NDAS
TopicNDAS
TopicNondisclosure agreements that define continuing duties to protect classified or otherwise restricted government information.
Nondisclosure agreements that define continuing duties to protect classified or otherwise restricted government information.
A nondisclosure agreement is a legal commitment not to reveal protected information to unauthorized recipients. In national-security work, the standard classified-information agreement accompanies access to Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret material. It works with clearance and need-to-know rules: having signed an NDA does not grant access, and leaving government service does not end the duty to protect information that remains classified. Special-access and intelligence compartments may add separate indoctrination agreements.
UAP debate often treats NDAs as evidence that witnesses are legally unable to speak. The reality is narrower. Agreements prohibit unauthorized disclosure; they do not erase lawful reporting channels to inspectors general, Congress, or other officials authorized to receive the information. Recent legislation directed the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office to accept certain UAP disclosures and specified that authorized reporting is not blocked by prior or current agreements. Those provisions do not authorize release to the press or public.
Former personnel may also face prepublication review. The Department of Defense requires covered authors to submit material connected to protected knowledge before public release, allowing reviewers to remove classified content while generally leaving unclassified claims intact. A cleared manuscript therefore shows that its publication was permitted; it does not mean the government verified or endorsed every assertion in it. Conversely, a redaction does not disclose the substance or truth of what was removed.
NDAs are central to Whistleblowers & Testimony because a credible disclosure must navigate both secrecy law and oversight rights. Claims that an agreement is “illegal” or has been “waived” should identify the agreement, controlling statute, authorized recipient, and scope of the waiver. The most defensible distinction is between protected communication through an official channel and an unauthorized public disclosure, not between speaking and remaining silent in the abstract.
[Retweeted] “Those of us who already became whistleblowers, we already were told that our NDAs were waived. We were legally allowed to talk to AARO,” he says, referring to the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, created in 2022 to investigate UAP reports and serve as the official channel for whistleblowers. He adds that the new directive essentially “just repeated what we've been told for three, four years.” “There's enough smoke, and there's enough people behind the scenes,” he...
Matthew (@SunOfAbramelin) quotes Dylan Borland: “Those of us who already became whistleblowers, we already were told that our NDAs were waived. We were legally allowed to talk to AARO,” he says, referring to the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, created in 2022 to investigate UAP reports and serve as the official channel for whistleblowers. He adds that the new directive essentially “just repeated what we've been told for three, four years.” “There's enough smoke, and there's enough people behind the scenes,” he says, referring to himself and other whistleblowers. “If Stephen Miller and Trump wanted to actually know some stuff, they could call us into the White House right now, and I can throw down, and so can the rest of them.” - @TheDylanBorland
"UFO Whistleblowers" coming up with new reasons that can't disclose shit now that the White House has waived their NDAs https://t.co/SVveHZSnml https://t.co/y3r [Quoted] RELEASE: Department of War Issues Legal Waiver to Authorize UAP Disclosures to PURSUE "This waiver establishes an authorized, legally protected disclosure mechanism for current and former personnel to provide UAP-related National Defense Information (NDI) to designated representatives of the PURSUE effort. Under this directiv...
🚨THE PENTAGON HAS JUST WAIVED UFO NDAs FOR DISCLOSURES TO PURSUE The Department of War has issued a legal waiver allowing current and former military personne [Quoted] RELEASE: Department of War Issues Legal Waiver to Authorize UAP Disclosures to PURSUE "This waiver establishes an authorized, legally protected disclosure mechanism for current and former personnel to provide UAP-related National Defense Information (NDI) to designated representatives of the PURSUE effort. Under this directive...
🚨 The Department of War says NDAs and Special Access Program agreements will no longer block authorized UAP disclosures to PURSUE. But previously released records involving David Grusch raise an important question: What actually changed? https://t.co/28WlwBiYUc
I have been watching the UAP records process for a while, and this one is easy to overread. On September 14 the US Department of War put out a short notice about people who signed secrecy agreements. Current and former service members, civilian staff, and contractors who had access to national defense information tied to unidentified anomalous phenomena. The fear they describe is familiar: civil penalties, clearance problems, administrative blowback if they talk. The change is not "go tell a...
Allan Lavigne on UFO Whistleblowers' waived NDAs & David Grusch's list of 40 - Psicoactivo Live #61 https://t.co/WNHV5mtHbj
Allan Lavigne on UFO Whistleblowers' waived NDAs & David Grusch's list of 40 - Psicoactivo Live #61
RT @ChrisUKSharp: My question with this story is 'what are certain Congressional committees hiding?' Yes, there are NDAs etc, which mean t…
My question with this story is 'what are certain Congressional committees hiding?' Yes, there are NDAs etc, which mean they can't say anything by law. But someone obviously thought it was okay to provide certain details to Tom O'Neill. So why not tell the public at large? I have been told that O'Neill is a straight shooter - someone who tells the truth. I trust his word. And if true, it means Congress is unable to be transparent on the UAP topic - perhaps explaining why some key senators went...