Rep. Eric Burlison Announces Bipartisan Push for Specific UAP Files, Cites Warning Against Naming Alleged Program Gatekeepers

Congressional oversight into Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena has intensified, with Rep. Eric Burlison announcing a bipartisan request for specific UAP files and metadata while also recounting a warning he says he received against publicly naming alleged gatekeepers tied to legacy programs. The twin themes—formal demands for records and concerns about intimidation—underscore the ongoing tension between transparency efforts and the guarded nature of special access programs.

According to Burlison, House members have sent a letter seeking defined UAP materials, including file names, dates, and associated metadata, from senior figures across government and the Department of Energy. He described the request as bipartisan, listing signatories from both parties and noting that two signers sit on the House Intelligence Committee—a detail that signals targeted institutional interest rather than a purely activist push. Burlison also linked his optimism to a recent social media statement on UAP by former President Donald Trump, saying conversations with intelligence personnel suggested a perceived green light for greater engagement. He added that public hearings would occur as needed, implying a strategy focused on document acquisition and interviews before formal proceedings.

The pursuit of possible legacy programs ran headlong into safety concerns during a public Q&A when a question named several individuals as potential gatekeepers, including Lt. Gen. Donna Shipton, Randall G. Walden, Russell E. Wiler, Terry Phillips, and Lee M. Russ. Burlison said he maintains his own contact list for outreach and vetting. He then recounted that a former special operations and intelligence professional advised him to remove two names and never speak about them again, claiming those individuals would have no problem resorting to lethal means. The remark, presented by Burlison as a warning rather than a direct threat, nonetheless raised alarms about potential intimidation in an area where whistleblower protections and due process are already a focal point of reform efforts.

Outside researchers have attempted to map the institutional terrain around such programs. In separate remarks, the researcher known as UAP Gerb outlined an alleged career timeline for security official Terry Phillips, describing roles in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and its Special Projects element responsible for safeguarding Air Force special access programs, followed by senior security leadership positions at major defense contractors. Gerb further alleged reprisals against prospective whistleblowers associated with AFOSI/PJ and referenced past FBI collaboration with Air Force security elements to protect sensitive projects. These assertions remain allegations; they underscore why investigators emphasize sworn testimony, document trails, and clear chains of custody before drawing conclusions about the existence or handling of nontraditional aerospace materials.

The broader community dialogue also touched on accountability in public-facing research. Questions were raised about whether high-profile storytellers should address substantive critiques from other investigators, illustrating the field’s push for rigorous source evaluation even as new claims surface.

What happens next will likely hinge on formal responses to the congressional letter and whether agencies provide the requested materials or negotiate access terms. Clear documentation standards, coordinated interviews, and protections for witnesses will determine whether the inquiry yields verifiable evidence suitable for public oversight. As with prior government engagement on UAP, progress will depend on balancing national security equities with a credible path to transparency, ensuring that allegations of intimidation are reported and investigated, and that any claims—whether technical, historical, or institutional—are tested under oath and against the record.