Backlash against the Wall Street Journal as prominent figures speak out against ‘deception’ and ‘misinformation.’

On 6 June, the business newspaper The Wall Street Journal published an article on defence and UFOs, sparking an outcry from activists who are calling for the subject to be studied scientifically.

THIS ARTICLE WAS MADE POSSIBLE WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OUR PARTNER ASK A POL

Ryan Graves, the executive director of Americans for Safe Aerospace, was one of the most vocal critics of the article published by the Wall Street Journal and written by Joel Schectman. In the article, the author suggests that UAP are based on rumors spread by a joke organized by the Air Force and a disinformation program.

This article does nothing to account for the near daily reality of sightings that pilots, service members, and regular folks witness. I’m disappointed that after the multiple good faith conversations I had with @joel_schectman, he neglected to include any of this information, leading to this very one-sided piece.

Lt. Ryan Graves was one of the witnesses interviewed by the New York Times to highlight the challenges posed by advanced platforms for defense. Since then, he has been one of the few armed forces personnel to speak openly on the subject. He founded the AFSA with the aim of “Identifying objects in our airspace and eliminating domain awareness gaps is critical to U.S. aviation safety and national security.”

He also endorsed the videos officially released by the Department of Defense in 2020, which were determined to depict 'UAPs'. He stated that he recognized one of the recorded voices and attested to the quality of the WISO.

Shortly after the WSJ article was published on 6 June, he responded to questions from Elizabeth Vargas on Newsnation. He reiterated that pilots' observations completely contradicted the thesis set out in the WSJ article.

This originates from eyewitnesses that are spotting things, sometimes on the ground, often in the sky, that is very hard to explain.

There's thousands of instances of service members and regular people having similar experiences that can't be chalked up to simply disinformation coming from the Pentagon.

This is basically a deception campaign against the American public.

The reasons for these direct accusations seem easy to identify. At the 2023 hearings before the House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee, Ryan Graves testified alongside David Fravor, a pilot involved in the Nimitz case in 2004, and intelligence officer David Grusch. In The Debrief, Grusch stated that:

We are not talking about prosaic origins or identities.

The material includes intact and partially intact vehicles.

During the hearings, he added that

Biologics came with these recoveries.

Shortly after these hearings, Dr. Kirkpatrick, then director of the AARO, sent a strongly worded message:

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.

Were the statements he made to the WSJ, which led to the controversial article, a response to these hearings? For a long time, institutions have traded scoops with the media and influencers in exchange for particular framings of facts in order to manage the dissemination of information. Returning to Graves's first quote, we see that his expert opinion was not reported :

I’m disappointed that after the multiple good faith conversations I had with @joel_schectman, he neglected to include any of this information, leading to this very one-sided piece.

Influence

Are we looking at an example of information management at the WSJ, a business newspaper now interested in rumors about UFOs and the armed forces?

Shortly after David Grusch publicly testified about the existence of a program outside the oversight of Congress responsible for recovering non-human origin platforms, The Intercept published an article questioning the reliability of Grusch, using sensitive FOIA documents about a traumatic episode experienced by him, which he had spoken about openly during his testimony. When questioned by Saagar Enjeti on Breaking Points, the author of the article for The Intercept stated that he had obtained the information from the Department of Defense and Intelligence:

Were you tipped off by members of the Intelligence Community?

It was both the Defense Department, and again it’s a mosaic, you talk to as many people as you can because you don’t want to be dependent on any one individual who might have a grudge or whatever it is, but yes I did talk to both DoD people and Intelligence community people.

I would have included anything positive that I’d gotten, unfortunately I didn’t get anything.

The use of tips and FOIA documents is fair game, but the fact that none of the author’s contacts had anything positive to say about Grusch is puzzling. An interesting piece of information can be found in a follow-up article published by The Debrief, which explains the vetting process of David Grusch when his testimony was first published in an article authored by Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean. Tim McMillan, who was tasked with verifying David Grusch's background, states:

And I’ll tell you that, through that and multiple sources, no one had anything bad to say.

Here, two journalists obtain vastly different information about the same individual while carrying out the same vetting process. What's the difference? One vetting was conducted before David Grusch went public; the other was conducted afterward.

David Grusch is currently involved in a lawsuit against Virginia's Sheriff County, “alleging the department illegally released his private medical records in an effort to smear him” according to Newsnation.

Numerous secret American programs have worked on this subject. In his book Imminent, Lue Elizondo described how his program recruited personnel. After introducing the subject to a contact, he wrote, speaking to a prospect:

I suggest you think about this, and see if you want to know more. If you think you’re ready, come back and we can talk again later this week. But if you ever mention this to anyone, I will fire you immediately and publicly deny we ever had this conversation.

He then explains:

They would amble off to ponder the meaning of my words. A few never took me up on the offer.

One can note the similarity with the Air Force's fake UFO study program. Is there a causal link? Are Kirkpatrick’s sources denied prospects from Elizondo?

Editor-in-Chief of The Debrief Micah Hanks had his own experience with such a fake program. Wouldn’t it be possible for both hypotheses to coexist? What better way to blur the lines than by creating both genuine study programs and fake programs designed to spread misinformation? Interested readers may wish to look into the tragic life of Paul Bennewitz.

Given that this document is public and has been approved by the DOPSR, it is surprising that the WSJ article's author did not mention it.

Malmstrom

When Newsnation asked award-winning journalist Ross Coulthart about the WSJ article, he did not mince his words:

There are people, gatekeepers to the secret about this legacy UAP program who have been lying to and deceiving the American public for years.

We've known for years that disinformation is being used and that UFOs are often used as cover, but that doesn't explain the firsthand witnesses who say they have seen craft and that they have direct knowledge of a program.

Someone in the Pentagon has tailored what is quite clearly deliberate disinformation just to confuse the public.

The idea that the US Air Force would sanction the use of an electromagnetic pulse to essentially test a weapon against an active thermonuclear missile, it's beyond belief, it's so ridiculous, it's absurd.

On this last point, he is joined by journalist Marik von Rennenkampf, who highlights a discrepancy between the dates in Malmstrom's case and the explanation provided in the WSJ article.

You can’t *possibly* be defending the theory floated by AARO (via WSJ) for the incident.

One of the key witnesses in the case of American nuclear warheads being rendered inoperable by a UAP is former Launch Control Officer Robert Salas, who was present at the time of the incident. Having accused the article of 'false representations', Salas stated:

With supporting statements from members of the Boeing investigative team, we concluded that EMP testing was not the cause of the missile shutdowns. If this had been the case, it surely would have been reflected in the historical documents and communications with investigators we received from that period.

The EMP generator equipment would have involved a prolonged installation process in plain sight of our security team at ground level of our LCF. Those activities would have been reported to us in the underground Launch Control Center (LCC) since we were in command of the facility. Our topside personnel never reported to us any such activity.

During our incident our status panel showed an indication of possible incursion into two launch facilities (LF), the location of missiles. Security teams were sent to those sites to investigate but as they approached them, they reported seeing the same type of object hovering above those missiles. They again were so frightened to see them, they requested to go no further and return to the LCF.

These are just a few examples of the arguments put forward by Salas, all of which can be found here.

One of the most renowned experts on UAPs and nuclear weapons, Robert Hastings, also responded to the WSJ:

According to Captain Jamison, multiple targeting teams, including his, were given an unprecedented "special UFO briefing" prior to being released to the field, during which it was stated that a "UFO" had caused the multiple-missile failures. The teams were instructed to report a UFO to their command post, should one be sighted while they traveled to the full-flight shutdown site at Oscar Flight, near Roy, Montana. They were further instructed that, should a UFO appear while they were on-site at one of the Launch Facilities--underground missile silos--they were to quickly enter the silo and close the personnel access hatch, while leaving their Security Police escort above ground so that he could provide updates to the base via a two-way radio.

In an interview with Redacted, documentary director James Fox was highly critical of the Wall Street Journal's reporting, and supported Malmstrom case witnesses:

These guys are responsible for pushing the, you know, the launch control officers for nuclear war. It's like, if that's not a credible report, I don't know what is.

That is part of the PSYOP. This article is exactly that. It's complete and utter hogwash.

Psyops (psychological operations), also known as ‘strategic influence’ or ‘perception management’ has been a major tool for the United States since Reagan era. This is outlined in the National Security Decision Directive 130 : “It is a key strategic instrument for shaping fundamental political and ideological trends around the globe on a long-term bquq and ultimately affecting the behavior of government”.

Readers interested in the subject can read ‘The Evolution of Strategic Influence’, written by LTC Susan L. Gough, who is currently a DoD spokesperson responsible for answering questions regarding UAP.

James Fox explained his opinion:

I believe what I know, to be true, because I've gone around the world investigating the phenomenon, investigating landing cases, crash cases in Brazil, I've been to China, Russia, Australia, South America, Africa. The phenomenon is definitely real.

He held Dr Sean Kirkpatrick, the former AARO director and the WSJ's main source for the article, responsible for the PSYOP.

I was working with firsthand witnesses that had already gone to AARO and testified in a SCIF and given street addresses and names, locations of where this stuff is. And none of those detailed reports, classified detailed reports, wound up being even part of the presentation that he ultimately gave.

Even with AARO under the leadership of its new director, Dr Jon Kosloski, he doubted that any progress could be made.

he did tell me, in SCIF, a couple of months ago... I started saying: “Obviously, you guys are going to come to the conclusion after a careful review of the data, especially the classified data, that we're dealing with some of this stuff as a non-human intelligence.”

And he looked at me, he didn't say no, he just goes: “James, I can't part my hair without the DOD's approval. And you can quote me on that”.

Fox then explained the reason behind the DoD's reluctance on the subject.

These guys are not going to go out without a fight. And the revelation of this phenomenon, of this story, is going to be very difficult for them because they've got technology, so they're going to have to admit that at some point. They're probably going to have to admit that the phenomenon is real, and yet that exposes their vulnerabilities, right? So you've got these objects whizzing around with impunity. They circle, they fly rings around our fastest jets, just talk to Dave Fravor. And yet they don't know who they are, where they come from, or what they want. So origins and intent, that's going to be something they don't want to reveal to the general public because for obvious reasons, right? We're vulnerable.

If you can weaponize that technology, it's game over, right? So if the Russians… it’s a race to see who can get to it first.

Fox concluded his interview by explaining his commitment to UAP investigations :

The fact that we're not alone, in my view and in the view of many others that are pushing for more government transparency, is the right of every man, woman and child on this planet. And that's one of the reasons why I continue pushing for more transparency.

One might wonder whether the disclosure of information held by the US government will require a new Church Committee to pierce the veil of secrecy.

Politics

The backlash came from politicians too. When questioned by Sentinel News’ partner, journalist Matt Laslo, for 'Ask a Pol', Anna Paulina Luna, Representative and Chairwoman of the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets, stated the following regarding the WSJ article:

I think that's bullshit.

I don't actually like the work that AARO has done. I think that AARO’s done a really terrible job.

She then confirms that this maneuver came from Kirkpatrick and the AARO '100%'.

“I think that they're incorrect in their analysis, and I think that it's also pretty sad that they would try to gaslight millions of Americans.”

The interview concludes with a mention of further hearings on the subject of UAPs, which could explain why Kirkpatrick decided to take the initiative.

When questioned by Matt Laslo, Representative Burlison stated:

I would say I do think that the people that provided information for that article did not have a full picture of everything that's going on.

I think that some of the things that were mentioned in there were exaggerated

He added that whistleblower David Grusch, now in Burlison’s staff, has never heard of such a fake program called ‘Yankee Blue’.

He concludes by stating:

The story of the individual who went to a bar and handed photos — or whatever it was — how is that not illegal?

I’ll look into it.

History and programs

In what is probably just a coincidence, the WSJ article was published at the same time as the Brazilian Air Force released almost 900 documents detailing encounters with UAPs, some of which date back to 2024. This proves that the phenomenon is still occurring today. Some of the most recent documents mention triangles of lights.

Another AARO director, Tim Philips, recently gave an interview in which he admitted:

There are some spooky things, in places they shouldn't be, with performance characteristics that we couldn't duplicate today

The black triangles, that there were some reports from credible people, where they saw something, and they saw a flying vehicle, triangular in shape.

The current director of AARO, Jon Kosloski, stated in a recent interview :

We seem to have the full support of the administration.

He declared in the same interview regarding the Nimitz UFO case :

Really no idea what that might be

These are two puzzling statements if all reports of military encounters with UFOs come from a fake Air Force program.

Another military witness spoke out during this period. Fighter pilot Ryan Bodenheimer reported the following encounter during a flight:

This was like an essentially perfect rectangle shape. Maybe I would assume, probably like 30 to 50 feet high. It was bright white along the outside edges, and it was like the outside edges were glowing and then on the inside it kind of got a little bit lighter colored, and it went all the way down to like a cream and then a clear center.

In the center, it was clear, as if I could see the sky through a small hole in the air. But again, we were at 30,000 feet and travelling at 400 knots.

Commenting on his reasons for speaking out, he confided:

There has been a bit of a stigma for fighter pilots that have come forward and talked about these things. But obviously, recently, over the last few years, I feel like that stigma has been removed, and now I'm ready to talk about it.

We should therefore applaud efforts like Ryan Graves's, which enable pilots to openly discuss their experiences without fear of ridicule or mockery. This includes being told that the only UFOs that exist are those in fake documents created by the US Air Force. Perhaps reliable information on UAPs will be disseminated by scientific initiatives rather than government ones, as was demonstrated at last week's annual conference of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. During the conference, Jay Stratton, the former director of the DOD’s UAPTF, stated that the United States has a secret, powerful and long-standing program for gathering information on UFOs, but explained that this program also refused to share its knowledge. When questioned by Sentinel News, the Department of Defense declined to comment on the matter.

An encouraging element in this shift toward scientific investigation of UFOs comes from former astronaut and Senator Mark Kelly. Known for his scepticism about the reality of UFO sightings, the senator responded to questions posed by Ask A Pol after reading the WSJ article. He stated:

The one very public case, the one with the Tic-Tacs on the FLIR. The FA 18 FLIR with the squadron commander that went out there… Pretty compelling, with not a straight explanation.

I’ve looked at it, I’ve looked at the video, I’ve talked to the guy.

He’s a really a very credible observer.

It makes me curious.

However, during this exchange with journalist Matt Laslo, the senator also discussed the wave of advanced platforms that led to the latest generation of American F22 fighter jets being grounded at Langley Air Force Base.

They were drones. We know what they were.

At a time when even politicians remain sceptical about what happened at Langley Air Force Base, this stance clearly illustrates the dichotomy often overlooked by those interested in UAPs. Technological developments are now capable of replicating some of the performance characteristics of UAPs, so any systematic study will now need to find ways to differentiate the specific signatures of advanced platforms recorded by instruments. Drones and military technologies can’t be ignored anymore.

15-6-2025 article updated with comments from Sen. Mark Kelly
15-6-2025 article updated with comments from James Fox