What's still classified

Release 01 was 162 records. That number is doing rhetorical work it should not be allowed to do. The U.S. government’s UAP-related document inventory — across DoD, the Intelligence Community, NASA, State, and the federal law-enforcement and energy complexes — runs to thousands of records, most of which sit at one classification tier or another. PURSUE Release 01 surfaced a deliberate selection. Everything else is still held.

This is a reader’s reference to the categories of material PURSUE didn’t release, with the legal mechanism keeping each one sealed and what it would take to release it. The list is not exhaustive — we name what we can name with sourcing. It will grow as Releases 02, 03, and beyond reveal what’s missing from this list, and as outside reporting surfaces the rest. The closing section is a coda of three filable FOIA requests for readers who want to push.

Active program records

Holding agency: Unknown; likely DoD components and/or aerospace contractors Classification: SAP material; access governed by need-to-know, controlling agency’s program management Status: Alleged in 2023 congressional testimony; not acknowledged by AARO or DoD To release: Declassification by the program’s controlling agency, or congressional action using oversight authority outside SAP read-in requirements.

The “Immaculate Constellation” framework that Rep. Tim Burchett alluded to in 2024 — and the broader cluster of code-named programs David Grusch testified to in July 2023 — sit in this category. Their existence is contested; AARO has not been read in to any such program and therefore cannot investigate them. They are visible only through whistleblower testimony, which is itself classified, and through staff knowledge that cannot be brought into the public record without security violations.

AARO “anomalous” case files

Holding agency: AARO, within DoD Classification: Case-by-case; majority at Confidential or Secret Status: ~2–5% of AARO’s case intake; ongoing investigations To release: Resolution of the case or declassification recommendation accepted by the originating agency.

AARO has stated publicly — most clearly in the 2025 UAP Workshop Paper — that 2–5% of cases it reviews remain anomalous after investigation. The case files for these (associated sensor data, witness statements, contractor analyses) are not in PURSUE Release 01. The Western US Event seven-witness package that PURSUE did release is, by AARO’s framing, “among the most compelling” — but it is one case. The rest remain sealed.

Witness statements

Western US Event witness agency provenance

Holding agency: AARO as record-holder; originating agencies redacted Classification: Structural agency identification — not standard U.S.-person anonymization Status: Released in part (witness accounts public, agency identities redacted) To release: Decision by the controlling agencies to surface their personnel’s affiliations publicly.

Saturday’s dispatch flagged this. The agency affiliations of the seven federal-employee witnesses in the Western US Event were redacted from PURSUE Release 01. That is not standard tradecraft — which agencies they sit inside is itself classified. Whatever Release 02 does, this is the redaction to watch. If the bar lifts, it signals the controlling agencies have decided the affiliations can be public.

David Grusch’s classified statements

Holding agency: ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General); Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Classification: Top Secret/SCI; whistleblower-protected Status: Submitted under whistleblower disclosure statute; classified annexes never released publicly To release: Coordinated declassification with Grusch’s consent and ICIG/Congress concurrence, or a leak.

Grusch’s public testimony to House Oversight in July 2023 is on the record. The classified annexes that accompanied his ICIG complaint and his subsequent classified briefings to Senate Intelligence are not. They are the substrate of his allegations. They have not appeared in any PURSUE release and are not likely to without explicit declassification by the originating agencies — which is the structural problem his allegations create.

Foreign-cooperation records

Holding agency: ODNI, with sharing partners at UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand Classification: Foreign Government Information (FGI); third-party-rule constraints Status: Existence acknowledged in general terms; specific records sealed To release: Joint declassification across all five governments — historically a multi-year process even for narrow records.

UK and Australian parliamentary discussions in 2023–2025 have referenced informal UAP intelligence sharing between Five Eyes partners. The framework documents and any operational records produced under that sharing are governed by the third-party rule — each partner has veto power over the others’ release decisions. PURSUE Release 01 contains no Five Eyes material. That is a structural absence, not an oversight.

Russian and Chinese UAP encounter records (U.S.-obtained)

Holding agency: Likely NSA and CIA Classification: Sources-and-methods protection (FOIA exemptions b(1) and b(3)) Status: Believed to exist; nothing acknowledged or released To release: Declassification that does not compromise the original collection method — typically possible only decades after the fact.

The U.S. intelligence community has been collecting on Russian and Chinese military UAP encounters for as long as both countries have been generating them. None of that material is in PURSUE. Sources-and-methods protection generally takes precedence over disclosure value for active collection programs.

Sensor-data caches

Western US Event sensor records (or the absence thereof)

Holding agency: AARO; originating military commands Classification: Likely Secret/Top Secret if records exist; unclear status if no associated sensor record exists Status: PURSUE Release 01 notes “no technical data directly associated” To release: If the data exists, declassification by the originating command. If it does not exist, no release is possible.

Saturday’s dispatch named this gap. The witness accounts in the Western US Event package are present; the sensor records that would corroborate them are not. AARO’s framing — “no technical data directly associated” — leaves open whether the data was never captured, was captured by a system whose existence is itself classified, or simply has not been packaged for release yet. Each answer leads to a different Release 02 expectation.

NRO satellite imagery of UAP incidents

Holding agency: National Reconnaissance Office Classification: Compartmented (SCI); access governed by NRO program managers Status: Existence acknowledged in general terms; no specific records in PURSUE To release: NRO-led declassification — the agency has historically been the slowest of all IC components on UAP-related FOIA.

Whenever a UAP incident occurs near a U.S. military operating area, the NRO’s overhead collection envelope frequently includes it. Whether any specific incident was captured by NRO sensors is itself classified. That layer of double-classification — the records’ existence is hidden, and the records themselves are hidden — is the single most opaque holding in the U.S. UAP record.

Internal investigative working files

Holding agency: Defense Intelligence Agency Classification: Mixed; substantial portions at Secret/Top Secret Status: Pre-AARO records partially absorbed into AARO; remainder held at DIA To release: Declassification request through DIA’s process or AARO-facilitated review.

DIA was the predecessor home of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) before AARO existed. Some AATIP records were transferred to AARO; others remained at DIA. PURSUE Release 01 includes no DIA-originated records. The Pentagon Force Protection Agency’s classified compendium of UAP incidents at U.S. military installations also sits in this category.

FBI 62-HQ-83894 remaining serials

Holding agency: FBI Classification: Mixed; substantial portions previously declassified Status: Partially released through FBI Vault; PURSUE Release 01 added sections 2–10 and serials 130, 153 To release: FOIA requests for specific remaining serials, or FBI’s own declassification cycle.

The FBI’s master UAP file — 62-HQ-83894 — runs to thousands of pages dating from the 1940s. The portions on FBI Vault and the additional serials in PURSUE Release 01 still leave the bulk of the file under at least partial redaction. The file’s index alone is a useful FOIA roadmap.

What to FOIA

Three requests a reader could file today. Each is structured to maximize the chance of at least partial release.

1. NASA — additional Apollo and Gemini imagery referencing UAP cases. File at: NASA FOIA Office. Request language: “All Apollo and Gemini mission imagery that has been flagged, reviewed, or categorized in connection with the Department of War’s PURSUE program (Release 01, May 2026), including any imagery considered for inclusion but withheld, and any records of internal review of Apollo or Gemini imagery for unidentified aerial phenomena content.” Expected exemption challenge: b(5) (deliberative process) on internal review records. Ask in the same request for non-deliberative outputs — final imagery lists, categorization tables — as a fallback.

2. FBI — remaining serials of 62-HQ-83894. File at: FBI Records FOIA. Request language: “All remaining un-released serials of file 62-HQ-83894 not included in PURSUE Release 01 (May 2026) or previously released through FBI Vault, and the index of serials for the file as currently constituted.” Expected exemption challenge: b(7)© (personal privacy) and b(7)(E) (law-enforcement techniques) on individual serials. Ask for the index separately — indexes are rarely defensibly withheld.

3. AARO — case-resolution methodology for “anomalous” cases. File at: aaro.mil (reporting and FOIA page). Request language: “The current case-resolution methodology document used by AARO for cases classified as ‘anomalous,’ including any internal guidance issued since the 2025 UAP Workshop Paper, and any periodic accounting of the anomalous-case backlog by quarter for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.” Expected exemption challenge: b(3) (statutory exemption under Section 1683 procedural protections). Ask for the unclassified methodology summary as a fallback — public-facing summaries of internal methodology are typically releasable.

We will keep this updated

This dispatch is a living reference. As records release, we will strike them through with the release date rather than delete them — the inventory before and after is itself useful. As new categories emerge — sensor archives, foreign-cooperation specifics, sealed civil litigation — we will add them and date the addition. Send anything we should add: tips@littlegreenman.net.

—The Editor