Statement by AARO Head Sean Kirkpatrick on the HOC UAP Hearing

[NorCal Dave]

isnt this like the lou elizondo situation all over again?

Similar. UAPTF and AARO are actual government sanctioned UAP agencies or study groups or whatever you call them. They were mandated by congress. Lou claimed to work for or to be the head of AATIP, which likely never existed, at least not as anything official.

 

[Mendel]

isnt this like the lou elizondo situation all over again?

Elizondo leaked actual evidence, Grusch did not.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Elizondo leaked actual evidence, Grusch did not.

Chris Mellon claims he was ultimately the one who leaked the vids to NYT in support of Lue Elizondo, not sure if Elizondo ever leaked anything himself.

Article:

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Chris Mellon, has revealed that he was the source who provided the New York Times with the three ufo videos it famously published in 2017.

Mellon, who served in the senior intelligence role under the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, made the bombshell admission in a recently released documentary, The Phenomenon, which is directed by James Fox.

[...]

Months earlier before the article was published, the former head of AATIP, Luis Elizondo, worked with the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review to have the three videos declassified in late August of 2017, according to VICE.

Kean then met with Elizondo on October 4 where she was informed about the secret UFO program. Mellon, who was also reportedly present, then showed Kean the videos on his laptop.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8860237/Chris-Mellon-reveals-provided-New-York-Times-three-infamous-UFO-videos-published-2017.html

 

[Mendel]

Chris Mellon claims he was ultimately the one who leaked the vids to NYT in support of Lue Elizondo, not sure if Elizondo ever leaked anything himself.

Elizondo's name is on the packaging, in addition to Mellon. It indicates that Mellon got the files from Elizondo.
See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/or...go-fast-ufo-raw-video-files.10802/post-232093

 

[LilWabbit]

Here's the full statement by DoD spokesperson Sue Gough:



The final paragraph confirms my earlier assessment on this thread which was based on AARO founding documents. "AARO may receive all UAP-related information, at all levels of classification, regardless of" the original classification authority. "May receive" is very careful wording.

AARO does not have the authority to demand information which the various authorities (including within the DoD) are obliged to comply with or else face sanctions. At best it can make requests.

It's a misconception to think high security clearance level means automatic access to all information of said clearance level across government departments or DoD components.

 

[Itsme]

There is no need for a reaction.
Kirkpatrick stated:

Article:

none of the whistleblowers from yesterday's hearing ever worked for AARO or was ever a representative to AARO

Source: https://www.liberationtimes.com/home/department-of-defense-confirms-ufo-chief-did-write-scathing-letter-following-public-hearing

Grush stated:

Article:

I was my agency’s [the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency] co-lead in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and trans-medium object analysis, as well as reporting to UAP Task Force (UAPTF) and eventually the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).

Source: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Dave_G_HOC_Speech_FINAL_For_Trans.pdf

So, Grush analyzed UAPs for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and channeled any reports that were interesting to AARO. This is not in contradiction to 'not working for AARO' (i.e. being on AARO's payroll/working under Kirkpatrick), nor is it in contradiction to 'being a representative to AARO' (which he was not, he just channeled UAP reports to them).

He was, however, working for AARO's predecessor, the UAP Task Force, from 2019-2021. This was long before Kirkpatrick started heading AARO in July 2022.

Kirkpatrick's statement only serves to discredit Grush and paint him as an outsider, which he was not.

In a recent BBC interview, Grush responded to Kirkpatrick's allegation that Grush never worked for AARO:

The full interview:

 

[LilWabbit]

In a recent BBC interview, Grush responded to Kirkpatrick's allegation that Grush never worked for AARO:

The full interview:

5:25 onwards.

Basically Grusch agrees with Kirkpatrick. The rest of the clip is just repetition of his earlier claims.

Also, Grusch's lawyer's comment was confirmatory to what we've said before. From the legal perspective their main concern is the degree to which Congress can exercise oversight over government departments who deny them access to SAPs. This is very much Burchett's and Rubio's angle, rather than aliens.

 

[AndyMyers]

There is an interesting video on Youtube by a group known as "The Behaviour Panel". They are a panel of four body language experts with vast experience in advising the police and military. They analyse the Grusch interview by Australian investigative reporter Ross Coulthard and they come to some very interesting conclusions.

Grusch's whistleblower status revolves around a complaint he made to the Inspector General about his treatment by senior members at his place of work. It has nothing to do with his UAP claims One comment he makes about his former employer is referred to as the kind of thing you would say to an ex-girlfriend that had dumped you. They also concluded that he was being deceitful and that he had rehearsed his answers using very careful language. We see that again in the congressional hearing when he uses the phrase "Non-Human Biologics". The UFO community has seized upon this to mean alien life but it could mean anything from plant life cultivated on the ISS to the monkeys or dogs which were sent into space in the early days.

The claims he is making have been given under oath at Congress. That means nothing when the claims are so vague and based on hearsay. How can anyone produce evidence to prove him wrong?

I don't know what his endgame is but as a former Intelligence officer, he will be well-versed in obfuscation and disinformation. We know only too well how gullible and susceptible to influence the UFO community is.

 

[Itsme]

From the legal perspective their main concern is the degree to which Congress can exercise oversight over government departments who deny them access to SAPs. This is very much Burchett's and Rubio's angle, rather than aliens.

It's that, plus money, plus a desire to get to the truth about UAPs:

Article:

A bipartisan group of lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee says a high-profile hearing on UFOs is just the start of their push for answers.
And they are threatening to use heavier-handed tactics if the Pentagon and intelligence agencies stand in their way.
Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) want more information on unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) — commonly referred to as UFOs — beginning with new laws, a classified hearing and the possible creation of a select committee.
The lawmakers said they are willing to use subpoena power if needed to get the answers they’re seeking from the federal government.
“If there’s not a cover-up, the government and the Pentagon are sure spending a lot of resources to stop us from studying it,” Burchett told The Hill.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4126968-ufo-curious-lawmakers-brace-for-a-fight-over-government-secrets/

 

[Domzh]

its as if they got hold of a random muslim they suspect are fully convinced to have inside knowledge of a bomb attack and threaten to increase force if they dont get the answer they want.

only in this case its the DoD and the bomb attack is Zorg from Uranus

they could literally give them an universal key to all rooms in the pentagon and area 51 but they would just think the aliens were moved to another place.

Whats their way out? I dont think this is going to end well...

 

[Mendel]

It's that, plus money, plus a desire to get to the truth about UAPs:

Why is he referencing "unnamed sources" when he could've said "Sean Kirkpatrick"?

And the claims of "lost billions" have been debunked, too.

 

[deirdre]

And the claims of "lost billions" have been debunked, too.

you mean explained. Burchett put "lost" in quotes.. which indicates 'lost track of'.

i think he said unnamed sources because that's what kirkpatrick said, when we all know he meant Grusch.

 

[Mendel]

you mean explained. Burchett put "lost" in quotes.. which indicates 'lost track of'.

I mean "debunked" because that's what our thread titles say:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-trillion-2-3-trillion-journal-vouchers.9718/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-8-5-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.3173/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-rumsfeld-says-2-3-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.165/

i think he said unnamed sources because that's what kirkpatrick said, when we all know he meant Grusch.

Kirkpatrick said,

I cannot let yesterday's hearing pass without sharing how insulting it was to the officers of the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community who chose to join AARO

Content from External Source

Burchett said, "unnamed sources called our hearing insulting", and that's what Kirkpatrick did, see the OP of this thread.

Kirkpatrick mentions the "central source of those allegations" as well as "some Congressional elements" that he feels offended by; these could truly be called "unnamed" but presumably include Burchett.

 

[FatPhil]

Why is he referencing "unnamed sources" when he could've said "Sean Kirkpatrick"?

Is it technically correct to call that a "lie"?

 

[Mendel]

Is it technically correct to call that a "lie"?

Well, those "sources at the Pentagon" are unnamed by Burchett, so it's technically true?
But it's misleading, as "unnamed sources" implies a level of secrecy that's just not there.
He could've said, "someone at the Pentagon I won't name" which would've been fine.

 

[Mick West]

I mean "debunked" because that's what our thread titles say:

The debunking is that they lost trillions. It seems more reasonable that they might have lost a few billions over time. But he's probably referring to a combination of the two type of of losing (inadequate accounting, and actual loss)

 

[FatPhil]

Well, those "sources at the Pentagon" are unnamed by Burchett, so it's technically true?
But it's misleading, as "unnamed sources" implies a level of secrecy that's just not there.
He could've said, "someone at the Pentagon I won't name" which would've been fine.

Yes, if he'd have said something different, I would have evaluated what he said differently.

Which is a statement that contains zero bits of information.

 

[Mendel]

Yes, if he'd have said something different, I would have evaluated what he said differently.

Which is a statement that contains zero bits of information.

Well, yeah. My point is that he may just have phrased it badly (to make the message fit Twitter?), while a lie requires intent. He still could've named Kirkpatrick either way.

 

[deirdre]

He still could've named Kirkpatrick either way.

he was being a wise ass. <that's not an insult, a wise ass in a good way.

I dont know a more accurate phrase to describe it. Cheeky? "cheeky" isnt really right....but..Kirkpatrick was being cheeky, so Burchett responded in kind.

 

[AndyMyers]

its as if they got hold of a random muslim they suspect are fully convinced to have inside knowledge of a bomb attack and threaten to increase force if they dont get the answer they want.

only in this case its the DoD and the bomb attack is Zorg from Uranus

they could literally give them an universal key to all rooms in the pentagon and area 51 but they would just think the aliens were moved to another place.

Whats their way out? I dont think this is going to end well...

And that is exactly why torture never works. It gets the answer you want not the one you need.

 

[Mendel]

"report to" implies a working relationship, and Kirkpatrick denies there was one.

Let's wait for Grusch's reaction.

Ok, here's a possible interpretation.

Article:

50 U.S. Code § 3373a - Support for and oversight of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force​

(a)Availability of data on unidentified aerial phenomena
The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly require that each element of the intelligence community and component of the Department of Defense with data relating to unidentified aerial phenomena makes [1] such data available immediately to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, or successor entity, and to the National Air and Space Intelligence Center.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3373a

Grusch would've been responsible for this at the NGA, and AARO is the "successor entity".

 

[LilWabbit]

Ok, here's a possible interpretation.

Article:

50 U.S. Code § 3373a - Support for and oversight of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force​

(a)Availability of data on unidentified aerial phenomena
The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly require that each element of the intelligence community and component of the Department of Defense with data relating to unidentified aerial phenomena makes [1] such data available immediately to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, or successor entity, and to the National Air and Space Intelligence Center.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3373a

Grusch would've been responsible for this at the NGA, and AARO is the "successor entity".

Interestingly, the update of the same code (with respect to AARO) replacing the old formulation you cited, has limited the availability of data from the DoD by removing the sentence "each . . . component of the Department of Defense", as well as toned down the language from "require" to "ensure".

Article:

The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall ensure that each element of the intelligence community with data relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena makes such data available immediately to the Office.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3373

It's my personal speculation that the earlier formulation gave the UAP investigation entity too broad powers which conflicted other codes ensuring that only DoD components' direct line management has automatic access to certain classified programs and data. It's plausible this particular point caused friction between the UAPTF investigators and classified programs, and made Grusch feel he had the legal right to know everything within the DoD as soon as he 'waved his badge' so to speak. This would also explain the earlier Title 50 authorization.

 

[Mendel]

Interestingly, the update of the same code (with respect to AARO) replacing the old formulation you cited,

§3373a has not been "replaced", it remains in force and applies to AARO as UAPTF's "successor entity".

Also, "ensure" is not toned down, it's in fact the stronger language.
If the DNI requires an agency to share data, then it's the agency's responsibility to do so.
If the DNI has to ensure that the agency shares data, then it's the DNI's responsibility to see to it that this happens; it's not sufficient for the DNI to require the agency to share the data, the DNI bears the responsibility that they actually do.

 

[LilWabbit]

§3373a has not been "replaced", it remains in force and applies to AARO as UAPTF's "successor entity".

Incorrect. The successor entity of the UAPTF was the AOIMSG. AARO is the successor of AOIMSG. You cannot apply syllogistic logic to a legal statement of "successor entity" (to the effect 'a successor entity of a successor entity of UAPTF is automatically also a successor entity of UAPTF') without first evaluating the proper context of the code.

Article:

50 U.S.C. § 3373 (NDAA 2022 and NDAA 2023) directs the Secretary and DNI to establish an office to carry out the duties of the UAPTF.

The successor to the UAPTF was established on November 23, 2021, as the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG).[35] Oversight and direction of the AOIMSG was to be an Executive Council, formerly the Airborne Object Identification and Management Executive Council (AOIMEXEC). The AOIMEXEC was to be co-chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD(I&S)) and the Director of Operations, Joint Staff, and was to designate an acting director for the AOIMSG.[35]

On July 20, 2022, DoD announced the successors to AOIMSG and AOIMEXEC to be AARO and AAROEXEC, respectively. AARO is the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office. The UAPTF is disestablished.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-domain_Anomaly_Resolution_Office

Any code that was applicable to UAPTF and its "successor entity" (3373a), which have both been disestablished, does not automatically apply to AARO which is regulated under a different code (3373). You cannot take clauses from one code applying to a disestablished entity and claim it applies to another. Also, even if both codes were applicable to AARO (which would be a legal mess), in many countries (not sure about the US case), any clause in a newer code of the same authority as the older code replaces the older code in the event of conflict of clauses.

Also, "ensure" is not toned down, it's in fact the stronger language.

"Require" is a statement applying to the data-producing subject of the requirement. At least in our legal jargon and government agencies, "require" implies some manner of repecussions for each act of non-compliance to data requests from said subject. "Ensure" is a statement of action on the part of the authority seeking data from data-producing subjects. In my understaning it doesn't automatically imply repercussions for denying access. I might be wrong.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

There has been much discussion in this thread about the role of the AARO, its powers, and how transparent they are likely to be with the general public.

The rapid evoiution and expansion of drone technologies (as most recently demonstrated by the war in Ukraine) will likely be a primary area of focus.

It has long been recognised the reduced size and expense of drones makes them harder to detect and feasible to deploy in swarms to increased effect.

Drones can be smaller, lighter, more maneuverable and unconventional in appearance when compared to manned craft of more conservative design.

It's clear the mission of the AARO is to ensure the US is not caught off guard by new technologies, whatever they are and wherever they may originate.

So I expect most of their jucy reports will be in regards to adversary drones from China, Russia, Iran etc. Obviously these won't released to the public.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

Also let's not forget narco-drones:

‘Narco-drones’ are the newest form of drug trafficking. Our laws aren’t yet ready to combat them — The Conversation, 2022-06-25

These remote-controlled “narco-drones”, “narco-subs” or “underwater drones” herald a new era in international drug trafficking. Drugs and other illicit goods can now be transported across the oceans, controlled by a remote operator located anywhere in the world.

The cartels are also paying attention to the war in Ukraine:

Drug cartels are sharply increasing use of bomb-dropping drones, Mexican army says — CBS News, 2023-08-23

The Mexican army said Tuesday that drug cartels have increased their use of roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices — especially bomb-dropping drones — this year, with 42 soldiers, police and suspects wounded by IEDs so far in 2023, up from 16 in 2022.

Plenty here to keep AARO very busy without a single "flying saucer" in sight.

 

[Mendel]

Incorrect. The successor entity of the UAPTF was the AOIMSG. AARO is the successor of AOIMSG. You cannot apply syllogistic logic to a legal statement of "successor entity" (to the effect 'a successor entity of a successor entity of UAPTF is automatically also a successor entity of UAPTF') without first evaluating the proper context of the code.

I don't, it's explicitly legal.

Article:

50 U.S. Code § 3373 - Establishment of All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office​

Not later than 120 days after December 23, 2022, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish an office within a component of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or within a joint organization of the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to carry out the duties of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, as in effect on December 26, 2021
[...]

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3373

And 3373a was not revoked, but 3373b was added.

 

[Mendel]

"Require" is a statement applying to the data-producing subject of the requirement. At least in our legal jargon and government agencies, "require" implies some manner of repecussions for each act of non-compliance to data requests from said subject. "Ensure" is a statement of action on the part of the authority seeking data from data-producing subjects. In my understaning it doesn't automatically imply repercussions for denying access. I might be wrong.

Please read the language closely.

Old (but still active):

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly require

Content from External Source

New:

The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall ensure

Content from External Source

With the old language, if the DNI issues an order requiring that data, she's done her duty, no repercussions for her, even if the agencies don't deliver.

With the new language, if the agencies don't deliver, the DNI is on the hook. So she needs not only to order the agencies to provide that information to AARO, but also to do something if that doesn't work. So Kirkpatrick can now go to the DNI if some agency is not cooperating, point to this law and say "you have to help me".

 

[LilWabbit]

Please read the language closely.

Old (but still active):

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly require

Content from External Source

New:

The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall ensure

Content from External Source

With the old language, if the DNI issues an order requiring that data, she's done her duty, no repercussions for her, even if the agencies don't deliver.

With the new language, if the agencies don't deliver, the DNI is on the hook. So she needs not only to order the agencies to provide that information to AARO, but also to do something if that doesn't work. So Kirkpatrick can now go to the DNI if some agency is not cooperating, point to this law and say "you have to help me".

That's a weird interpretation but you're entitled to it. We disagree. And your responses did not refute the cardinal points I raised in the least in terms of AARO having a different mandate and powers outlined in different pieces of code which you incorrectly conflated. It seems DoD components cannot be "required" to produce UAP data to AARO. You only reinforced the point.

 

[Mendel]

It's clear the mission of the AARO is to ensure the US is not caught off guard by new technologies, whatever they are and wherever they may originate.

So I expect most of their jucy reports will be in regards to adversary drones from China, Russia, Iran etc. Obviously these won't released to the public.

I see no indication at all that this is the case.

Article:

(8)Unidentified anomalous phenomena

The term “unidentified anomalous phenomena” means—

(A) airborne objects that are not immediately identifiable;

(B) transmedium objects or devices; and

(C) submerged objects or devices that are not immediately identifiable and that display behavior or performance characteristics suggesting that the objects or devices may be related to the objects described in subparagraph (A).

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3373

Drones are usually identifiable.

It isn't AARO's job to gather intelligence on foreign adversaries.

 

[FatPhil]

That's a weird interpretation but you're entitled to it. We disagree. And your responses did not refute the cardinal points I raised in the least in terms of AARO having a different mandate and powers outlined in different pieces of code which you incorrectly conflated. It seems DoD components cannot be "required" to produce UAP data to AARO. You only reinforced the point.

Nope, it's the accurate interpretation. "Ensuring" would usually entail verification or other follow up, and places a far greater burden on those responsible.

 

[LilWabbit]

Nope, it's the accurate interpretation. "Ensuring" would usually entail verification or other follow up, and places a far greater burden on those responsible.

"Ensuring" in a code of law can be a description of duty without immediate repercussions for not performing optimally in said duty. "Requiring" to perform a task is different and often implies potential repercussions for non-compliance. I deal with these and similar notions regularly in my work in government. In my work I have the legal authority to require certain data from military components the non-compliance to which would be an offense in the court of law.

 

[JMartJr]

So I expect most of their jucy reports will be in regards to adversary drones from China, Russia, Iran etc. Obviously these won't released to the public

As you say, if such exist we'll not see them. But given the obsessions and preoccupations if those driving the creation of this office, I'd be surprised if they have more than a passing interest in such things.

 

[Duke]

As you say, if such exist we'll not see them. But given the obsessions and preoccupations if those driving the creation of this office, I'd be surprised if they have more than a passing interest in such things.

The other side of that coin is whichever office(s) has responsibility for gathering and analyzing intel on potential adversary drone would not be happy with AARO getting in their knickers. Government agencies guard their rice bowls quite aggressively, too much money at stake come appropriation time to do otherwise.

 

[Mendel]

"Ensuring" in a code of law can be a description of duty without immediate repercussions for not performing optimally in said duty. "Requiring" to perform a task is different and often implies potential repercussions for non-compliance. I deal with these and similar notions regularly in my work in government. In my work I have the legal authority to require certain data from military components the non-compliance to which would be an offense in the court of law.

"ensure" is a duty that Congress places on the DNI.
"require" is a duty that the DNI places on the agencies.

That's why the old language is the lesser obligation for the DNI.

 

[LilWabbit]

"ensure" is a duty that Congress places on the DNI.
"require" is a duty that the DNI places on the agencies.

That's why the old language is the lesser obligation for the DNI.

But a greater obligation on those legally "required" to produce data whereby non-compliance would imply facing consequences. Whilst the mutual commensurability and comparability of these two terms can be reasonably questioned since they're used for somewhat different purposes, "ensure" in legal jargon is clearly the milder expression whereas "require" is associated with something being mandatory.

Article:

Ensure means to take all reasonably necessary and expedient steps in order to achieve the purpose, objective or intention of this Act or a provision of this Act;

Source: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/ensure

Article:

In reference to law, “mandatory” is used to indicate that something is required or obligatory.

Some common uses of the term “mandatory” in a legal sense include:

• Mandatory authority describes a source of law that is binding on the court, while a persuasive authority is a source of law that carries some authoritative weight but that the court is not required to follow.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandatory

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

I see no indication at all that this is the case.

Article:

(8)Unidentified anomalous phenomena

The term “unidentified anomalous phenomena” means—

(A) airborne objects that are not immediately identifiable;

(B) transmedium objects or devices; and

(C) submerged objects or devices that are not immediately identifiable and that display behavior or performance characteristics suggesting that the objects or devices may be related to the objects described in subparagraph (A).

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3373

Drones are usually identifiable.

It isn't AARO's job to gather intelligence on foreign adversaries.

Yes I agree, the AARO is a clearing house for unexplained observations from both the military and general public. What makes something unexplained is as dependent on the observer as the quality of the recorded observation itself.

So it is both perfectly reasonable and expected for the AARO to have thorough knowledge of the explained, including drones, to identify the unexplained for any possible new threats.

As for trans-medium objects, this is a plausible next step in conventional drone technology, including submersible drone platforms which capable of launching or landing aerial drones.

 

[Mendel]

But a greater obligation on those legally "required" to produce data whereby non-compliance would imply facing consequences. Whilst the mutual commensurability and comparability of these two terms can be reasonably questioned since they're used for somewhat different purposes, "ensure" in legal jargon is clearly the milder expression whereas "require" is associated with something being mandatory.

Yes.
But the DNI was never required.
And the DNI can still ensure that the data comes forth by requiring it, if necessary.

 

[LilWabbit]

Yes.
But the DNI was never required.

Not relevant to my point.

And the DNI can still ensure that the data comes forth by requiring it, if necessary.

DNI cannot require anything from any government entities or components outside his line organization not ranked below him unless specifically authorized by the code of law. DoD is outside his/her line organization.

The Secretary of Defense and DNI authorization to jointly require UAP data, including from DoD components, seemed to be part of the UAPTF mandate that's since been changed.

 

[Mendel]

It's clear the mission of the AARO is to ensure the US is not caught off guard by new technologies, whatever they are and wherever they may originate.

Compare:

Article:

NASIC’s mission is to discover and characterize air, space, missile, and cyber threats to enable full-spectrum multi-domain operations, drive weapon system acquisition, and inform national defense policy. [..]

NASIC provides authoritative, engineering-level scientific and technical intelligence on air, space, missile, and cyber threats. The center’s team of trusted subject matter experts deliver unique collection, exploitation, and analytic capabilities not found elsewhere. The center is tasked with discovering and characterizing advanced threats to enable full-spectrum, multi-domain operations against peer adversaries.

Source: https://www.nasic.af.mil/About-Us/