Case file · CJ-2026-0087

Pentagon waives NDAs for insiders who talk to PURSUE

Date
September 14, 2026
Place
Arlington, Virginia
Type
UAP Disclosure
Status
Ongoing
Record
Documented

On September 14, 2026, the Pentagon announced a legal waiver aimed at people who say they have seen UAP-related secrets but have been held back by the agreements they signed.

The waiver overrides the civil and administrative enforcement terms of nondisclosure agreements and special access program agreements, but only for communications with the PURSUE team, the administration’s program for gathering and declassifying UAP records. It covers past and present civilian employees, service members and contractors with access to UAP-related defense information. Officials said it lets them make covered disclosures without triggering breach-of-agreement penalties, and called it an authorized pipeline for review and potential declassification.

The limits matter. It is not permission to go public. It is for telling PURSUE representatives, and the Pentagon did not say who those representatives are or answer DefenseScoop’s questions. Reporting by EarthSky says it covers only Defense Department personnel, not the intelligence agencies, where many of the most-discussed claims are said to sit.

Jordan Flowers of the Disclosure Foundation called it a meaningful step toward establishing the facts. Whistleblower David Grusch and others have long said people with firsthand knowledge would come forward if they could do so safely. This waiver tests that claim: if no new witnesses or evidence emerge through it, that will be telling too.

What's disputed or missing

  • Who the PURSUE representatives are and how people contact them. The Pentagon hasn't said.
  • Whether the intelligence community will issue a matching waiver.
  • Whether anyone has used it, and whether anything they share will ever be released.

Sources

  1. Main
    DefenseScoop

    What the waiver covers and its limits.

  2. Main
    Newsweek

    Overview of the change.

  3. Main
    IBTimes UK

    Reaction from disclosure advocates.

Back to the log