At a meeting held on August 31, 2026, at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the UAP Science Advisory Council, of which I am a member, was informed that the United States government has a preparedness plan in place should the existence of nonhuman intelligence (NHI) be confirmed. We were also told that the United States is prepared to take an international leadership role if necessary.
So, what does this mean?
The government prepares for many events that may never happen, but that would have significant consequences if they did. The existence of a preparedness plan does not mean that the government has confirmed the existence of NHI, believes confirmation is imminent, or is preparing to make any type of announcement.
It does mean that the possibility of confirming NHI has been taken seriously enough to warrant advance planning. That alone is significant because it means that the United States government has considered the possibility that such a confirmation could occur and it has determined that the consequences would be substantial enough to require a coordinated response.
The statement about international leadership also suggests that the government recognizes that confirmation of NHI would be a global event. And that it would require nations to communicate and cooperate with one another.
We were not given any details about the plan. We do not know which agencies would lead the response, what circumstances would activate it, or whether it addresses the psychological and societal impact of such information. Those questions matter because preparing to release information is not the same as preparing people to understand and adapt to it.
I was able to share a policy brief that I co-wrote with the Disclosure Foundation on the human consequences of disclosure, along with a 60-page report on the psychological impact of disclosure. I hope these materials are taken seriously, because any truly meaningful preparedness planning needs to address more than government communications and interagency coordination. It also needs to plan for how individuals, families, communities, and institutions would process and respond to the information.
Until then, what does this mean for the preparedness plans that people outside government are developing?
It means they should continue their advocacy and preparedness work. Even if the government has a plan, there is a tremendous amount that would still need to happen. Many resources and systems would have to be created or expanded, including curricula and training for law-enforcement officers, educators, health-care professionals, mental-health providers, clergy, emergency managers, and community leaders.
Adequate preparedness planning would also require public-facing materials to help people process what they are learning; guidance for communicating uncertainty and how to avoid misinformation; protocols for supporting vulnerable populations; frameworks for community dialogue; educational resources for schools and universities; training for journalists and public-information officers; and research into the potential psychological, cultural, religious, legal, economic, and geopolitical effects of disclosure. We would also need trusted channels for public questions, independent scientific review, mechanisms for international coordination, and long-term support for people experiencing fear, confusion, grief, or profound changes in their worldview.
These efforts should be developed carefully, transparently, and with appropriate safeguards. They should not assume that every claim about UAP or NHI is true, and they should not encourage any sort of panic or speculation. Their purpose should be to help people evaluate information responsibly, communicate honestly, and respond humanely if significant new evidence or an official confirmation does happen.
The United States has never been a country in which we simply depend on the government to do everything for us. Civil society, professional organizations, researchers, academics, educators, faith communities, advocates, and local leaders all have important roles to play. Government preparedness is valuable, but it cannot replace the broader work of the community working together to build greater public understanding and resilience.
It is important to remember that a preparedness plan is not evidence that nonhuman intelligence exists. It is evidence that the United States government considers that if it were to be confirmed, the impact would be consequential enough to prepare for. For everyone else interested in this matter, the message is clear, continue the work of thoughtful and responsible preparedness so that, if this type of disclosure does occur, people are not left without the knowledge, resources, and support they need.
Advisory Boards
Quite a thorough and impressive report. Regarding the topic of psychological and resilience preparedness, specifically items 2. Develop scalable mental health surge capacity & 5. community-based support systems, I would suggest two models that have proven effective in the past.
IAVA (Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America) rapidly stood up a peer support program that accomplished goals similar in nature to that of the report.
The Temple Collaborative on Community Inclusion, particularly the work of Dr. Mark Salzer, has proven highly adept at providing encouraging examples of community inclusion in regard to mental health.
The government partnering with non-governmental organizations such as Citizens for Disclosure would allow for the top down knowledge of experts to be rapidly disseminated through grassroots efforts aimed at educating the public, with veterans of the topic able to rapidly engage an interested public with trusted knowledge.
There has been talk about a "preparedness plan" in the works for decades. Werner von Braun supposedly told to Carol Rosin on his deathbed, that the false flag "alien invasion" would be the final card played. It is a plan to confirm people's worst fears as an excuse to enact martial law or other draconian measures to clamp down on freedoms. Perhaps the specifics of that plan have evolved, but the general idea of fabricating an excuse to exert control is a well established tactic. CIA types manipulate nice people like you, sorry to say. Have you had any strange feelings, intuitions or doubts about some of the people involved?