In July 2026, the administration took a significant step. President Trump instructed the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to lift non-disclosure agreements for current and former employees possessing information about unidentified anomalous phenomena.
On July 31, Aaron Lucas, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, signed a memorandum formalizing this decision. According to the document, NDAs, oaths, and prior obligations no longer hinder the transmission of information to authorized representatives of AARO or the PURSUE task force.
Agencies were given 30 days to designate responsible officials and notify employees. It seemed the barrier had been removed.
However, by early August, it became clear that this was not enough. Documentarian James Fox, joined by journalist Leslie Kean and former intelligence officer David Grusch, issued a direct appeal. In a short video, supported by Submersive Media and 42west, they urged the President to issue an executive order providing immunity for the lawful public disclosure of fundamental facts that do not compromise national security.
The implication is straightforward: the Lucas memorandum only opens the door *within* the system, towards official channels. Speaking openly, in front of cameras, or at hearings, remains risky.
Former official Luis Elizondo directly confirmed that the memorandum did not remove the prohibition against him communicating with the general public. Classified obligations continue to apply outside of AARO and PURSUE. Questions also persist regarding corporate agreements with private contractors and specific special access programs.
This is precisely why the new appeal is more forceful than previous ones. Whistleblowers are prepared to provide verifiable details, but only if they receive genuine protection from legal and career repercussions.
The timeline here is illustrative. Press conferences on Capitol Hill in June, featuring Congressmen Burchett, Luna, Moskowitz, and Burlison, had already called for immunity. The July memorandum provided a response, but only a partial one.
The August video marks the next phase: moving from internal briefings to public discourse. The authors emphasize that this is not about uncontrolled leaks, but about facts the public has a right to know.
Until an executive order is issued, the situation remains ambiguous. The Lucas memorandum represents genuine progress. However, for those who have remained silent for years out of caution, it is still insufficient.
They await not just the opportunity to report to superiors, but the right to state publicly: this is what we have seen, this is what we know. And the final decision once again rests with the President.
