The battle lines in Washington have shifted from “if” they are here to “who” controls the narrative. As we approach the end of 2025 the reinvigorated UAP Transparency Act has once again placed the concept of an Independent Review Board (IRB) at the center of a constitutional crisis. Unlike the gutted legislation of late 2023 this new iteration demands civilian oversight with teeth.
Intelligence officials and aerospace lobbyists are currently engaged in a frantic behind-the-scenes war to strip the IRB of its subpoena powers before the bill reaches the President. We are witnessing the friction between the Controlled Disclosure Campaign Plan mandated by the executive branch and the threat of Catastrophic Disclosure from frustrated whistleblowers.
→ The Return of the Zombie Amendment
Two years ago the original Schumer-Rounds amendment was stripped of its defining feature: a presidentially appointed board with the authority to declassify records over the heads of the Department of Defense. The 2025 Act restores this board. It explicitly models the body after the JFK Assassination Records Review Board but adds Title 50 authority.
The current draft legislation includes:
- Eminent Domain: The government asserts ownership over any recovered technologies of unknown origin currently held by private aerospace contractors.
- Subpoena Power: The IRB can compel testimony from retired intelligence officers and private citizens without fear of reprisal or NDA violation.
- Biological Evidence: Specific language regarding “non-human intelligence” and biological samples derived from crash retrievals.
Sources inside the Capitol suggest the “Gatekeepers” are willing to concede on historical sighting data but are drawing a hard line at the eminent domain clause. They fear it opens the door to shareholder lawsuits and criminal negligence charges regarding the decades-long concealment of exotic propulsion systems.
→ Why the IC Fears the Board
The Intelligence Community (IC) argues that an external board lacks the “Need to Know” regarding sensitive sources and methods used to track these objects. This is a deflection. The core issue is not about protecting sensor data but about hiding the legacy programs that have operated without Congressional oversight since the 1940s.
We have seen documents referencing the “3I/ATLAS” network and the integration of Five Eyes data in tracking fast-walkers entering the atmosphere. If the IRB gets access to the raw data from these unacknowledged special access programs the timeline of contact will be rewritten. It won’t start in 2004 with the Tic Tac UFO. It will go back to the 1930s and potentially expose agreements made with NHI that were never ratified by any elected body.
→ The Private Aerospace Factor
The fiercest opposition comes from the corporate sector. For decades defense contractors have enjoyed a monopoly on reverse-engineering efforts derived from crash retrievals. The UAP Transparency Act 2025 threatens to nationalize these assets. Legal teams for major aerospace firms are lobbying to classify the “method of acquisition” indefinitely while potentially handing over the materials.
This compromise is unacceptable. Without the chain of custody and the context of the recovery we lose the history. Did the craft crash? Was it shot down? Was it a gift? The IRB is the only mechanism capable of answering these questions without the filter of the military-industrial complex.
→ The Path Forward
Disclosure is now a historical fact yet the granularity remains elusive. We know we are not alone. We know the government possesses craft. The fight now is for the files. If the UAP Transparency Act 2025 passes with the Independent Review Board intact we will finally see the end of the secrecy regime. If it is gutted again we can expect a wave of leaks that will make the last five years look like a warm-up.