Ross Coulthart Urges New Church Commission Amid CIA Clash, UAP Psyop Fears and Galactic Federation Claims

Ross Coulthart uses his latest Reality Check Q&A to connect intensifying disputes over CIA conduct, contested UAP whistleblower narratives and speculative claims about a galactic federation into a broader argument for stronger oversight and more structured disclosure. Framing the moment around a planned presidential memo mandating release of UAP files, he warns that continued resistance from intelligence agencies risks a forced, catastrophic disclosure rather than an orderly process.

Coulthart opens by welcoming news, relayed by Representative Eric Burlison, that Donald Trump intends to issue a memo requiring the release of UAP files. He describes this as a very positive development that aligns with public expectations following the launch of the Pentagon’s UAP portal, which has already attracted hundreds of millions of visits. Against that backdrop, he turns to what he portrays as a deepening confrontation between Congress, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA over declassification and access to records that reach far beyond UAP, including JFK, MK-Ultra and civil rights–era assassination files.

The most immediate trigger, he explains, was a public statement by a CIA spokeswoman criticizing a Senate committee for subpoenaing a CIA officer without notifying the agency in advance and dismissing the hearing as 'dishonest political theater.' Coulthart calls this 'breathtaking' arrogance and notes that, after checking, he can find no legal requirement obliging Congress to seek CIA permission before calling either former or serving officers. In his view, the episode illustrates an agency that has forgotten its position in the intelligence hierarchy and the constitutional authority of Congress to conduct oversight on behalf of the public.

To underline that hierarchy, Coulthart walks through the statutory framework that created the ODNI in 2004 under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. The ODNI, he says, was designed in direct response to the intelligence failures preceding 9/11, with the Director of National Intelligence designated as the principal intelligence adviser to the president and head of the U.S. intelligence community. Under this structure, the CIA director reports to the DNI, not the other way around. The ODNI is entitled to full access to all national intelligence and exercises oversight over the National Intelligence Program budget that funds the CIA. For Coulthart, any attempt by the CIA to constrain ODNI access to its own records, particularly in the middle of an ODNI declassification review, is more than a bureaucratic turf fight; it challenges the post‑9/11 reform model.

Coulthart then focuses on recent Senate testimony by James Erdmann, a former Army Ranger, Foreign Service officer and award‑winning intelligence professional who worked in the ODNI Director’s Initiatives Group. Erdmann stated that when that group closed, the CIA reclaimed approximately 40 boxes of JFK and MK-Ultra documents that were actively being processed for declassification under a Trump executive order requiring full release of remaining JFK assassination records and associated MLK and RFK material. Erdmann framed this as the CIA intervening to pull documents back from ODNI custody mid‑review. Coulthart stresses that, while agencies retain physical custody rights and original classification authority, they do not have unilateral power to override a presidential directive or the DNI’s review process. He supports Representative Anna Paulina Luna’s demand that the CIA return the boxes, provide a detailed accounting to the ODNI of their contents and formally certify that no records have been destroyed.

From Coulthart’s perspective, this dispute has direct implications for UAP. He notes that the same legal framework governs declassification across topics, and that assurances that all JFK, MLK and even Epstein records have been released now appear unreliable in light of Erdmann’s account. He adds that multiple failures to meet UAP reporting and disclosure requirements also track back to the CIA. Combined with a public rebuke of Congress and what he describes as sustained obstruction, this leads him to back calls from Senator Ron Johnson and others for a new Church Committee–style commission to examine alleged CIA abuses. He explicitly includes within that remit allegations of serious crimes, including claims that people in the UAP community have been murdered, arguing that only a rigorous, independent inquiry could credibly address such charges.

Turning to the latest UAP document release, Coulthart responds to a viewer who wonders if the publication of low‑quality videos and easily debunked material is part of a psyop. He answers that he believes this is exactly what is happening. He cites former AARO director Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick’s public prediction that the release would be a 'big fat nothing' as evidence that some officials knew in advance that mostly unremarkable cases would be posted. Coulthart contends that Pentagon and intelligence insiders likely curated 'low‑hanging, boring fruit' in the expectation that the public would lose interest, only to be surprised when the UAP portal nonetheless drew massive traffic.

Coulthart connects these maneuvers to a legislative defeat at the end of the previous year, when a proposed presidential records review board for UAP was stripped out of the defense appropriations bill. That nine‑member panel of security‑cleared experts would have had authority to make independent, case‑by‑case decisions about UAP declassification outside direct intelligence community control. Without it, he argues, decisions about what remains classified default back to the very agencies accused of stonewalling. He reiterates his longstanding warning of 'catastrophic disclosure'—a scenario in which insiders leak high‑impact evidence without coordination—if government does not move quickly and visibly to meet public expectations for UAP transparency.

In this context he returns to Representative Burlison’s statement that the president will issue a memo mandating UAP disclosure. Coulthart suggests that such a mandate could set a clearer legal baseline, but only if it is enforced against continued resistance from sectors of the intelligence community, the Defense Department and private military contractors. He predicts that if obstruction continues, both investigative journalists and members of Congress will begin 'naming and shaming' specific officials and entities perceived as blocking compliance, arguing there is a 'real change of mood' in Congress and that the public is no longer willing to accept superficial releases.

Coulthart next turns to internal disputes within the UAP advocacy world, prompted by a question about former DIA analyst James Lacatski’s claim that some witnesses lied to Congress. Lacatski, who designed and ran the Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Applications Program (AAWSAP), has publicly said that he knows some testimony given to Congress was untrue but that he cannot correct the record, despite having proof, because it is 'too late.' Coulthart notes that Lacatski has not named individuals, but that community analysis links his comments to long‑running disagreements over the relationship between AAWSAP and the informally labeled Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (ATIP).

According to Coulthart, Luis Elizondo has at times described ATIP as associated with AAWSAP, while Lacatski has disputed that framing. He believes there is a larger, still‑classified story involving Elizondo’s deeper counterintelligence role in the Defense Department and possible intersections with an alleged legacy UAP retrieval and reverse engineering program. Coulthart argues that, at some point, Elizondo will have to provide a clearer public accounting of his responsibilities in ATIP and any related activities, but he acknowledges that national security oaths currently limit what can be said without confirming the existence of sensitive programs. He warns that the unresolved dispute between Lacatski and Elizondo, amplified by social media commentary from other former officials, is unhealthy for the UAP disclosure effort because it gives debunkers an easy target in the form of visible infighting.

Expanding on the political backdrop, Coulthart revisits the period around the 2016 U.S. election. He suggests that many in the defense and intelligence establishment expected Hillary Clinton to win and anticipated that she might pursue more aggressive UAP disclosure. In that climate, he says, a faction inside those institutions helped facilitate the creation of To The Stars Academy (TTSA), bringing in figures such as Jim Semivan and Luis Elizondo as the public 'faces' of disclosure. Coulthart believes this was at least partly a genuine attempt to move information into the open, but he also suspects it could have been structured to shape or constrain the narrative. He is candid that this is speculation, but insists that, as official disclosure mechanisms evolve over the coming years, the community will need a fuller, more transparent history of those early initiatives.

In the final portion of the Q&A, Coulthart addresses a question about the 'galactic federation'—a proposed coalition of advanced non‑human intelligences said to monitor and sometimes interact with Earth. He traces the term’s origins back to mid‑20th century channeling movements, including alleged communications from an extraterrestrial 'Ashtar' that portrayed a 'galactic federation of light' as a peacekeeping force with millions of ships poised to assist humanity. In the 1990s, he notes, New Age projects such as Sheldon Nidle’s 'ground crew' promoted channeled messages about an impending mass landing and a federation of hundreds of thousands of 'star nations,' but none of these predictions materialized or were supported by verifiable evidence.

Coulthart acknowledges that contemporary commentators like Elena Danaan continue to claim direct contact with a galactic federation of worlds and that media outlets have embraced the concept for entertainment value. However, he emphasizes that there is 'not a jot' of hard evidence—no documents, sensor records or corroborated witness testimonies—to substantiate these narratives. The most striking official‑sounding claim, he says, comes from Haim Eshed, the former head of Israel’s space security program, who wrote in his book 'The Universe Beyond the Horizon' that the U.S. and Israel have long been in contact with a galactic federation, signed agreements allowing experiments on Earth in exchange for technology and even operate a joint underground base on Mars.

Eshed also asserted that President Trump was aware of the federation and nearly disclosed its existence before being asked not to, supposedly to avoid mass hysteria until humanity matures. Coulthart notes that Eshed is highly decorated and not publicly regarded as mentally ill, and that another senior Israeli figure, Isaac Ben-Israel, has acknowledged that Israel takes extraterrestrial life seriously while dismissing federation claims as 'going too far.' Yet Eshed has provided no documentary proof or corroborating witnesses, and efforts by Coulthart and others to secure an in‑depth interview have been blocked by an unusually tight security ring around Eshed and his family. He adds that late Canadian former defence minister Paul Hellyer also spoke about extraterrestrial councils and federations based on briefings he said he received from U.S. generals, but again without presenting verifiable evidence.

Coulthart concludes that, despite the intriguing stature of figures like Eshed and Hellyer, all public references to a galactic federation ultimately trace back to channelers or uncorroborated anecdotal reports. For now, he argues, such concepts remain speculative and should not be conflated with the more document‑driven aspects of UAP inquiry. Across the episode, his consistent theme is that structured oversight—through mechanisms like a modern Church Commission, an empowered presidential records review board and a binding presidential memo on UAP disclosure—is the only reliable way to resolve both public claims and internal disputes while avoiding a chaotic, catastrophic disclosure event.