr. Sean M. Kirkpatrick as the first director, to an acting director, and then to Dr. Jon T. Kosloski in 2024. The office’s public site anchors the reports and congressional products that the NDAAs require.
- House oversight voices amplified the conversation with a high-profile hearing in July 2023. That event is not an NDAA product, but it lives in the oversight ecosystem these acts empowered. (Director of National Intelligence)
Controversies, cleanly framed
The historical report and witness claims
AARO’s Volume 1 historical review states that it found no empirical evidence that the United States government has confirmed extraterrestrial technology in its holdings.
Several witnesses and some lawmakers have asserted the opposite in public testimony and interviews. The 2023 law created the mechanism to resolve that contradiction with protected disclosures and mandatory congressional notification if undisclosed restricted programs are implicated.
This is a clash between declared evidence and statutory process, not a final verdict. (Director of National Intelligence)
The narrowed 2024 disclosure provisions
Supporters of a sweeping public release regime were disappointed that the final 2024 act did not create an independent review board with presumptions of disclosure. The surviving elements are narrower but still consequential.
They created formal records collection at NARA and required agencies to prepare their holdings for public release on a schedule. Reporting by major outlets describes how negotiations trimmed the original proposal.
Transparency versus classification
Annual unclassified reports exist by law, but many sensor systems and operational settings remain classified. AARO has posted declassified imagery, case notes, and methods, yet the tension will persist.
The statutes try to manage this by mandating public reports and by moving historical materials into an archives process that has long practice in balancing openness with security. (National Archives)
What the numbers and documents tell us
- Reporting totals
• 510 total reports as of August 30, 2022.
• 801 total holdings by April 30, 2023 after 291 new submissions.
• Continued reporting under the 2024 cadence, with ODNI noting the NDAA basis for the joint product. (Director of National Intelligence) - Definitions that now govern
UAP includes airborne, space-adjacent, transmedium, and submerged objects that are not immediately identifiable, with adverse physiological effects recognized as a reportable dimension. This comes straight from § 3373 and is now the standard vocabulary in DoD and ODNI products. (Legal Information Institute) - Protections in plain language
If you are current or former government or a cleared contractor with direct knowledge of UAP events or programs, you can report through the authorized mechanism and you are protected from reprisal. If your disclosure indicates an unreported restricted program, congressional leaders must be notified within seventy two hours. Agencies must find and provide relevant nondisclosure orders. This is the heart of § 3373b. - Records deadlines
NARA’s guidance cites the 2024 law and sets a specific date for agencies to identify and organize all UAP records for disclosure and transfer. That is the compliance lens to watch in the year after enactment. (National Archives)
Implications
For science and engineering
The shift from “aerial” to “anomalous” is not semantics.
It tells analysts to respect transitions between sea, air, and space and to expect cases that do not fit aviation defaults. The science plan requirement in § 3373 creates a pathway for instrumented studies and calibration work that reduces noise without dismissing the unexplained remainder.
It also normalizes physiological reporting, which matters for occupational health and for correlating human effects with sensor anomalies. (Legal Information Institute)
For policy and oversight
Congress did not promise answers. It forced process. Tripwires, protected disclosures, deadlines, and a records regime are the stuff of accountable governance. The funding limitation in the 2024 act adds leverage by telling departments that activities will not be bankrolled if they evade the very oversight the law created.
For international partners
The definitions and the office’s duty to consult allies mean data schemas can finally converge across borders and domains. That aligns with civil aviation safety, maritime domain awareness, and space tracking rather than isolating UAP as an outlier. (Legal Information Institute)
For the public
You can now follow a paper trail rather than a rumor trail. The annual reports, the historical review, and the National Archives process create a predictable release tempo.
Even those who doubt official conclusions should welcome rules that force records to surface. (Director of National Intelligence)
Bottom line
These four NDAAs did not answer whether some UAP are nonhuman technology.
They did something more durable. They secured an office across two communities, defined the subject across domains, created a protected reporting lane with teeth, ordered annual and historical deliverables, imposed a government-wide records process, and attached a budget lever to enforce compliance.
That is a classic example of Congress building a method rather than a headline.
Reference
Public Law 116-283, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Congress.gov. “Reports on unidentified airborne objects” listed in Title XVI.
Public Law 117-81, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, and Section 1683 in conference materials. (Congress.gov)
DoD release, “Department of Defense announces the establishment of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office,” July 20, 2022.
Public Law 117-263, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. (Congress.gov)
50 U.S.C. § 3373, Establishment of AARO, duties, definitions, science plan, annual and historical reports. (Legal Information Institute)
50 U.S.C. § 3373b, UAP reporting procedures and protections.
Public Law 118-31, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. (Congress.gov)
Congress.gov bill text and XML for H.R. 2670, including UAP records sections and a summary that notes a UAP spending limitation. (Congress.gov)
NARA, “Guidance to Federal Agencies on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena,” May 8, 2024. (National Archives)
ODNI, “2022 Annual Report on UAP,” January 2023.
AARO, “FY2023 Consolidated Annual Report on UAP,” October 2023.
ODNI, “2024 Consolidated Annual Report on UAP,” November 2024. (Director of National Intelligence)
AARO, “Historical Record Report, Volume 1,” March 8, 2024.
Politico and The Hill coverage of the narrowed UAP disclosure provisions in the FY2024 NDAA.
Claims Taxonomy
Verified
- FY2021 NDAA contains a section titled “Reports on unidentified airborne objects.”
- FY2022 NDAA Section 1683 directed the establishment of an office to address UAP; DoD subsequently announced AARO. (Congress.gov)
- FY2023 NDAA codified AARO and created the secure reporting channel at 50 U.S.C. §§ 3373 and 3373b with the seventy two hour congressional notification rule. (Legal Information Institute)
- FY2024 NDAA created a UAP records collection at the National Archives and required agencies to identify and organize their records by a date certain. (Congress.gov)
- ODNI and AARO issued the required annual reports and the first historical volume. (Director of National Intelligence)
Probable
- The protections in § 3373b increased the willingness of current and former personnel to provide information, including historical program claims, to AARO and Congress. Public comments from senior lawmakers and the cadence of AARO products suggest uptake. (Director of National Intelligence)
Disputed
- Whether there are or were concealed retrieval or reverse engineering programs that evaded lawful reporting. The historical report says AARO did not find verified evidence, while witnesses and some members of Congress say otherwise. The 2023 law provides the mechanism to resolve the dispute.
Legend
- The idea that the 2024 act “revealed” nonhuman technology. The law created a records process and a spending limitation; it did not validate any extraordinary claim. (Congress.gov)
Misidentification
- AARO’s public case notes and annual reports show many events resolved as balloons, clutter, conventional craft, or processing artifacts when measured well. That does not end the subject, but it is a significant category in the data.
Speculation labels
Hypothesis
The records collection at NARA will, over time, pull in disparate agency files that were never in one place. When correlated with AARO’s case metadata and public sensor datasets, this will allow independent teams to reconstruct timelines and environmental conditions for clusters of events that remain unexplained. Expect at least a modest rise in cross domain case resolutions as this correlation matures.
Witness interpretation
Some cleared personnel who use the § 3373b mechanism may honestly report fragmentary exposure to compartmented projects and infer more than the record bears. The authorized channel is likely to convert belief into testable documentation, reducing room for narrative drift without chilling valid disclosures.
Researcher opinion
The move from “aerial” to “anomalous” is the most important definitional shift since the military adopted UAP. It aligns with the physics of the observable world and will prevent entire classes of events from being filtered out at intake. That alone will improve the signal to noise ratio as sensors and analysis mature.
SEO keywords
NDAA UAP 2021 2024; National Defense Authorization Act UAP; 50 USC 3373; 50 USC 3373b; AARO mandate; UAP records National Archives; UAP secure reporting channel; Gillibrand Rubio UAP; Schumer Rounds UAP records; AARO historical report; ODNI UAP annual report; UAP funding limitation; transmedium definition in law