The Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Assessment: A Comprehensive Review of Nomenclature, Observables, Institutional Frameworks, and Strategic Implications

This article is part of an ongoing series created in collaboration with the UAP News Center, a leading website for the most up-to-date UAP news and information. Visit UAP News Center for the full collection of infographics.

Part I: The Ontological Shift and Definitional Frameworks

1.1 Introduction: The Evolution of the Phenomenon

The study of unidentified objects operating within Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and near-space environment has undergone a radical transformation in the early 21st century. For decades, the subject was encapsulated by the term “Unidentified Flying Object” (UFO), a moniker born in the late 1940s and 1950s that rapidly accumulated a heavy burden of cultural stigma. By the late 1960s, following the conclusion of the United States Air Force’s Project Blue Book, the term UFO had become largely synonymous with science fiction, folklore, and “wacko” conspiracy theories in the eyes of the scientific establishment. This cultural marginalization had tangible, deleterious effects on national security and aviation safety; pilots, both military and commercial, were frequently discouraged from reporting genuine flight safety hazards due to the fear of professional ridicule or the potential revocation of flight status.

The modern rebranding to “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena” (UAP) is not merely a euphemistic adjustment but represents a fundamental shift in the ontological categorization of the objects in question. The transition, driven by the Department of Defense (DoD) and codified by Congress, strips away the “smirk factor” associated with the previous terminology, allowing for a rigorous, data-driven approach to what is now recognized as a serious domain awareness gap. The term UAP was first utilized in the late 1960s but saw a resurgence and formal adoption in the 2020s to align with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

This report serves as an exhaustive analysis of the current state of UAP research, leveraging the most recent government reports, legislative texts, and technical analyses available as of late 2024 and early 2025. It examines the technical “observables” that define the phenomenon, the bureaucratic architecture erected to study it (specifically the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO), the legislative battles for transparency, and the emerging physics constraints suggested by the data.

1.2 Defining the “Anomalous”

The shift from “Aerial” to “Anomalous” is a critical distinction in the contemporary lexicon. Initially, the “A” in UAP stood for “Aerial,” reflecting the Air Force-centric view of the phenomenon. However, as sensor data improved and the scope of investigation broadened to include the Navy’s underwater observations, the definition was expanded.

According to the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2023 and AARO’s operational directives, UAP are now defined by a tri-domain framework that encompasses:

1. Airborne Objects: Objects operating in the atmosphere that are not immediately identifiable.
2. Transmedium Objects: Devices or phenomena capable of traversing multiple environments – specifically moving between space and the atmosphere, or between the atmosphere and the ocean – without apparent structural degradation or loss of performance.
3. Submerged Objects: Unidentified underwater objects that display behavior or performance characteristics suggesting a relationship to the aerial or transmedium objects described above.

The crux of the definition lies in the term “anomalous.” AARO clarifies that this refers to detections that are “not yet attributable to known actors” (such as foreign adversaries like China or Russia, or commercial entities) and that “demonstrate behaviors that are not readily understood by sensors or observers”. This definition specifically targets phenomena that exhibit capabilities or material compositions exceeding known performance envelopes.

The definition effectively creates a filtration system. The vast majority of sightings – balloons, drones, birds, and satellites – are “unidentified” only temporarily. Once identified, they are removed from the UAP bucket. The term UAP is strictly reserved for the residue: the cases that persist after rigorous analysis and display characteristics that defy conventional explanation. This precise definition is essential for the intelligence community to separate “clutter” from potential “technological surprise”.

1.3 The Stigma and the Reporting Gap

The legacy of the UFO era created a “reporting gap” that AARO is currently struggling to close. For decades, the U.S. government effectively outsourced the investigation of these phenomena to hobbyists and conspiracy theorists by publicly dismissing the validity of the reports. This created a self-reinforcing loop: because the government said there was nothing to see, serious professionals did not look, and those who did look were ostracized.

Iain Boyd, an aerospace engineer at the University of Colorado Boulder, notes that the term UFO has a “smirk factor” that has historically stifled reports from pilots who might have valuable information about potential threats, such as the Chinese spy balloon that traversed North America. The rebranding to UAP is a direct operational countermeasure to this stigma. By framing the issue as one of “domain awareness” and “flight safety,” the DoD hopes to encourage a culture of reporting where a pilot can report a silver sphere at 30,000 feet with the same professional detachment as reporting a flock of geese or a rogue drone.

AARO Director Jon Kosloski has emphasized that AARO is working to expand reporting mechanisms to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and civilian pilots, acknowledging that the current dataset is heavily biased toward military sensors and ranges. This “sensor bias” skews the data, making it appear as though UAP only visit nuclear sites or aircraft carriers, when in reality, these are simply the locations with the sensors capable of detecting them.

Part II: The Phenomenology of Anomalous Craft (The Five Observables)

2.1 The Engineering Constraints of the Unknown

The scientific investigation of UAP is grounded in a set of characteristics known as “The Five Observables.” Originally codified by the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) under the leadership of Luis Elizondo, these five traits serve as the primary rubric for filtering mundane objects from genuine anomalies. These observables are not merely visual descriptions; they represent significant engineering constraints that, if validated, suggest a level of technology that surpasses the current understanding of aerodynamics, material science, and propulsion.

Dr. Kevin Knuth, a physicist who has analyzed these characteristics, argues that these observables allow researchers to translate pilot reports and multi-sensor tracks into boundary conditions. If an object satisfies these conditions, it effectively “defines the problem” for physicists, presenting a set of behaviors that do not sit comfortably within standard aerospace playbooks.

2.2 Observable 1: Anti-Gravity (Positive Lift)

The first observable is the apparent negation of aerodynamic lift requirements. Conventional aircraft require air to flow over airfoils (wings) to generate lift (Bernoulli’s principle) or the downward expulsion of mass (rockets/rotors) to generate thrust (Newton’s third law). UAP are consistently described as having no visible control surfaces – no wings, tails, rudders, or visible engines – yet they maintain flight and prolonged hover capabilities.

Reports often describe these objects as spheres, discs, or “Tic Tac” shapes that hover stationary in high winds or move at low velocities without stalling. In conventional aerodynamics, an aircraft without wings must rely on vertical thrust (like a Harrier jet or helicopter), which produces significant noise and downward air displacement. UAP reportedly do neither. They appear to defy Earth’s gravitational pull through a mechanism that does not rely on aerodynamic interaction, leading to hypotheses regarding “anti-gravity” or metric engineering.

2.3 Observable 2: Instantaneous Acceleration

Perhaps the most physically baffling observable is instantaneous acceleration. This refers to an object’s ability to accelerate from a stationary position to supersonic speeds, or to make sharp, right-angle turns at high velocity, with little to no radius of turn.

In Newtonian physics, inertia dictates that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force. The force required to change the vector of a massive object moving at Mach 1 to a dead stop or a 90-degree turn is immense.

• Biological Limits: A human pilot can withstand approximately 9 Gs (9 times the force of gravity) for short durations before losing consciousness (G-LOC).
• Structural Limits: A high-performance airframe like an F-16 is rated for approximately 9-12 Gs before structural failure occurs.

UAP have been tracked performing maneuvers estimated to generate hundreds, if not thousands, of Gs. Such forces would liquefy a biological pilot and disintegrate any known airframe constructed from terrestrial materials. This suggests that the objects possess a mechanism for “inertial negation” – possibly by manipulating the local spacetime metric so that the object does not “feel” the acceleration, or by reducing the object’s inertial mass to near zero.

2.4 Observable 3: Hypersonic Velocities Without Signatures

The third observable involves objects traveling well above supersonic speeds (Mach 1+) and often reaching hypersonic speeds (Mach 5+) without generating the standard physical signatures associated with such travel.

• Sonic Boom: An object traveling faster than the speed of sound pushes air molecules aside faster than they can move, creating a shockwave (sonic boom). UAP are frequently reported moving at these speeds in complete silence.
• Thermal Signature: Friction with the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds generates extreme heat (thousands of degrees). This heat should be glaringly visible on infrared (FLIR) sensors. Yet, UAP often appear “cold” or show no exhaust plume on thermal imaging.

Skeptics and physicists like Avi Loeb argue that this is a critical point of contention. Standard physics dictates that the friction of a UAP with surrounding air or water must generate a bright optical fireball and ionization shell. The lack of these signatures implies that either the distance measurements are incorrect (and the object is actually small and slow) or the object utilizes a propulsion method that prevents the air from interacting with the hull, such as a plasma sheath that directs airflow around the object.

2.5 Observable 4: Low Observability (Stealth)

Low observability in the UAP context extends beyond the “stealth” technology used in fifth-generation fighters (which primarily reduces radar cross-section). UAP low observability is multi-spectral. Witnesses and sensors describe objects that are difficult to gain a clear target picture of, regardless of the method used – electro-optical, electromagnetic, or the naked eye.

This can manifest as objects that appear opaque one moment and translucent the next, or objects that “jam” radar systems, appearing as “hash” or interference rather than a solid return. In the famous 2004 Nimitz encounter, the objects were able to jam the radar of the engaging fighter jets, indicating active electronic warfare capabilities or a passive physical property that scatters sensor energy. This “ghost in the sky” quality makes consistent tracking and targeting exceptionally difficult for military assets.

2.6 Observable 5: Transmedium Travel

The final observable is the capability to operate across multiple domains – Space, Air, and Water – without reconfiguration. Humanity possesses vehicles that can operate in two mediums (e.g., a seaplane or a spacecraft splashing down), but these transitions are aerodynamically traumatic and functionally distinct. A spacecraft re-entering the atmosphere essentially falls; it does not “fly” with the same maneuverability it had in space.

UAP are described as transitioning from air to water at high speeds without splashing or sustaining damage.

• The Density Barrier: Water is approximately 800 times denser than air. An object hitting water at supersonic speeds would typically experience forces similar to hitting concrete, resulting in immediate destruction.
• Hydrodynamic Drag: To move through water at speeds comparable to aerial flight would require overcoming massive hydrodynamic drag and would generate cavitation (bubbles) and immense heat.

Reports of UAP entering the ocean at speed and continuing to operate suggests a propulsion system that is indifferent to the density of the medium surrounding it, further reinforcing the “field propulsion” or “metric engineering” hypotheses.

Part III: The Institutional Architecture (From Secret Programs to Public Offices)

3.1 The Legacy of Secrecy: AATIP

The modern era of UAP investigation is deeply rooted in the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). Established in 2007 largely through the efforts of Senator Harry Reid, AATIP was a secretive program within the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and later the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

Directed by Luis Elizondo, AATIP’s mandate was to study “advanced aerospace weapon threats” from the present to the next 40 years. It was within AATIP that the Five Observables were codified, derived from a database of military sightings that had previously been scattered across different branches. The existence of AATIP, revealed by the New York Times in 2017, shattered the long-held government stance (post-Blue Book) that it was no longer investigating UFOs. Elizondo’s resignation in 2017, in protest of what he described as excessive secrecy and bureaucratic obstruction, was the catalyst for the current transparency movement.

3.2 The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF)

Following the public exposure of AATIP and the release of the “Gimbal,” “Go Fast,” and “FLIR1” videos, the Department of Defense established the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) in August 2020. Housed within the Office of Naval Intelligence, the UAPTF was the first acknowledgement that UAP were a “naval intelligence” problem, largely due to the high frequency of sightings by carrier strike groups.

The UAPTF was responsible for the seminal “Preliminary Assessment” delivered to Congress in June 2021. This report was a watershed moment: it analyzed 144 reports from government sources (mostly Navy pilots) between 2004 and 2021. Crucially, it admitted that 143 of these cases remained unexplained and posed a clear “safety of flight” hazard. This report officially moved the UAP discussion from “if they exist” to “what are they and whose are they?”

3.3 The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)

In July 2022, the DoD reorganized its efforts into the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). AARO represents the highest level of institutionalization the UAP issue has ever received. It reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Kathleen Hicks) and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, ensuring that UAP oversight bypasses the traditional stovepipes of the military branches.

AARO’s mission is expansive. It is tasked with the detection, identification, and mitigation of anomalous phenomena in all domains: air, sea, space, and land. The office is currently led by Director Jon T. Kosloski, a researcher with a background in optics and crypto-mathematics at the NSA.

AARO operates under a strict mandate of “scientific rigor.” Director Kosloski has emphasized that the office will follow the science and data, asserting that while they have found no empirical evidence of extraterrestrial technology, they will not foreclose on any explanation prematurely. AARO has also been tasked with producing a “Historical Record Report,” reviewing government involvement with UAP dating back to 1945, to determine if any “crash retrieval” programs existed. Volume I of this report, released in March 2024, found “no empirical evidence” of such programs, a conclusion that remains controversial among whistleblowers and transparency advocates.

Part IV: The Legislative Battleground and The Fight for Transparency

4.1 The Role of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

The driving force behind the Executive Branch’s action on UAP has been the Legislative Branch. Through the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Congress has forced the DoD to take the issue seriously.

The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2022 and 2023 were pivotal. They legally defined UAP (adding transmedium and submerged categories) and mandated the creation of a secure reporting mechanism for whistleblowers. This legislation effectively stripped away the Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) that had previously silenced military and contractor personnel, allowing them to report their knowledge of UAP programs to AARO and Congress without fear of prosecution.

4.2 The Schumer-Rounds UAP Disclosure Act of 2024

The most aggressive legislative move came in July 2023, with the introduction of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2024 as an amendment to the NDAA. Co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), this legislation was modeled directly after the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.

The Act contained several significant provisions:

• Presumption of Disclosure: It declared that all federal records regarding UAP should carry a presumption of immediate public disclosure.
• The Review Board: It proposed an independent “UAP Records Review Board” with subpoena power to oversee the declassification process, stripping this power from the intelligence agencies that originated the records.
• Eminent Domain: Perhaps most controversially, the original text included an “eminent domain” clause. This would have mandated that the Federal Government exercise eminent domain over any “biological evidence of non-human intelligence” or “technologies of unknown origin” currently held by private defense contractors (e.g., Lockheed Martin, Raytheon).

The implications of the eminent domain clause were staggering: it signaled that the Senate Majority Leader believed it was plausible that private corporations were in possession of non-human materials and were withholding them from government oversight. While the most aggressive provisions (the Review Board and Eminent Domain) were blocked by House Republicans in the final conference committee, the passed version still mandates the collection and eventual review of these records, keeping the pressure on the DoD.

4.3 Whistleblower Protections and Testimony

The legislative framework has emboldened whistleblowers. The most prominent, David Grusch, a former intelligence officer with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the NRO, testified under oath to Congress in July 2023. Grusch alleged that the U.S. government maintains a “crash retrieval and reverse engineering program” for non-human spacecraft and that “biologics” were recovered.

While AARO’s historical report denied finding evidence to support these specific claims, the UAP Whistleblower Protection Act (introduced in 2024/2025) continues to seek stronger shields for individuals like Grusch, specifically targeting the use of misappropriated funds to hide these programs from Congressional oversight.

Part V: The Data Landscape (AARO FY2024 Analysis)

5.1 Case Volume and Statistical Trends

The reality of the UAP phenomenon is best viewed through the lens of the data collected by AARO. The Fiscal Year 2024 Consolidated Annual Report provides a snapshot of the current reporting environment.

As of June 1, 2024, AARO is reviewing a total caseload of over 1,600 reports.

• New Influx: In the reporting period (May 2023 – June 2024), AARO received 757 new reports.
• Historical Reporting: Of these, 485 were current incidents, while 272 were historical cases (from 2021-2022) that were reported late, indicating that the de-stigmatization efforts are encouraging personnel to clear their consciences of past sightings.

5.2 Resolution Breakdown: The “Prosaic” Majority

AARO consistently emphasizes that the vast majority of UAP reports are misidentifications. The office has successfully resolved hundreds of cases to “commonplace objects.”

This data highlights a critical “Sensor Bias.” AARO acknowledges that its reliance on military sensors leads to a collection bias near major ranges and test facilities. Furthermore, the high percentage of Starlink resolutions (35.6%) indicates that the increasing commercialization of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is significantly cluttering the UAP dataset.

5.3 The “Active Archive” and the Unresolved

While the resolution rate for balloons and satellites is high, a significant portion of cases remains in the “Active Archive.” Director Kosloski noted that over 900 reports lack sufficient scientific data for analysis. These are cases where the data is too poor to identify the object, but also too poor to rule out an anomaly.

However, there exists a “very small percentage” of reports that are potentially anomalous. These are the “Holy Grail” cases for AARO: incidents where sufficient data does exist (multi-sensor tracking, visual confirmation), yet the object still displays the Five Observables. These cases require “significant time, resources, and a focused scientific inquiry”.

5.4 Morphology of the Phenomenon

The reports also analyze the shapes of the objects reported. This morphological data is important for distinguishing between potential drone platforms and genuine anomalies.

The prevalence of the “Orb” or “Sphere” morphology (41.1%) aligns with the “Middle East Orb” video released by AARO, which showed a metallic sphere flying under a Reaper drone. This consistency suggests that the primary “anomalous” object operating in our airspace is spherical, not saucer-shaped.

5.5 Case Study: The “Middle East Orb” (2022)

This case exemplifies the difficulty of UAP analysis. A Reaper drone in the Middle East captured a metallic sphere flying below it. AARO has not definitively resolved this case. While it shares characteristics with a balloon, the single-source video prevents triangulation of speed and distance. It remains in the Active Archive. The inability to resolve a clear, daylight video of a metallic sphere highlights the limitations of current intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms when dealing with small, non-cooperative targets.

Part VI: Strategic, Scientific, and Geopolitical Implications

6.1 The National Security Imperative

The UAP issue is fundamentally a national security concern. The NDAA mandates focus on UAP because “unidentified objects in any domain pose potential threats to safety and security”.

There are two primary threat vectors:

1. Adversarial Platforms: The UAP might represent a leap-ahead technology by a foreign adversary (China or Russia). If a foreign power has mastered “instantaneous acceleration” or “transmedium travel,” the U.S. strategic deterrent is effectively obsolete. However, most analysts argue that if an adversary had this tech, they would not be flying it brazenly over U.S. training ranges where it could be seen and analyzed.
2. The “Other”: If the objects are not US, Chinese, or Russian, and they display physics-defying capabilities, the implications shift to the scientific and existential. This is the domain of the “Five Observables,” suggesting a non-human intelligence or a completely unknown atmospheric physics phenomenon.

6.2 The Transparency Paradox

AARO and the intelligence community face a “Transparency Paradox.” They are under congressional mandate to be transparent, yet the data required to prove the existence of UAP is often classified.

• Sources and Methods: High-resolution images of UAP are often captured by classified spy satellites or advanced fighter radar. Releasing the image would reveal the resolution and capability of the satellite, which is a national security secret. Thus, AARO admits UAP exist but often cannot show the best evidence.
• The “Psyop” Hypothesis: Some, like journalist George Knapp, have raised the possibility that elements of the UAP narrative could be a government “psyop” (psychological operation) to confuse adversaries or cover up secret US projects, though the bipartisan legislative push suggests Congress does not believe this is the whole story.

6.3 Scientific Implications: New Physics?

The persistence of the Five Observables in the data suggests that our understanding of physics may be incomplete.

• Metric Engineering: The “Anti-Gravity” and “Instantaneous Acceleration” observables align with theoretical concepts of Alcubierre drives or metric engineering – manipulating the spacetime metric rather than propelling mass through space.
• Material Science: Recovered “biologics” or materials (as alleged by Grusch and targeted by the Schumer-Rounds Act) would represent the greatest scientific discovery in human history. The “Eminent Domain” clause in the 2024 NDAA amendment specifically targeted “material of non-human origin,” indicating that lawmakers view this as a tangible, material reality, not just a visual phenomenon.

6.4 The Path Forward

The UAP phenomenon has graduated from the fringe to the forefront of national defense policy. The transition from UFO to UAP signifies a commitment to data over dogma. While 95% of reports are balloons and satellites, the remaining 5% constitute a significant mystery.

AARO’s ongoing mission is one of “triage and trap.” By filtering out the noise (Starlink, balloons), they hope to isolate the signal. The “Active Archive” of unresolved cases grows daily. Whether these objects are the result of secret adversarial drone programs, undiscovered atmospheric plasma physics, or non-human technology remains the central question. What is certain is that the U.S. government, driven by a bipartisan congressional mandate, is no longer ignoring the skies. The mechanisms for disclosure – legal, bureaucratic, and scientific – are now fully engaged.