Pentagon’s UFO report finds over 700 new cases, with 21 the agency could not explain
Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon and the Director of National Intelligence have released the annual report on UFO sightings and while they still haven’t found any extraterrestrial origin for the more than 700 new reports that came in last year, there are about two dozen that have them really curious.
UAP is the term the Pentagon and the intelligence community use to describe UFOs, which stands for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. The agency that reviews all of the new incidents being reported by military personnel and now additional federal agencies is the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).
From May 2023 to June 2024, AARO received 757 new incident reports, 485 that occurred in that time period and another 272 reports from 2021 and 2022 that had not been previously sent to the agency. That’s a sizable increase from previous reports, for example, last year’s report cited 281 new reports during its review period, something Pentagon officials said Thursday was due to a greater awareness about reporting UAP incidents, not that they have been growing in frequency.
Overall the total number of cases that have been reviewed by AARO since its founding is now 1,652.
AARO has “discovered no evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity, or technology” according to this year’s report. A small number of this year’s reports had terrestrial explanations and a significant number will be left for further review, but one thing they haven’t found is that some of the reports are attributable to a “breakthrough” technology.
However, during a press briefing Thursday, the head of AARO acknowledged that there are 21 reports over the last year and a half that he can’t really explain.
“There are interesting cases that with my physics and engineering background and time in the I.C. I do not understand, and I don’t know anybody else understands them,” said Dr. Jon Kosloski, the new director of AARO. Kosloski said the 21 incidents occurred near national security sites and were recorded on video, had multiple eyewitnesses or were captured by other sensors.
So what do these unexplainable UAPs look like? “Orbs, cylinders, triangles, in one of the cases, it has been happening over an extended period of time, and it is possible that there’s multiple things happening” Kosloski said, adding that the incidents might include drone activity that’s being conflated with a UAP.
US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin speaks at the end of a Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting on September 6, 2024 at the US air base in Ramstein, southwestern Germany. (Photo by DANIEL ROLAND/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin sent a weekend letter to Congressional appropriators urging them to pass government funding bills after the election in the “vulnerable time around transitions” to “uphold the bipartisan tradition of funding our nation’s defense prior to the inauguration of a new president,” a source in the department told ABC News.
In his letter to bipartisan committee chairs on government funding, Austin urged lawmakers to avoid a six-month stopgap funding measure, calling a regular funding bill for the Pentagon “the single most important thing that Congress can do to ensure U.S. national security.”
Speaker Mike Johnson has proposed the six-month continuing resolution to fund the government beyond the inauguration of a new president. The government funding deadline is September 30.
Austin’s letter does not signal opposition to a one-month stopgap – but he urges “action immediately after the election.”
“The repercussions of Congress failing to pass regular appropriations legislation for the first half of FY 2025 would be devastating to our readiness and ability to execute the National Defense Strategy,” Austin writes.
The defense secretary points out to Congressional leaders that a six-month continuing resolution “would represent the second year in a row, and the seventh time in the past 15 years” the Pentagon has been stalled until midyear in receiving its funding orders from the legislative branch.
“I am fully aware of the political pressures that will challenge the Congress from fulfilling its duty before our national elections conclude,” he writes. “No matter who wins this election, there will be a Presidential transition. I urge you and your colleagues to take up action immediately after the election to limit damage to our national security during this vulnerable period around transitions and uphold the bipartisan tradition of funding our nation’s defense prior to the inauguration of a new President.”
Former U.S. President and current Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks about the economy, inflation, and manufacturing during a campaign event at Alro Steel on August 29, 2024 in Potterville, Michigan. (Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
(ATLANTA) — A federal judge in Atlanta on Tuesday issued a temporary injunction ordering Donald Trump and his campaign to stop using a song co-written by the late musician Isaac Hayes at their events.
The song “Hold On, I’m Coming,” published in 1966, was played at Trump rallies and can be heard in campaign videos that were posted online, according to court documents reviewed by ABC News. The judge did not order that these videos be taken down, according to a statement from Trump representative Ronald Coleman.
“The campaign had already agreed to cease further use,” Coleman told ABC News in a statement. “We’re very gratified that the court recognized the First Amendment issues at stake and didn’t order a takedown of existing videos.”
Isaac Hayes III, Hayes’ son, said in a social media post last month that he was demanding $3 million in licensing fees from Trump and his campaign for unauthorized use of the song “Hold On, I’m Coming.” Trump and his partners played the song over 150 times without permission, court documents said.
“We won,” Isaac Hayes III posted on Instagram on Tuesday after the hearing. “@realdonaldtrump has been barred from playing @isaachayes music forever.”
The injunction stops the campaign from playing the song pending further proceedings, Coleman told ABC News, and the court would consider a motion for reconsideration based on copyright ownership if appropriate.
“The campaign has a license to play the music through an agreement with BMI and ASCAP,” the Trump campaign said in a statement emailed to ABC News in response to the ruling, referring to performance rights groups Broadcast Music Inc and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers.
Neither Isaac Hayes III nor attorneys for Isaac Hayes Enterprises — the company that handles licensing for Hayes’ estate — have responded to ABC News’ request for statements. Neither sides’ attorneys have responded to ABC News regarding any decision made on money allegedly owed to Isaac Hayes Enterprises.
The song was popularized by the music duo Sam & Dave in 1966 and reached No. 21 on the Billboard Hot 100 at the time, according to court documents. Hayes, who wrote the song with David Porter, passed away at age 65 in 2008, but his estate is the current owner of right and title to the song, the court documents noted.
After Trump and his campaign played the song in 2020 as “outro” music at one of their events, a cease-and-desist letter was sent to the Trump campaign on behalf of Isaac Hayes Enterprises, according to court documents.
The Donald J. Trump for President campaign, Republican National Committee (RNC), conservative advocacy group Turning Point, National Rifle Association (NRA), American Conservative Union and BTC were named as defendants on the complaint filed by Isaac Hayes Enterprises last month, for hosting events and uploading videos where the song was played, according to court documents.
The motion was withdrawn on Tuesday by Hayes Enterprises as to Turning Point, NRA and RNC, the court noted.
Hayes is part of a group of musicians who have called for Trump to stop playing their music at his events, which include Beyoncé, the Foo Fighters, Jack White and Celine Dion.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court, faced with sagging public confidence and a deepening perception its decisions are politically-motivated, could soon play a critical role in how some 2024 presidential ballots are cast and counted and, potentially, how contested election results are certified.
“As prepared as anyone can be,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s junior justice, when asked recently about the flood of election-related lawsuits headed toward the high court.
Hundreds of state and federal cases involving disputes over the legitimacy of state voter rolls, access to voting places, and procedures for counting ballots are currently pending. A majority of them were brought by Republicans.
“It is a deluge,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank tracking the unprecedented volume of election-year litigation. “It is a strategy to sow disinformation and chaos in the election system.”
Many of the lawsuits, predicated on “conspiracy theories” and advancing tenuous legal arguments, will ultimately be tossed out on technical grounds, Weiser said. But some may reach the justices with the potential to alter voting procedures in the final weeks of the campaign, depending on how they rule.
In one closely-watched case from Mississippi, the Republican National Committee has asked a conservative federal appeals court panel to prohibit the counting of mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they are postmarked on or before Nov. 5. Roughly 20 states have long standing laws permitting late-arriving ballots, including Nevada, Virginia and Ohio.
“They’re saying federal law says election day means election day, which means that anything that comes afterwards was not on election day,” Weiser said of the GOP effort. “The argument has been raised in many cases across the country, and the courts have been routinely rejecting it. But given the context of the players involved, there’s now not a 0% risk that this could happen.”
In North Carolina, Republicans have sued state election officials seeking to remove 225,000 voters ahead of Election Day, claiming voter registration forms lacked the required identification information. The case is among more than three dozen GOP-led suits attempting to purge alleged ineligible voters, according to Democracy Docket, a left-leaning group tracking the litigation.
“It doesn’t strike me as implausible that you would see a case like that sharply before the Supreme Court in late October,” said University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq.
While the justices have generally sought to avoid interference in state voter registration policies and election procedures close to an election — a concept known as the Purcell Principle — they have occasionally issued rulings that have resulted in major changes.
In the past few weeks, the court has issued decisions allowing Arizona to require proof of citizenship for state voter registration and rejecting Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s bid to appear on the Nevada ballot.
“They’ve never really explained what is the ‘status quo’ and what is ‘last minute,’ and they have been incredibly inconsistent in how they applied [Purcell],” said Caroline Fredrickson, a Georgetown law professor and former president of the American Constitution Society.
Other possible scenarios for Supreme Court involvement in the 2024 election could unfold after Nov. 5, as local and state election officials tabulate ballots and certify results.
“Imagine a state such as Georgia, where you have a state election board that has in the past weeks evinced a certain tendency to invite and foment election related litigation, resisting certification of a slate of presidential electors that the state election board disfavors,” said Huq. “What happens then? Perhaps the Supreme Court would be called in to tell us.”
The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA) mandates that states must certify their results by Dec. 11, but does not spell out what would happen if they do not do so. There could be litigation to resolve the appointment of a state’s electors for president by Dec. 16 when the Electoral College meets to cast votes.
The law explicitly directs disputes over certification to a three-judge panel for resolution with the U.S. Supreme Court getting the final word.
“It’s certainly contemplated as a second layer fail-safe,” said Weiser, “but I’m relatively confident that all the earlier layer fail-safes are going to hold and that we’re not going to be in that scenario.”
The court could also be asked to weigh in on any attempt by members of Congress to disqualify former President Donald Trump from a second term, if he were to win the election, during certification of the electoral vote on Jan. 6, 2025.
In the case Trump v. Anderson last year, the justices unanimously ruled that states could not disqualify a presidential candidate as an “insurrectionist” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it left open a federal process to make that determination.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says anyone who took an oath “as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution” and who then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort to the enemy” cannot hold office.
Trump’s critics allege he clearly violated Section 3 given his connection to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and efforts to block certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.
Under the ECRA, if one-fifth of the members of the House and Senate voted to object to certification of Trump’s electors on the grounds that he is ineligible to hold office, that decision could ultimately be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
“You could imagine a kind of Bush v Gore style, very, very rapid sequence of motions or petitions being filed and making their way through the court system,” said Huq. “I can imagine that happening, although I think it’s unlikely. But I suspect the Supreme Court would make short work of it.”
