UFO disclosure is a test of whether citizens still own reality



This week, as critics lined up to call Steven Spielberg’s June 12 film “Disclosure Day” the best thing he has made in 20 years, Glenn Beck made a point on his program that matters more than the movie.

The real story, Beck argued, is not whether Spielberg is running a quiet psychological operation for the Pentagon. The real story is that we have entered what Beck calls “the death of free will” — an age in which the device in your pocket studies what frightens you, flatters you, and keeps you watching, then feeds each of us a private version of reality until no two Americans can agree on what is true.

A faction that insists on deciding how much reality you can handle and an algorithm that quietly decides which reality you will see are two versions of the same problem.

He is right. I would push the point one step further.

That is precisely why the fight over UFO disclosure matters more than it appears.

I am an attorney by training and a California public school science teacher of 19 years. I have published 20 books, all on governmental and corporate corruption, and none of them touched anything I would have called fringe. Two and a half years ago, I co-wrote “Catastrophic Disclosure: The Deep State, Aliens, and the Truth” with documentary filmmaker Michael Mazzola.

I came to the subject as a skeptic. What convinced me something serious was being hidden was not a sighting or a leaked photograph. It was a congressional hearing.

On July 26, 2023, three credentialed witnesses — Air Force intelligence officer David Grusch and Navy pilots Ryan Graves and David Fravor — testified before the House Oversight Committee. Anyone who has covered Capitol Hill knows witnesses are vetted exhaustively before they testify under oath.

Grusch described an active military program of UFO crash recovery, reverse engineering, and the retrieval of “biologic” remains. He said he was denied access when he asked for it. Either the witnesses were lying, or the government was. As a lawyer, my instinct was to look for what we call best evidence: the earliest accounts, made before anyone had reason to shade the truth.

That brings me to the documents.

RELATED: Pentagon publishes first tranche of ‘hidden’ UFO files

AFP/Getty Images

On May 8, the Pentagon began releasing what it calls “never-before-seen” files on unidentified anomalous phenomena under a new program called PURSUE. The first tranche, roughly 162 documents, includes Apollo-era astronaut sightings, decades-old military records, and pilot encounter reports over the Persian Gulf and elsewhere. More tranches are promised on a rolling basis. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called it “the first in what will be an ongoing joint declassification and release effort.”

One document, dated December 19, 1947, is a letter from H.M. McCoy, the Air Force chief of intelligence, transmitting reports on what were then called “flying discs.” McCoy wrote that continued reports from qualified observers still made the matter one of concern.

A second document — a September 23, 1947, assessment by Lt. Gen. Nathan Twining of the Air Materiel Command — is blunter. Twining concluded that “the phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious.” He described disc-shaped objects roughly the size of manned aircraft, with metallic surfaces, maneuvering in ways that suggested intelligent control at estimated speeds above 300 knots.

That was the Air Force’s own view in 1947. In 2026, our best and brightest still cannot give the public a credible answer. We have walked on the moon. We have edited human DNA. Yet, we still cannot explain what military pilots record on infrared cameras over the Persian Gulf.

Credit where it is due. The May 8 release would not have happened without the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets, chaired by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), and the persistence of Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Eric Burlison (R-Mo.). President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth deserve credit for the directive that made it possible. This is real progress and the kind of transparency that should not be a partisan question.

But it is a first step, not a final one.

When I started the book, my co-author described a quiet war inside the national security state between two factions. One wanted “controlled” disclosure, a careful release at a pace the public could absorb. The other wanted “full” disclosure, the entire record at once. The first faction feared the second would trigger what it privately called catastrophic disclosure — a revelation severe enough to disrupt the basic institutions of public life.

RELATED: The real mystery isn’t UFOs — it’s what the government won’t explain

Moor Studio/Getty Images

What that faction fears the public will learn, I do not know. I will not pretend I do.

Here is where Beck’s warning and my book meet. A faction that insists on deciding how much reality you can handle and an algorithm that quietly decides which reality you will see are two versions of the same problem. Both take away the same thing: the right to look at the evidence and judge it for yourself.

Beck worries that the machine will hand each of us a custom world and convince us we discovered it on our own. The defense against that is not a better algorithm. It is a shared, documented, public record — primary sources and sworn testimony any citizen can read and weigh.

That is exactly what disclosure produces. It is also exactly what the “controlled” faction wants to ration.

In an age when truth is splintered into a million private feeds, a common set of facts is not a small thing. It may be the only thing.

On June 12, Spielberg releases “Disclosure Day.” He has spent his career telling stories about contact, from “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” to “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.” He is a serious filmmaker with serious sources. The question is whether the disclosure he puts on screen looks like what the government released May 8 — or like something larger it is still holding back.

I hope it is the larger one.

Beck asks what is real. In a free country, the answer starts with the documents.

The American public can handle them. We have earned them.

'Glowing orbs' disclosed in military UFO docs — 10 feet in front of an intelligence official



Newly released Department of War documents shed light on possible aerial capabilities of UFOs.

On Friday morning, the Pentagon announced a document dump of more Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena files, revealing the findings of a current U.S. intelligence official.

'The object then split into two and changed direction.'

The official said that in 2025, he was part of a team sent to investigate unusual noises and sightings of "orb-like" objects near a sensitive U.S. military facility.

"Our mission was to investigate loud thuds heard in the mountains on the test range, which coincided with ... sightings reported over the previous several nights," the government official wrote.

While flying at low altitude in a helicopter, the intelligence officer discovered "a large cave entrance with no visible end in sight," but saw no safe landing spot.

Realizing they were low on fuel, the pilots took him to a prearranged rendezvous point and dropped off one unknown official before heading to a tanker for refueling. Before long, their Joint Operations Center had detected hits on radar, in the same area sightings were made on previous nights.

Using infrared goggles, ground teams soon reported seeing a UAP and described it as "super hot," low to the ground, and moving at high speed.

"The object then split into two and changed direction," the officer said of the ground team's description, but this wouldn't be the only time the unidentified object seemingly performed the unbelievable maneuver.

RELATED: Vast image 'reminiscent of the grim reaper' appears over Los Angeles

Luis Gutierrez/Norte Photo/Getty Images

The officer and the two pilots soon arrived and scanned the area with night-vision goggles, infrared, and the naked eye. The ground team then informed them that the foreign object had risen from the ground and moved within 10 feet of the helicopter before dropping below it and speeding off.

"The pilots observed it through NVGs and saw it split into two as a smaller object emerged before it accelerated out of sight," the officer recalled.

The helicopter allegedly pursued the object, but was unable to match its speed. The officer was later told that several fighter jets in the area were asked to help identify the UAP.

The "close UAP encounters" allegedly lasted over an hour and took place when the helicopter was asked to search a nearby mountain.

RELATED: Why Big Tech's biggest just signed on to build the Pentagon's AI army

Luke Sharrett/Getty Images

The report's summary said the incident occurred sometime in 2025 and referred to the official encountering unidentified "glowing orbs" both at close range and at a distance.

It further described the object as accelerating away in two different directions. Numerous "higher-altitude" orbs were described as the objects that came close to the helicopter.

Photos are featured along with the report, including ones that allegedly show the object after splitting in two. However, the bulk of the photos are dated as being captured in 1999.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

US calls Canada’s bluff on defense spending; 'pauses' 86-year-old alliance



The Pentagon appears to be sending Ottawa a message: Rhetoric is no substitute for military capability.

The Department of Defense announced Monday it was “pausing” the 86-year-old Permanent Joint Board on Defense between the United States and Canada, according to Undersecretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby. The move comes amid mounting frustration in Washington over Canada’s chronic defense underinvestment — and Prime Minister Mark Carney’s increasingly confrontational rhetoric toward President Donald Trump.

'We can no longer avoid the gaps between rhetoric and reality. Real powers must sustain our shared defense and security responsibilities.'

Established in 1940 by President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, the board became one of the earliest pillars of continental defense cooperation. Coming as Nazi Germany tightened its grip on Europe and fears grew over Atlantic security, the agreement reflected Roosevelt’s recognition that American and Canadian security could no longer be treated separately.

That alliance eventually evolved into NORAD and decades of deep military integration between the two countries.

All talk

Now Washington appears to be signaling that the relationship cannot continue on autopilot.

“We can no longer avoid the gaps between rhetoric and reality,” Colby wrote on X. “Real powers must sustain our rhetoric with shared defense and security responsibilities.”

Colby argued that while a militarily capable Canada benefits the United States, Ottawa has repeatedly failed to meet its defense commitments in a credible way.

The timing is awkward for Carney, whose government has loudly projected Canadian independence from Washington while remaining vague about how it intends to rebuild the country’s depleted armed forces.

RELATED: 'AMERICAN INVASION': Flailing Canada PM Mark Carney invokes historical grudge in latest lob at Trump

George Rose/Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Jet blues

Although Ottawa recently claimed the government had finally reached NATO’s benchmark of spending 2% of GDP on defense, critics have questioned how the government arrived at that number. Media reports have indicated that the Liberals counted items such as landscaping at military bases and civilian airport infrastructure upgrades as defense expenditures.

More tellingly, Carney’s April 28 Spring Economic Statement reportedly contained little detail on major procurement priorities.

That uncertainty now extends to Canada’s planned purchase of 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets. Despite years of delays and political debate, the Carney government is still reviewing the order, with Defense Minister David McGuinty recently confirming that alternatives remain under consideration.

One possibility floated by Ottawa is a mixed fleet pairing the American-made F-35 with Sweden’s Saab Gripen fighter. But U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra has repeatedly warned that Canada’s role in NORAD could be jeopardized if Ottawa fails to follow through on the full F-35 purchase.

Buy or beware

The concern is not merely political but operational. Every branch of the U.S. military that flies fighter aircraft is transitioning to the F-35 platform, which is also used by several of Canada’s closest defense partners, including the British Royal Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force. Hoekstra has argued that the Gripen would create interoperability problems inside a continental defense structure increasingly built around the F-35 ecosystem.

For Washington, the frustration is becoming increasingly obvious: Canada wants the diplomatic stature and moral authority of a serious middle power while continuing to hesitate on the military commitments required to sustain that role.

The Pentagon’s decision to pause the defense board may ultimately prove symbolic. But symbols matter in alliances — especially when they come from Washington.

After decades of assuming continental defense cooperation was automatic, the United States now appears willing to publicly question whether Canada is prepared to carry its share of the burden.

The Pentagon is blowing a fortune fighting bargain-bin drones



For the past two years, one image has circulated among defense analysts: a U.S. Navy destroyer firing a Standard Missile-2, which costs about $2.1 million, to intercept a Houthi drone that likely cost $2,000.

Nobody in that chain made a bad decision. The ship had to be defended. But the Navy has now fired more than 200 such missiles in the Red Sea since late 2023 at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Project that math onto future conflicts — Taiwan, the Baltics, the Persian Gulf — and the picture gets alarming fast.

Sophistication matters. Volume matters more. Flexibility may matter most of all.

The standard answer is to demand better technology: lasers, interceptor drones, smarter jamming. But that misses what Ukraine has shown over three years of the largest sustained drone war in history. Much of the technology needed to defeat cheap drones at reasonable cost already exists. What America lacks is the doctrine, procurement flexibility, and industrial base to field it at scale.

What defenders need is simpler: distributed sensors, disciplined targeting, and layered defenses that match the cheapest effective response to each threat.

Ukraine now produces about 1,500 interceptor drones per day. They cost $1,200 and $4,700 apiece, a fraction of the $29,100 to $46,520 Shahed drones they destroy. One in three Russian aerial threats over Ukraine is now brought down by an interceptor drone rather than a missile. Ukraine’s overall interception rate sits around 80%, achieved not through Patriot batteries alone but through layers of cheap, rapidly iterated hardware built by 450 domestic manufacturers.

Ukraine’s advantage is not just volume. It is decentralization. Units, volunteers, and defense-tech firms operate in a flexible ecosystem that lets them adapt systems to terrain, weather, and enemy tactics as conditions change.

The American model moves the other way: centralized requirements, standardized programs, and long acquisition cycles. That system can produce extraordinary weapons. It cannot adapt when the battlefield changes faster than the program office. The United States faces different constraints, especially at sea and across global commitments, but the underlying economics do not change.

As of 2022, the United States was producing roughly 500 to 600 Patriot missiles per year. That stock can be burned through in weeks during a high-intensity conflict. This is not a missile-design flaw. It is the result of three decades of underinvestment in manufacturing capacity and a procurement system optimized for sophistication over volume. America still buys platforms better than it buys kill chains — the linked system of sensors, decisions, and interceptors — and counter-drone defense demands the reverse.

Meanwhile, Russia, working from Iranian Shahed blueprints, scaled launches to more than 44,000 in the first 10 months of 2025, four times the previous year’s rate. The United States is now in an industrial competition and, on current trajectory, losing it on volume.

RELATED: The combination that can renew America’s defense industry

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

The tactical lessons from Ukraine are hardly mysterious. Detect early, match the weapon to the threat, and keep defenses mobile. Ukraine’s mobile fire groups — pickup trucks with machine guns and thermal imagers — proved effective enough that Russia rushed to copy them, with limited success. Israel’s Iron Beam laser intercepts threats at roughly $2 to $5 per shot. These systems work.

The problem is that “works in Ukraine” and “enters U.S. inventory at scale” are separated by an acquisition process that takes years, prizes exquisite performance over adequate volume, and was never designed for six-week innovation cycles.

The 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh offers another warning. Armenia’s air defenses collapsed not because drones are invincible, but because Armenia lacked modern, layered defenses. Institutional neglect, not technological inevitability, proved decisive.

None of this means expensive interceptors are obsolete. Advanced threats still require advanced interceptors. And as CSIS has noted, a $2 million missile protecting a $2 billion ship and its crew is rational. The point is not to abandon high-end systems. It is to stop treating them as the first and only answer to every aerial threat and to build the lower tiers of the defense stack with the same urgency we bring to the top.

That means procurement reform that many defense insiders regard as somewhere between very hard and politically impossible. It means accepting lower unit performance in exchange for higher production volume, a trade the Pentagon’s acquisition culture instinctively resists. It means pressuring major defense contractors to share production with smaller, faster manufacturers.

Sophistication matters. Volume matters more. Flexibility may matter most of all.

Ukraine learned that lesson under bombardment, because it had no choice. The United States still has the luxury of learning it in advance.

The danger is that luxury breeds delay.

Pentagon UFO investigator claims UAPs target nuclear sites — and some officials believed they were demons



As the release of the UFO files to the public has finally begun, Pentagon UAP investigator Luis Elizondo recalls his own experiences with recovered materials, secret Pentagon operations, and the terrifying connection between UAP sightings and America’s nuclear technology.

“I actually gave a briefing to a senior member of the Department of Defense in 2017, several briefings, about the material that I’ve personally held in my hand,” Elizondo says, noting that the material found at the time “did not exist” with humans.

Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is shocked, pointing out that there’s a theme with the sightings.

“Nuclear test sites or nuclear sites, and water, why?” Glenn asks Elizondo.


“It’s not just nuclear weapons. It’s nuclear propulsion, nuclear technology. We’ve seen them over our national laboratory, Savannah River facility. There’s some reports that came out,” Elizondo says, explaining that there seems to be a correlation between UAPs, water, and nuclear technology.

“That’s why my colleagues and I had put forth a plan called Interloper to try to get one of these things,” he says.

The idea behind Interloper, Elizondo explains, was to create a “honey trap” that would be an "irresistible target.”

“We would put this nuclear carrier strike group in a certain area, and then as a UAP showed up, we turned on the lights. We turned on all our sensor data to start collecting information, telemetry and other stuff on these signatures, on these UAP,” he tells Glenn.

However, it was “killed by somebody at a very senior level.”

“There’s some speculation why that occurred. A lot of folks believe it's because we were getting too close to another UAP effort, long-running UAP effort that the U.S. government had going on, and it was put on ice for a little while and they were getting concerned that maybe our group was getting too close to their group,” he explains.

There’s also a group Elizondo calls “Collins Elite,” who are “more radical religious individuals in the government.”

“They had a moral issue with us pursuing this topic. They believe that it contradicted their theological belief system, that these UAP were in fact demons,” Elizondo explains.

“If you studied UAP, then you were going against the word of God,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Why the Pentagon just called Detroit's Big 3 automakers



There’s a conversation happening behind closed doors in Washington that should make every American pay attention, and it has nothing to do with EV mandates or fuel economy targets.

This time, it’s about war, capacity, and whether Detroit is about to be pulled into something far bigger than the auto business.

GM is expected to compete for a major Army contract to develop the next-generation infantry squad vehicle, a platform designed to replace the aging Humvee.

According to the Wall Street Journal, senior Pentagon officials have been quietly engaging with leadership from General Motors and Ford Motor Company, including CEOs Mary Barra and Jim Farley. The message is not subtle. The U.S. may need its automakers to help build the tools of modern warfare.

RELATED: Colorado's speed-camera traps just got way more aggressive

Donato Fasano/Getty Images

Running on empty

This is a direct response to a growing problem that Washington can no longer ignore. Ongoing conflicts abroad have exposed a reality that’s uncomfortable but unavoidable. The United States does not currently have the industrial capacity to produce munitions, missiles, and advanced defense systems at the speed and scale modern warfare demands. Stockpiles are being drained faster than they can be replenished, and the traditional defense contractor base is under pressure.

While the Pentagon has dismissed these claims, the fact remains the U.S. military seems to be on the hunt for manufacturers. And when you need scale, speed, and manufacturing expertise, there’s one place you go: Detroit.

Let’s be honest about what this really means. This is not a routine government outreach effort. This is Washington signaling that America’s industrial base may need to shift priorities, and fast. The auto industry, which has spent the last decade being pushed toward electrification at enormous cost, is now being evaluated for something entirely different: its ability to support national defense on a large scale.

History of help

There is precedent for this, and it’s not ancient history. During World War II, American automakers famously halted civilian vehicle production and became the backbone of military manufacturing. Tanks, aircraft, trucks, engines, all of it rolled out of facilities that once built cars for Main Street. It was called the arsenal of democracy, and it worked.

The question now is whether history is about to repeat itself, not through mandates, at least not yet, but through “collaboration,” which in Washington terms often means something a lot closer to expectation than suggestion.

These discussions are still in the early stages, but don’t mistake “preliminary” for unimportant. Pentagon officials are asking hard questions. Can automakers pivot their production lines quickly? Do they have the workforce flexibility? Can their supply chains handle defense-grade manufacturing? And perhaps most importantly, what regulatory and contractual barriers stand in the way?

Companies like GE Aerospace and Oshkosh Corporation are already part of the broader conversation, bridging the gap between commercial manufacturing and defense production. Oshkosh Corporation in particular has long operated in both civilian and military spaces, producing tactical vehicles while maintaining a diversified portfolio. That kind of hybrid model may soon become more common if Washington gets its way.

Boon or boondoggle?

But this isn’t just about national security. It’s also about economics, and that’s where things get complicated.

Automakers are navigating one of the most challenging environments in decades. Sales growth has cooled. Profit margins are tightening. The cost of electrification has ballooned beyond early projections, putting enormous pressure on balance sheets. Billions have been spent chasing EV targets that consumers have been slower to adopt than expected.

In that context, defense contracts start to look less like a burden and more like an opportunity. Stable, long-term revenue backed by government funding has a certain appeal, especially when your core business is under strain.

That doesn’t mean this is an easy pivot. Building consumer vehicles and building military hardware are fundamentally different businesses. Defense manufacturing comes with layers of compliance, extensive testing requirements, and procurement cycles that can stretch for years. This isn’t about slapping a different badge on a pickup truck and calling it a day.

Factories would need to be retooled. Workers would need retraining. Entire supply chains would need to be adjusted to meet military specifications. And all of it would have to happen within a regulatory framework that is far more complex than anything the auto industry deals with today.

Factory flex

Still, if there’s one thing American manufacturers have proven, it’s that they can adapt under pressure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, both GM and Ford shifted production to build ventilators in partnership with medical companies. It wasn’t perfect, but it was fast, and it demonstrated something important. When pushed, this industry can move.

Now, the Pentagon is betting that same flexibility can be applied to defense production. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been explicit about the need for what he calls a “wartime footing” in manufacturing readiness. That phrase matters. It doesn’t necessarily mean the U.S. is entering a traditional war, but it does mean planning for sustained, high-volume production of military equipment.

And the financial scale behind that planning is enormous. The Pentagon’s proposed $1.5 trillion budget would be the largest in modern history, with significant allocations for munitions, drones, and next-generation battlefield technologies. That kind of spending demands one thing above all else: capacity. And right now, capacity is the bottleneck.

There’s also a strategic shift happening here that shouldn’t be ignored. For years, the U.S. has relied on a relatively small group of defense contractors to supply its military. Those companies are highly capable, but concentration creates vulnerability. Expanding the industrial base to include commercial manufacturers could increase resilience and reduce dependency on a limited number of suppliers.

Civilians sidelined?

That’s the upside. The downside is just as real.

What happens when civilian manufacturing capacity is redirected toward defense? What does that mean for vehicle production, pricing, and availability? And how does this reshape the long-term business models of companies that were already in the middle of a massive transition toward electrification?

These are not abstract questions. They are practical concerns with real economic consequences.

Timing is another factor that adds urgency to the conversation. These discussions reportedly began before recent escalations in global tensions, but the current geopolitical environment has only intensified the pressure.

Some automakers are already positioned to step into a larger role. General Motors, for example, operates a defense subsidiary that produces an infantry squad vehicle based on the Chevrolet Colorado platform. It’s a relatively small part of the business today, but it serves as proof of concept. Automotive technology can be adapted for military use, and it can be done efficiently.

Looking ahead, GM is expected to compete for a major Army contract to develop the next-generation infantry squad vehicle, a platform designed to replace the aging Humvee. This isn’t just a transport vehicle. It’s being envisioned as a mobile command center, a power hub, and a critical component of modern battlefield operations.

That kind of project sits squarely at the intersection of automotive engineering and defense innovation. It’s also a preview of what could become a much larger trend.

In the near term, expect more discussions, more feasibility studies, and more pressure from Washington. The Pentagon is clearly signaling that it wants industry to be ready, not just willing. Readiness is the key word. This is about preparation for a scenario where demand spikes and the current system can’t keep up.

In the longer term, this could fundamentally reshape how we think about American manufacturing. For decades, the auto industry has been driven by consumer demand, regulatory requirements, and technological innovation. Now, national security is entering the equation in a much more direct way.

Detroit has always been a symbol of American industrial strength. Now, Washington is looking at it as something more, a potential force multiplier in a world where manufacturing capacity is becoming a strategic asset.

Vindicated? Gabbard probes the biolabs Romney called her a 'traitor' for mentioning.



The Trump administration is investigating the U.S.-funded Ukrainian biolabs that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was previously smeared as "treasonous" and "traitorous" for bringing to the public's attention.

Then

Gabbard issued a video statement while a private citizen in 2022 where she claimed that "there are 25-30 U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine. According to the U.S. government, these biolabs are conducting research on dangerous pathogens."

In order to mitigate the risk of breaches at the facilities, Gabbard said that "these labs need to be shut down immediately, and the pathogens that they hold need to be destroyed."

'The era of lies and betrayal is over.'

Gabbard was viciously attacked over the video even though days earlier, then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland — a woman whose meddling in Ukrainian affairs helped pave the way for the ruinous overthrow of its previous government — admitted that such labs existed.

Nuland testified to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee both that "Ukraine has biological research facilities" and the U.S. government was worried that "Russian forces may be seeking to gain control" of "research materials" in the labs. Then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) then steered Nuland into prophesying that should there be a biological or chemical incident in Ukraine, the Russians would necessarily be to blame.

Following Nuland's admissions, then-Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines testified to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee that Ukraine "operates a little over a dozen" biolabs for bio-defense; that the U.S. had "provided assistance" to the labs, at least "in the context of biosafety"; and there was room for misuse of "some of the material that's there that is not intended for weapon purposes but nevertheless could be used in dangerous ways."

RELATED: Chinese fraudster convicted for ripping off Americans with bogus COVID tests

Arun SANKAR/AFP/Getty Images

The Pentagon also noted in a fact sheet that month that the U.S., through the Biological Threat Reduction Program, had by that point dumped roughly $200 million in Ukraine since 2005 "supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites."

The fact sheet noted further that BTRP sought to help the Ukrainians "consolidate and secure pathogens and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report disease outbreaks before they pose security or stability threats."

Despite the Biden administration bolstering in advance the claims that Gabbard would make in her March 13, 2022, video, failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney accused Gabbard of "parroting false Russian propaganda" and spreading "treasonous lies" that "may well cost lives."

Then-Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a Ukraine hawk who later stumped for Kamala Harris' doomed presidential campaign, shared Gabbard's video, writing, "Actual Russian propaganda. Traitorous."

Gabbard noted that such remarks were "slanderous" and stuck to her guns.

Now

Now in a position to do the work she took abuse recommending the government do in 2022, Gabbard is investigating over 120 biolabs outside the U.S. that have been funded by American taxpayers.

The spy chief told the New York Post on Monday that her team will "identify where these labs are, what pathogens they contain, and what 'research' is being conducted to end dangerous gain-of-function research that threatens the health and well-being of the American people and the world."

"The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the catastrophic global impact research on dangerous pathogens in biolabs can have," Gabbard said. "Yet despite these obvious dangers, politicians, so-called health professionals, like Dr. Fauci, and entities within the Biden administration's national security team lied to the American people about the existence of these US-funded and supported biolabs and threatened those who attempted to expose the truth."

ODNI officials confirmed that more than 40 of the biolabs under investigation are — as Gabbard indicated four years ago — in Ukraine and could "be at risk of compromise" due to the ongoing war.

Trump ODNI officials said that the Biden administration's mixed messaging about the Ukrainian biolabs were part of an "Information Resilience" strategy to "shape the public narrative" to simultaneously "mitigate and counter foreign malign influence" and downplay American ties to the war-zone research. In other words, they were pushing falsehoods domestically to neutralize foreign half-truths.

The State Department, for instance, noted in a carefully worded March 9, 2022, statement that "the United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine." The State Department proceeded to reject the claim, not that the U.S. and Ukraine were collaborating on biological and chemical research, but that they were "conducting chemical and biological weapons activities."

"The prior administration bankrolled dangerous gain-of-function research and foreign biolabs with American tax dollars, then deliberately hid it from the American people," Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said in a statement.

"Under President Trump's leadership, DNI Tulsi Gabbard and the entire Cabinet are righting these historic wrongs and delivering justice for our warfighters and the ones they protect," Hegseth continued. "The era of lies and betrayal is over."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Pentagon publishes first tranche of 'hidden' UFO files



President Donald Trump declared in February that in response to "tremendous" public interest, he was "directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs)."

On Friday, pursuant to the president's directive, the Pentagon — with support from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — released hundreds of declassified unidentified aerial phenomena files pertaining to "unresolved cases" where the "government is unable to make a definitive determination on the nature of the observed phenomena."

'Provide the American people with maximum transparency.'

The Pentagon indicated that additional files will be released on a rolling basis.

"These files, hidden behind classifications, have long fueled justified speculation — and it’s time the American people see it for themselves," Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said in a statement. "This release of declassified documents demonstrates the Trump administration’s earnest commitment to unprecedented transparency."

The first tranche of documents, some of which date back to the first half of the 20th century, includes investigative records; witness testimonies from civilians, members of the American military, astronauts, and federal law enforcement officials; numerous military mission reports; government documents humoring the possibility of extraterrestrial life; and annotated news clippings regarding UAP.

The Pentagon also released numerous images of UAP, including a 1972 photograph from the Apollo 17 mission to the moon in which "three lights are visible above the lunar terrain"; a 2024 U.S. Indo-Pacific Command photo of an unexplained football-shaped UAP; and multiple FBI infrared images taken in December of an UFO over the Western United States.

RELATED: Speculation mounts over mysterious deaths and disappearances tied to US space and nuclear program

A witness account of a supposed UFO sighting in 1947. Pentagon.

"Under President Trump’s leadership, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is actively coordinating the Intelligence Community’s declassification efforts with the Department of War to ensure a careful, comprehensive, and unprecedented review of our holdings to provide the American people with maximum transparency," stated Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. "Today’s release is the first in what will be an ongoing joint declassification and release effort."

Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett (R) joined other lawmakers in celebrating the release of the files and thanked Trump for keeping his word. "This is a great start!" Burchett said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Pentagon floats ousting Spain from NATO, punishing allies for not toeing the line on Iran



The U.S-Iran conflict is unpopular at home with 58% of American adults signaling opposition in a recent Economist/YouGov poll, and surveys conducted both prior and immediately after the initial U.S.-Israeli strikes in late February revealed a general aversion to getting dragged into another foreign entanglement.

While the military intervention is unpopular in the U.S., the opposition to it is significantly greater in Europe, particularly in Spain, where such opposition has proven politically expedient for the ruling Socialist Party.

'No worries.'

In addition to criticizing the conflict, leftist Spanish officials have in recent months publicly underscored their unwillingness to materially assist the U.S., going so far as to refuse the U.S. to use the jointly run bases at Morón and Rota to strike Iran.

A U.S. official claimed to Reuters that, in an internal email, the Pentagon has floated the idea of pushing Spain out of NATO and punishing allies that failed to toe the line on the Iran conflict.

The email reportedly expresses annoyances over certain allies' reluctance or outright refusal to permit the U.S. access, basing, and overflight rights for the Iran conflict, which the official said were altogether described as "the absolute baseline for NATO."

RELATED: Navy secretary abruptly fired despite ongoing Iran blockade

President Donald Trump and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez shake hands. Suzanne Plunkett - Pool/Getty Images

The email identifies a number of sanctions for such noncooperation that might serve to "decreas[e] the sense of entitlement on the part of the Europeans," including suspending "difficult" countries from important positions at NATO, the official claimed.

While base closures in Europe were not among the proposed responses, ousting Spain from the alliance — a move the email said would be symbolic but have a limited impact on U.S military operations — is on the table, the official added. It's unclear how such an ouster would be accomplished given NATO's founding treaty does not contain a formal mechanism to eject a member.

The email reportedly also raises the possibility of rethinking U.S. diplomatic support for European "imperial possessions" such as Britain's Falkland Islands off the coast of Argentina.

When asked about the email, Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson told Reuters, "As President Trump has said, despite everything that the United States has done for our NATO allies, they were not there for us."

"The War Department will ensure that the President has credible options to ensure that our allies are no longer a paper tiger and instead do their part," said Wilson. "We have no further comment on any internal deliberations to that effect."

President Donald Trump said in a March interview with the New York Post that Spain "is a loser" and "very hostile to NATO."

"Not a team player, and we’re not going to be a team player with Spain either," added Trump, suggesting elsewhere that the U.S. could just co-opt the Spanish bases and slap Madrid with a trade embargo.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, whose country's defense spending has chronically fallen short of NATO targets, brushed off the email, telling Politico, "No worries."

"We are fulfilling our obligations toward NATO," said Sánchez.

"The Spanish government's position is clear: absolute cooperation with our allies, but always within the framework of international law," added the socialist prime minister.

Following the report about the Pentagon memo, a spokesman for the German government suggested that Spain's membership was safe, reported the BBC.

"Spain is a member of NATO. And I see no reason why that should change," said the German spokesman.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni told NATO members on Friday to stick together, noting the alliance is a "source of strength."

"We must work to strengthen NATO's European pillar ... which must clearly complement the American one," added Meloni, who was recently criticized by Trump over her defense of Pope Leo XIV.

The Department of War did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Navy secretary abruptly fired despite ongoing Iran blockade



Navy Secretary John Phelan departed from the Department of War as the United States continues to carry out the naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Pentagon confirmed the abrupt shakeup in a post on X where spokesman Sean Parnell thanked Phelan for his service, noting that he will be leaving the administration "effective immediately." Parnell did not disclose the reason for Phelan's apparent firing but announced that Undersecretary Hung Cao will become the acting secretary in the interim.

'Some reports claim that Phelan's departure was far from voluntary.'

"Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan is departing the administration, effective immediately," Parnell said in a statement. "On behalf of the Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War, we are grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy."

"We wish him well in his future endeavors."

RELATED: The lone Republican who could tank Trump's Fed pick

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Most reports claim that Phelan's departure was far from voluntary, noting that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had been frustrated with the pace of the Navy's shipbuilding. Prior to the war with Iran, Hegseth had been conducting the "Arsenal of Freedom" tour where the secretary would visit various defense contractors, including shipbuilding facilities, and urge builders to "go hard, go fast."

Hegseth gave Phelan the option to resign or to be forced out, CNN reported.

Phelan reportedly questioned whether this directive came from President Donald Trump, leading him to seek a meeting with the commander in chief. In doing so, Trump confirmed to Phelan that he was no longer going to continue serving in the role.

Phelan is not the only military leader to exit the Pentagon in recent weeks. Hegseth similarly fired Army Chief of Staff Randy George earlier in April.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!