Not all instances of government secrecy about UFOs are negative

A potentially groundbreaking law is currently being considered by Congress, which, if approved, could go down in history as one of the most significant legislations in the United States. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer is the sponsor of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023, which aims to promote openness regarding UFO-related matters. Despite enjoying substantial bipartisan backing, the bill’s fate hangs in the balance due to opposition from Republicans, making its passage uncertain.

One early version of the bill creates, among other provisions, an expert panel to decide whether UAP-classified information should be released. This would allow for a controlled process in which suppressed government information would eventually be made public.

Even if we’re skeptical, there have been many claims within the federal government that the government is hiding alien crafts and bodies, and that the military is working to reverse engineer space technology. There are also more plausible claims that there are flying objects that do not require explanations.

Anyway, if you think all this alien talk is bullshit, wouldn’t the best answer be sunlight to show that nothing weird is going on?

That’s the strongest argument in favor of the bill: if all the recent UAP stuff doesn’t reflect the presence of aliens and threats from hostile foreign powers. In that case, pulling back the curtain would prevent reasonable observers from pursuing the subject further. The result would be a modest benefit.

However, this is not the scenario envisioned by the bill’s most ardent supporters.

Before we get to that, ask yourself: What if some of these UAP reports reflect a foreign military presence or perhaps new technology from a secret or renegade part of the US government? In that case, the extra transparency can be counterproductive. The U.S. government conducts a variety of intelligence and military operations, and Congress does not require all of them to be made public. CIA missions or US cyber attacks or many other aspects of US foreign policy are not open.

Oversight of the military’s UAP activities should fall into the same category. Secrecy is often allowed, even desirable, for reasons of national security.

There may well be a compelling argument why secrecy in these military and foreign policy cases should generally be limited. But so far it has not been done.

Now let’s consider the possibility that the government actually has information that could either directly or indirectly lead the public to believe that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth. It doesn’t have to be strange bodies hidden in Roswell or a scenario from The X-Files. It could just be repeated and hard-to-explain observations gleaned from various sensor readings that turn out to be high-speed spacecraft probes well beyond our current design capabilities.

In that case, is the best policy really what transparency advocates call “controlled disclosure”? They had envisioned a panel of responsible experts who would control the flow of information piece by piece.

One question is whether such information could be better kept secret, or whether only an elite few know and manage to put all the pieces together. It’s hard to say whether there would be widespread social panic over the revelation of an alien presence on Earth – but it’s also hard to see the practical side. The best argument for disclosure is simply that the public has a right to know, and that such knowledge about the reality of humanity’s place in the universe is valuable in itself.

Another question concerns the inevitable logic of disclosure. In practice, the United States has a long tradition of whistleblowers and truth tellers. If there is real hard evidence of alien visitation, it will leak, with or without the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023. Just look at the case of Edward Snowden, where an American threatened imprisonment and deportation to reveal secrets that were far less important. than what could be at stake here.

If the current legislation doesn’t pass, or if a much weaker version moves forward, some people may take that as a cue to step forward and spill the beans – with direct evidence instead of hearsay. In the end, the end result may not be so different from the Transparency Act and its panel of experts. Speaking of which: Do its members keep the secrets entrusted to them? When they started hinting at alien visits, the floodgates opened and the story came out – and fast.

So I’m left with a curious position: if you suspect that the UAP findings are a bunch of bullshit, support the bill. If you fear they are the work of America’s enemies, resist it. And on the off chance that the most exotic possibility is true—that we have been and are visited by aliens—it hardly matters. In any case, the truth will come out, and at speeds we will become uncomfortable.

More from Tyler Cowen:

• What are the chances that foreigners have visited us?
• If the Pentagon takes UFOs seriously, so should the market
• Are UFOs a threat to national security?

Want more Bloomberg opinions? Subscribe to our newsletter.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or of Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, professor of economics at George Mason University, and host of the Marginal Revolution blog.