UAPs and Global Security: From Secrecy to Shared Responsibility
By Dr. Sharlette Kellum
From Secrecy to Shared Security
In 1977, residents of Colares Island in Brazil reported beams of light from unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) that left burns and injuries, prompting an investigation by the Brazilian Air Force (BBC News Brasil, 2017). Decades later, UAPs evolved from rumor to policy debate: the United States now holds congressional hearings, Japan has issued defense protocols, and the European Parliament has opened public dialogue. What was once dismissed as speculation is now part of security briefings and scientific inquiry. The question is no longer whether UAPs exist, but how governments should respond (e.g., through secrecy or transparency).
Beyond security, UAPs have tangible human impacts on physical and mental health. Medical risks are resurfacing: a 2025 literature survey led by Jacques Vallée highlighted evidence of radiofrequency exposure, autoimmune conditions, and psychological trauma linked to encounters. The Unhidden Foundation, 2025 reported victims with burns, neurological symptoms, and PTSD-like effects, underscoring the need for clinical training and referral pathways. UAPs are not just secrecy or speculation; they are a public health issue. For policymakers, acknowledging medical risks is essential to transparency. For students, it illustrates how governance must integrate science, medicine, and public trust when confronting anomalous phenomena.
What We Know (1940s–2025)
Public fascination with unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) spans decades. The modern era began in 1947 with Kenneth Arnold’s “flying saucers” and the Roswell incident, which cemented UAPs in public imagination. During the Cold War, sightings clustered near nuclear and military sites, raising questions about intent (Peebles, 1994). Dramatic cases such as Brazil’s Colares Island (1977) and Belgium’s radar-confirmed “UAP wave” (1989–90) underscored persistence across continents (Shermer, 2021). More recently, the Pentagon declassified videos in 2020, Congress held hearings in 2022–23, NASA launched a study in 2023, and security experts in Japan have called for increased monitoring. The continuity is striking (e.g., lights, odd flight patterns, and proximity to sensitive sites), but the framing has changed: once dismissed, UAPs are now treated as legitimate subjects of science and security.
Exhibit 1. Key UAP Events, 1947–2025
| Year | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 1947 | Roswell incident, New Mexico | Debris recovery fueled speculation about secrecy (Peebles, 1994). |
| 1964 | Vandenberg AFB missile test | Alleged UFO/UAP tracked during launch, raising questions about nuclear oversight (Jacobs, as archived in NICAP, n.d.; George, 1993; Hastings, 2006). |
| 1977 | Colares Island, Brazil | Beams of light caused injuries; Air Force investigated (BBC News Brasil, 2017). |
| 1989–90 | Belgium “UAP wave” | Triangular craft sightings; radar confirmed (Shermer, 2021). |
| 2004 | USS Nimitz incident | Navy pilots tracked maneuverable objects; disclosure catalyst (DoD, 2020). |
| 2013 | Aguadilla, Puerto Rico | Infrared footage of fast UAP/USO crossing land and sea (SCU, 2013). |
| 2020 | Pentagon declassifies FLIR, GIMBAL, GOFAST videos | Official release of military UAP footage (U.S. Department of Defense, 2020). |
| 2025 | Global hearings and EU dialogue | Oversight hearings, Japan protocols, EU debates mark transparency era (European Parliament, 2025). |
Exhibit Note: Timeline highlights disclosure milestones.
What Governments Are Doing
Government responses remain fragmented. The United States established the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) and advanced disclosure laws, though internal divisions persist. Earlier programs like the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) laid the groundwork for today’s structured monitoring. Japan moved from pilot protocols to proposals for a dedicated research office. Brazil’s Operação Prato (1977–78) exemplifies openness, while the European Parliament has facilitated policy dialogues. Russia and China treat UAPs strictly as classified military intelligence. Without coordination, duplication and mistrust grow, underscoring the need for global frameworks.
Exhibit 2. Comparative Government Responses to UAPs
| Country/Region | Approach | Key Actions | Transparency Level | Policy Implications |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Structured protocols, but internally divided | Established AARO; congressional hearings; UAP Disclosure Act (2024); legacy programs like AATIP | Moderate: hearings and reports, but agencies and lawmakers remain fragmented | Internal divisions slow policy; whistleblower protections show tension |
| Japan | Defense coordination, emerging openness | Ministry of Defense protocols (2020–23); proposed UAP research office (2025) | Increasing: formal pilot reporting and legislative proposals | Moves toward monitoring; potential Asia Pacific model |
| Brazil | Historical openness, public investigation | Operação Prato (1977–78); continued public interest | High: Air Force investigated publicly, reports accessible | Shows transparency tradition; contrasts with secrecy |
| European Union | Policy dialogue, fragmented responses | European Parliament hearings (2024); debates on integrating UAPs into space law | Moderate: open dialogue, but no unified EU agency | Highlights experimentation; potential EU framework |
| Russia & China | Military secrecy, surveillance framing | Classified military intelligence; treat UAPs as potential adversary technology | Low: data withheld from public, framed as defense threats | Secrecy fuels competition; obstructs transparency |
Exhibit Note: Comparative table shows divergent approaches.
Global vs. National Security
The dilemma is whether to treat UAPs as national security secrets or as a shared global phenomenon. Advocates of secrecy argue it protects military advantage and prevents panic, noting that governments have historically classified UAP data to avoid revealing surveillance capabilities (Peebles, 1994). Global security proponents counter that fragmented responses heighten misinterpretation. Shared data could build trust, reduce conspiracy theories, and strengthen science. Some analysts warn that secrecy fuels covert competition for potential technologies, with economic consequences. International frameworks for nuclear treaties, climate monitoring, and pandemic surveillance show that collective governance can balance sovereignty with transparency (NASA, 2023; European Parliament 2025).
Purpose and Threat Assessment
The central question is whether UAPs are hostile, benign, or neutral. They often appear near sensitive military or nuclear sites, raising security concerns. Yet decades of observation show no confirmed aggression; the Colares Island incident (1977) remains the lone ambiguous harm case. From Belgium’s radar-tracked “UAP wave” (1990) to the 2004 USS Nimitz encounter (where Navy pilots tracked objects with extraordinary maneuverability, becoming a catalyst for broader disclosure) most sightings show extraordinary flight behavior without direct hostility (Shermer, 2021; U.S. Department of Defense, 2020). This ambiguity complicates threat assessment. Treating UAPs as hostile risks militarizing the unknown; assuming they are benign risks complacency. A balanced approach frames them as anomalous intrusions requiring study rather than confrontation. Policy priorities should therefore include classifying phenomena, analyzing propulsion and materials, and evaluating natural or technological origins (NASA, 2023). The absence of confirmed hostility suggests UAPs pose more of a knowledge gap than a direct threat. This is best addressed through coordinated research and transparent monitoring.
Public Engagement
A central challenge in UAP policy is involving the public without fueling alarm. A 2021 Gallup poll found nearly half of Americans believe UAPs could be evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, while skepticism has declined. The Pentagon’s 2020 release of declassified videos raised awareness but also questions about transparency. Engagement now ranges from formal programs like the U.S. All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) to citizen science platforms that encourage public reporting. Advocates argue that involving the public legitimizes inquiry and reduces stigma; critics caution that premature disclosure could heighten fear or fuel misinformation (Oversight Committee, 2025). Popular media, including the Oscar-eligible Age of Disclosure documentary, reflects a growing public appetite for transparency.
Faith and UAPs
UAPs are not only scientific puzzles but also spiritual questions. Some communities interpret them as divine signs or warnings, shaping how citizens respond to disclosure (Whittaker, 2024). Scholars note that these interpretations influence trust and accountability, reminding policymakers that disclosure may be received as revelation as well as science (Halsted, 2024). This interpretive lens carries significant implications: it can reshape civic trust, influence policy priorities, and even redefine what counts as authoritative knowledge. When disclosure is received as revelation, scientific narratives compete with spiritual frameworks, creating both opportunities for dialogue and risks of misunderstanding.
Technology and Observations
Radar, infrared, and satellite imagery strengthen detection, though sensor error remains a challenge (ODNI, 2021). The convergence of eyewitness accounts and instrument data supports UAPs as genuine phenomena requiring improved cross-border sharing (NASA, 2023).
AI-Enabled Oversight Model
Artificial intelligence is emerging as a cornerstone of accountability in UAP investigations. By integrating radar, satellite, and pilot data into a unified system, AI creates a more comprehensive picture of aerial phenomena (National Academies of Sciences, 2023). These tools also enhance accuracy by filtering out misidentifications, reducing the noise that often clouds analysis (Yomiuri Shimbun, 2024). Beyond technical precision, AI fosters global consistency by harmonizing reporting standards across jurisdictions, enabling cooperative oversight rather than fragmented responses (European Parliament, 2025). Together, these capabilities illustrate how AI can strengthen oversight while reducing fragmentation in UAP data collection.
Why This Matters to Policy Students
UAPs offer a vivid case study in how governments manage uncertainty, and the lessons extend far beyond aerospace. First, democratic accountability remains paramount: excessive secrecy erodes public trust, forcing leaders to balance disclosure with national security (Oversight Committee, 2025). Second, global governance is unavoidable; like climate change or pandemics, UAPs transcend borders, demanding frameworks for international cooperation (European Parliament, 2025). Third, risk communication shapes perception: how authorities frame unexplained events influences public confidence, echoing challenges seen in AI regulation and biosecurity (ODNI, 2021). Finally, the human dimension cannot be ignored—reports of injuries and psychological effects underscore that disclosure is not merely technical but deeply tied to citizen wellbeing (Unhidden Foundation, 2025; De la Torre, 2024). For policy students, these dynamics reveal the interplay between science, governance, and society in moments of profound uncertainty.
Conclusion
Unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) are no longer confined to legend. From Roswell in 1947 to Colares Island in 1977, and more recently, the Pentagon hearings and NASA’s independent study, sightings across decades and continents underscore a shared reality. What has changed is the framing: governments now treat UAPs as legitimate subjects of science and security. The policy challenge is clear; nation-by-nation responses risk secrecy and mistrust, while a global framework could pool data, reduce duplication, and strengthen collective security (Seligman, 2023). Collaboration also eases public acceptance by replacing speculation with evidence.
The call to action is urgent: establish international protocols for UAP data sharing, empower multilateral review boards, and integrate civilian science with defense monitoring. Transparency must be tiered and responsible, but secrecy alone is no longer sustainable. Without coordinated frameworks, secrecy will continue to erode trust. The sky is shared; our response should be too.
Author’s Bio
Sharlette Annette Kellum, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Administration of Justice at Texas Southern University’s Barbara Jordan Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs. She has more than two decades of teaching experience and serves as Internship Coordinator, placing thousands of students in policy and justice-related positions across Houston. Her research focuses on juvenile justice, trauma-informed policy, and structural accountability, and she has published widely on youth vulnerability, corrections, and oversight reform.
Edited by: Alina DeVoogd MPP/MS , Alyssa Kumalmaz MPP ’27
