Research Article

Alternatives: Global, Local, Political

2024, Vol. 0(0) 1–20
Casting Ambiguity: Securitization © The Author(s) 2024

of Unidentified Anomalous Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Phenomena in the United States DOI: 10.1177/03043754241256845
journals.sagepub.com/home/alt

Ghaleb Krame1, Vlado Vivoda2, and Tamir Bar-

On1

Abstract
This study examines the evolving securitization of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) in the
United States (U.S.), utilizing the Copenhagen School’s theory to illustrate a significant shift in the
Pentagon’s discourse, moving from outright dismissal to a nuanced acknowledgment of UAPs. By
engaging with and expanding upon the UFO taboo discussions, this research sheds light on the
contemporary debates on the role of materiality in securitization processes. The paper argues that the
complexity of UAP securitization necessitates a multidisciplinary approach that integrates security,
scientific inquiry, and global cooperation which will consequently provide a multidimensional un-
derstanding of UAPs within national and international security frameworks.

Keywords
unidentified anomalous phenomena, pentagon, securitization, discourse analysis, United States

Introduction
The enigma of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) has captivated public interest, evolving
from a domain dominated by conspiracy theories—often stifled by the UFO taboo as discussed by
Wendt and Duvall (2008)—to a serious national security concern acknowledged by the Pentagon.
This paper builds upon the theoretical insights of Wendt and Duvall (2008) and responds directly to
Murphy’s (2024) analysis of the dynamics of this taboo, which posits that “even when people are
talking about it, they aren’t really talking about it.” By examining the Pentagon’s recent strategic
ambiguity in acknowledging UAPs, we illustrate a pivotal shift from outright dismissal to nuanced
engagement, thus challenging the prevailing taboo, and opening new avenues in international re-
lations discourse. This shift, underscored by the official release of UAP reports by the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI, 2022, 2023), signifies a profound transformation in how
these phenomena are understood and approached within the U.S. security framework.

1
Rabdan Academy, Abu Dhabi, UAE
2
Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Vlado Vivoda, Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, University of Queensland, Level 6, Sir
James Foots Building (47A), Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.
Email: v.vivoda@uq.edu.au
2 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 0(0)

Employing the Copenhagen School’s securitization theory, this paper scrutinizes the Pentagon’s
strategy of partial securitization—acknowledging UAPs as potential, but not definitive existential
threats, leading to a strategic hesitation before mandating specific countermeasures. This nuanced
stance allows for flexibility in policy adaptation, reflecting the complex dynamics of audience ac-
ceptance and engagement. This stance opens avenues for diverse interpretations and policy adap-
tations, reflecting a calculated ambiguity aimed at navigating the intricate interplay between security,
public perception, and scientific inquiry.
The choice of securitization theory, with its constructivist roots, enables a deep dive into the
narratives and discourses that shape perceptions of security threats. This approach, advocated by
Buzan et al. (1998), illuminates the process by which the U.S. government, Pentagon, and the United
States Space Force (USSF) have constructed the narrative around UAPs, situating them within the
broader national security conversation. The significance of this theoretical lens is further amplified
when examining the insights from the ODNI’s annual reports on UAPs (ODNI, 2022, 2023), which
highlight the shift towards recognizing UAPs as non-traditional security (NTS) issues that transcend
the conventional military and state-centric security models, as outlined by Caballero-Anthony (2016).
NTS issues often involve non-state, non-military threats, and they are complex to solve because they
involve a multiplicity of actors that transcend national borders.
This paper innovatively applies the Copenhagen School’s securitization theory to UAPs within the
U.S. national security context, revealing a shift towards recognizing UAPs through a lens of strategic
ambiguity and unprecedented official acknowledgment by the Pentagon. By transcending traditional
security studies, it underlines the importance of “speech act” in framing UAPs as security issues,
without provoking public alarm, thereby encouraging scientific inquiry and international cooperation.
This dual focus not only enriches securitization discourse but also underscores the necessity for an
interdisciplinary approach to grasp the complexities of emerging security threats like UAPs.
By highlighting the utility of securitization theory over purely discourse analytical approaches, this
study underscores the evolving target audience of securitization efforts—from a narrowly defined
national security apparatus to a broader, more inclusive audience encompassing the public and
international partners. This shift is critical for understanding the Pentagon’s partial securitization of
UAPs, as it reflects a deliberate attempt to balance the maintenance of national security with the
promotion of global scientific collaboration and transparency.
This study challenges the existing notions of UAPs within international relations and security and
marks a significant departure from the perspectives of Wendt and Duvall (2008) and Murphy (2024)
regarding the UFO taboo. By analyzing the securitization of UAPs, it unveils a pivotal shift in
discourse, suggesting a gradual dissolution of the longstanding taboo and its replacement with
a framework of strategic ambiguity and partial securitization. This development, evidenced by the
Pentagon’s nuanced engagement with UAPs, signals an evolving understanding that transcends
traditional dismissals of UAPs as mere subjects of conspiracy theories. Consequently, our exploration
offers a critical reflection on the dynamics of securitization in contemporary security discourse,
illustrating the adaptability and breadth of securitization theory when applied to unconventional
security challenges. This repositioning not only aligns with but also critically engages with established
scholarship, providing a fresh lens through which to comprehend the complex interplay between
security, scientific inquiry, and societal perception in the face of ambiguous phenomena.

The Copenhagen School’s Securitization Theory

The securitization framework advanced by the Copenhagen School, mainly through the contributions
of Buzan et al. (1998), marks a significant shift in the field of security studies by conceptualizing the
notion of security as a construct of societal discourses, perceptions, and language. This theory posits
that the essence of security issues is shaped through “security speech acts,” wherein political elites
Krame et al. 3

frame problems as existential threats, thus warranting extraordinary countermeasures. These acts,
which underscore the linguistic potency in crafting security narratives, initiate a process that involves
the securitizing move, the articulation of the threat, and the audience’s reception and validation of the
threat narrative, with each stage playing a critical role in the formation and recognition of security
issues (Buzan et al., 1998; Floyd, 2011; Huysmans, 2011; McDonald, 2008; Vuori, 2008).
Championing a constructivist perspective (Wendt, 1999), this framework emphasizes the sub-
jective nature of security, arguing that labeling an issue as a security concern propels it into a state of
urgency, demanding a response that often goes beyond conventional politics. This trajectory of
securitization unfolds in three pivotal phases—identification of the threat, narrative construction, and
audience acceptance or rebuttal—through which issues are transformed into security matters. The
interaction among securitizing actors, functional actors such as NGOs, the media, and the audience is
central to this process. Their interplay can either crystallize or dissolve the securitized status of an
issue, thereby illustrating the dynamic, ever-evolving nature of what is considered a security threat.
The framework’s holistic approach transcends traditional, narrow interpretations of security by
expanding the scope of referent objects and acknowledging diverse actors’ broad spectrum of in-
fluences. In this multifaceted realm, security issues are continuously constructed and reconstructed,
considering factors like cultural nuances, historical precedents, and the perceived authority of the
securitizing entity. The Copenhagen School, primarily through the work of Buzan et al. (1998), places
significant emphasis on the “speech act” in the securitization process. However, the Paris School,
mainly through scholars like Didier Bigo (2002), argues that the securitization processes are equally, if
not more, important than mere speech acts. This perspective suggests that security mechanics, in-
cluding practices, institutional dynamics, and procedures, play a critical role in how security concerns
are manifested and addressed. The model posits that without the audience’s endorsement, the matter
remains a political debate rather than escalating to a security crisis, advocating a nuanced com-
prehension of how security is established and challenged within the global context. This un-
derstanding of securitization, enriched by the contributions of scholars from both the Copenhagen and
Paris Schools, critiques existing paradigms and deepens the discourse surrounding the politics of
global security (Bigo, 2002; Buzan et al., 1998; Buzan & Wæver, 2009; Hansen & Nissenbaum, 2009;
Rasmussen, 2001; Stritzel, 2007; Williams, 2003).
The Copenhagen School’s securitization theory, while groundbreaking, has been critiqued for its
Eurocentric and state-centric approach, limiting its applicability in diverse geopolitical contexts
(Baele & Jalea, 2022; Greenwood & Wæver, 2013). Its perceived undemocratic nature has led to calls
for a broader sociopolitical and sociological lens in securitization studies (Arı, 2023; Markiewicz,
2023; Sahu, 2019). Additionally, the emphasis on speech acts has been deemed insufficient by some
scholars, who argue for a more comprehensive understanding that includes the audience’s role in
legitimizing securitization processes (Côté, 2016; Emerson, 2019; Léonard & Kaunert, 2010). These
critiques underscore the need for an expanded conceptualization of securitization that addresses its
complexities, including the dynamics between actors, the audience, and the broader sociopolitical
impacts (Lucarelli, 2018; Greenwood & Wæver, 2013; Williams, 2003). Despite critiques regarding
its Western-centric focus, the framework stands out for its comprehensive approach to understanding
the securitization process, acknowledging the multifaceted and ongoing dialogue among all involved
actors. The framework goes beyond traditional state and military concerns, incorporating a more
comprehensive array of referent objects and recognizing the impact of various functional actors and
the audience’s role in constructing security narratives (Stritzel, 2014).
In our examination of UAP securitization, it is imperative to elucidate the dynamics of securitizing
moves, especially considering the pertinent debate between the Paris and Copenhagen schools. This
discussion not only frames our theoretical grounding but also contextualizes our empirical analysis.
The Copenhagen School posits securitization as predominantly a speech act, where security is
constructed through discourse (Buzan et al., 1998). Conversely, the Paris School advocates for
4 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 0(0)

a broader understanding of securitization, emphasizing the importance of practices and the socio-
political context (Bigo, 2002). A critical component of this debate is the role of the audience in
securitizing moves. Following Stritzel (2007), we refine our argument to highlight that the audience is
not a passive recipient but a key actor in the securitization process. Considering the nuanced strategies
employed in the securitization of UAP, it is imperative to more deeply understand how these efforts
resonate with various audiences, encompassing both public and institutional stakeholders. Recent
trends in public perception of UAPs show a significant shift from traditional skepticism to a more
engaged and inquisitive approach. As will be demonstrated in the paper, this transformation is
supported by an increase in media coverage and academic discourse, which collectively point to
a change from the public’s role as passive receivers of information to active participants in the security
dialogue concerning UAPs. These developments are crucial for the effectiveness of securitization
efforts as they reflect a broader, more inclusive approach to both national and international security
concerns. The nuanced engagement and active participation of the public underscore the importance
of audience acceptance in the strategy of partial securitization. By maintaining strategic ambiguity,
this approach allows for a flexible, adaptive security response that can accommodate evolving public
and political landscapes without causing undue alarm or resistance. Such dynamics are pivotal to our
discussion on the role of audience acceptance in the securitization process, suggesting that a full
endorsement of securitization moves requires a nuanced understanding of potential threats and
a willingness from the audience to support extraordinary measures.
Recent advancements in securitization theory also underscore the pivotal role of materiality in the
construction of security issues. Proponents of new materialist approaches have emphasized the
significant influence of nonhuman actors in shaping security landscapes (Salter, 2019; Salter & Mutlu,
2023). This perspective is particularly salient in the context of UAP discourse, where the material
presence of UAPs, despite their uncertain nature, plays a critical role in their designation as security
threats. The engagement with these newer theoretical insights allows for a more profound un-
derstanding of how UAPs, as ambiguous material entities, contribute to the dynamics of security
production. This approach not only broadens the analytical lens beyond traditional speech act theory
but also aligns with the case study’s demonstration of how uncertain materiality, represented by UAPs,
can still engender a securitization process. Incorporating these considerations into our framework
enriches the conceptual contribution towards current debates in securitization theory, highlighting the
interplay between materiality and discourse in the securitization of UAPs.
After discussing the foundational principles of the securitization theory, it is imperative to address
the mechanisms through which securitizing moves are identified and the roles of various actors in this
process. Securitization is not merely an academic concept but a dynamic and interactive process
involving multiple stakeholders. The identification of securitizing moves hinges on the articulation of
a perceived existential threat and the call for extraordinary measures to address it. This involves
a complex interplay between “securitizing actors”—typically state officials or institutions—and the
“audience,” whose acceptance is pivotal for a successful securitization move. The audience actively
legitimizes the securitization process, with its acceptance depending on the credibility of the actor, the
persuasiveness of the threat, and the context, highlighting the critical role of shared beliefs and
perceptions in understanding the threat and the need for proposed measures (Côté, 2016; Emerson,
2019; Léonard & Kaunert, 2010).
Furthermore, the dynamics of securitizing moves and audience acceptance are influenced by the
broader socio-political environment, including existing narratives, historical precedents, and the
media landscape. These elements collectively shape the potential for securitizing moves to resonate
with the audience and achieve the desired level of urgency and action. Thus, examining the secu-
ritization of UAPs requires not only an analysis of the speech acts and actors involved but also
a nuanced understanding of the audience’s role and the context within which these interactions occur.
Krame et al. 5

Considering this, our analysis extends to consider how the shift in discourse surrounding UAPs
reflects broader changes in societal attitudes towards security and the unknown. By integrating the
audience’s perspective into our theoretical framework, we aim to provide a more comprehensive
account of the securitization process, particularly as it applies to the unique and evolving case of
UAPs. This approach allows us to explore the conditions under which the UAP discourse has been
elevated to a security concern and the implications of this securitization for both national and in-
ternational security paradigms. As we segue into the next section on the Pentagon’s UAP discourse,
this framework, enriched by constructivist insights, provides a lens to examine the background,
historical context, and main functional actors, elucidating the complex interplay between security
politics and societal narratives in a real-world case study, thereby deepening our understanding of the
dynamics at play in contemporary international relations.

Background, Historical Context, and Main Functional Actors

Initial Exposure and Pentagon’s Response to UAPs
The Pentagon’s increased attention to UAPs can be attributed to the exposure of a covert program in
December 2017 (Blumenthal, 2017). This pivotal event led to a surge in interest from the Pentagon,
marking a significant departure from the historical societal stigma and mockery associated with UAPs
(Dean, 1998). The revelation of the clandestine UAP program prompted the Pentagon to intensify its
intelligence and research activities aimed at swiftly identifying UAPs (Dodd, 1999). Additionally,
evidence of UAP absorption lines and physical modeling of outflows further supports the Pentagon’s
heightened interest in the phenomena (Parker et al., 2017). The historical ridicule and societal stigma
surrounding unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are evident in the recommendation for a widespread
debunking campaign to diminish public interest (Agrama, 2020). Furthermore, academic literature has
long held a fascination with UFOs, as evidenced by the substantial accumulation of literature on the
topic (see White, 1973). The societal ridicule and stigma associated with UFOs are also reflected in the
course on “Flying Saucers,” designed to capitalize on student interest in UFO reports discrediting the
scientific establishment (Page, 1967).
This shift in the Pentagon’s stance may also be seen as a response to the growing challenge to the
UFO taboo in academic and political discourse. Wendt and Duvall (2008) argue that the anthro-
pocentric nature of modern sovereignty has created a taboo around taking UFOs seriously, a notion
that has been ignored despite the lack of conclusive evidence against extraterrestrial origins of UAPs.
Murphy (2024) further explored this taboo, analyzing the citational practices in international relations
theory to illustrate how the UFO taboo influences the field’s prestige economy. Their studies suggest
that the Pentagon’s changing approach to UAPs is not just a response to new evidence but also an
evolving understanding of the UFO phenomenon within the broader context of international relations
and sovereignty.
Kean et al. (2017) authored a front-page exposé in The New York Times that unveiled the Pen-
tagon’s covert program, clandestinely operational for a decade. This exposé included the release of
videos recorded by the U.S. Navy featuring instances of UAPs. This disclosure marked a critical
juncture, leading to high-ranking officials’ acknowledgment and vocal curiosity regarding UAP
occurrences. For instance, Senator Marco Rubio acknowledged the presence of enigmatic flying
objects within restricted airspace, affirming that “we don’t know what it is, and it isn’t ours” (Browne,
2020; Petrescu et al., 2017). Likewise, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John
Brennan conceded the existence of unexplained phenomena, suggesting their potential connection to
alternative life forms (Ciaccia, 2020).
Subsequently, Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist publicly announced the formal es-
tablishment of the UAP Task Force in 2020 (U.S. Department of Defense, 2020). This task force was
6 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 0(0)

entrusted with compiling and analyzing UAP-related data sourced from various government agencies
within a stipulated 180-day timeframe, culminating in the anticipated release of a report in June 2021.
Notably, John Ratcliffe, the former Director of National Intelligence, underscored the gravity of UAP
sightings, affirming their validation by Navy and Air Force pilots and substantiation through satellite
imagery (McCarthy, 2021). These observations defied conventional technological limitations, fueling
intrigue and concern (Kean et al., 2017).

Historical Perspectives and Shifting Stances

The historical antecedents of the Pentagon’s altered disposition towards UFOs can be traced to the
release of the 1969 Condon Report, an outcome of the “Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
Objects” (Page, 1969). The primary objective of this report, authored by Edward Condon, was to
debunk UFO phenomena and discourage further scientific inquiry. The report’s conclusions and
recommendations categorically dismissed the necessity for in-depth UFO investigations and dis-
couraged active participation by the scientific community. This marked the conclusion of the “golden
age” of official UFO investigations and scientific exploration (Condon & Gillmor, 1969). However,
the legacy of J. Allen Hynek, an esteemed astronomer and dedicated UFO researcher, persevered.
Hynek vocally criticized the debunking approach towards UFOs, advocating instead for an impartial
and systematic research framework. He took the initiative to establish an independent organization
dedicated to the ongoing examination of UFO phenomena, underscoring the imperative for an
unbiased evaluation (Hynek, 1972).
Contemporary developments within the UFO field hint at the potential clandestine study of UFO
crash debris by aerospace companies. Harry Reid, a former senator, posited the occurrence of UFO
crashes and clandestine material analysis spanning several decades, potentially facilitated by private
military contractors. However, it is essential to acknowledge the dearth of substantiated evidence
about these claims (Reid, 2021). While not all segments of society anticipate comprehensive rev-
elations from the government, the escalating recognition of UFO phenomena by high-ranking of-
ficials, the inception of the UAP Task Force, and the continuation of scientific investigations
collectively signify an augmented gravity and interest in the subject matter (Kean et al., 2017). In
recent years, COVID-19 restrictions, emerging trends in artificial intelligence (AI), the dramatic rise
of social media outlets, and generational change are factors that have contributed to the acknowl-
edgment of the UFO phenomena in both civil society and the state.

RAND Corporation’s Analysis, Contemporary Developments, and Public Engagement

The RAND Corporation’s comprehensive analysis reveals a nuanced view of societal engagement in
the securitization of UAPs within the U.S. Tracking a notable rise in sightings from 1998 to 2020—
with a pronounced influx between 2012 and 2014, a slight decline up to 2018, and a resurgence after
that—the report sketches a landscape of escalating public interest and interaction with UAPs. This
pattern is set against the canvas of technological evolution that has democratized airpower, enabling
broader public access to the skies, and intensifying the volume of UAP reports (RAND Corporation,
2023). The narrative turns dramatically with the U.S. Air Force’s interception of a Chinese sur-
veillance balloon in 2023. This pivotal moment not only punctuated the strategic imperative of
airspace control but also spotlighted the critical role of civilian vigilance in pinpointing potential aerial
threats (RAND Corporation, 2023).
In parallel, the U.S. government’s intensified scrutiny of UAPs—manifested through the De-
partment of Defense’s (DoD’s) Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program and the estab-
lishment of the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group
(AOIMSG)—mirrors a growing institutional recognition of the significance of these enigmatic
Krame et al. 7

occurrences. The inception of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), along with
Congressional hearings, punctuated a decisive move towards a more structured and formalized
analysis of UAP encounters (RAND Corporation, 2023).
Moreover, the three-step reporting process—encompassing observation, submission, and
evaluation—adopted by the National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC) has been pivotal in con-
structing a coherent narrative around UAP incidents, offering a transparent and systematic protocol for
the public documentation of such events (Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Reports, n.d). This
collective data, when analyzed, provides intriguing correlations between UAP sightings and es-
tablished aerospace activities, such as those around military bases and airports, offering valuable
insights into their possible origins and behaviors (RAND Corporation, 2023). The statistical clusters
of UAP sightings, some exceeding a hundred reports, highlighted in the RAND study, pinpoint
geographical hotspots of heightened reporting frequency. These clusters, especially salient in 2013
and 2019, suggest sporadic occurrences and periods of intensified public participation and concurrent
sightings, painting a picture of community involvement in monitoring and reporting UAP activities
(RAND Corporation, 2023).
The RAND Corporation’s findings, highlighting the American public’s transition from mere
spectators to engaged stakeholders in the conversation on UAP, serve as a prelude to a broader, more
complex discourse. This emerging role reflects a societal shift that places UAPs at the vanguard of
national security concerns, marking a collective endeavor to demystify and perhaps reshape the
understanding of these enigmatic occurrences through active public reporting, institutional in-
volvement, and the communal navigation of airspace. Building upon this shift, the narrative sur-
rounding UAPs has evolved into a multifaceted subject for exploration, encompassing governmental,
societal, and scholarly perspectives. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s 2021 report
is emblematic of this evolution, which openly recognized the phenomena previously termed UFOs.
By discounting explanations rooted in natural occurrences or technical faults and admitting to the
inexplicability of numerous incidents, this acknowledgment has altered the official stance and
amplified academic interest and public discourse, setting the stage for ongoing inquiry (Yingling et al.,
2023). This convergence of heightened public awareness with a governmental pivot towards
transparency illustrates a significant turning point in the UAP narrative, fostering a vibrant landscape
for continued investigation and dialogue.
The claim that the Pentagon has played a pivotal role in the evolution of UAP incidents by
assigning most of them to a “catchall other bin” and stimulating a broader conversation on the topic,
pushing it into the realms of credible scientific and political discourse, is supported by relevant
evidence. The Pentagon’s involvement in categorizing UAP incidents has sparked broader debates
within scientific and political circles, discussing the influence of UAP on energy intensity and its
impact on various aspects, including environmental and political factors (Lewis-Kraus, 2021). This
demonstrates the significant role of the Pentagon’s actions in shaping broader discourse.

Other Official Statements

Beyond the two central Pentagon reports (ODNI, 2022, 2023), several official statements and reports
highlight the perceived security threat posed by UAPs. For instance, in July 2023, the U.S. House
Oversight Committee conducted a public hearing on the national security implications of UAPs
(Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 2023). This indicates significant concern and attention
from various governmental bodies regarding the potential security risks associated with UAPs.
Additionally, a statement by Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby on the UAP Assessment reiterates
this security focus. Kirby mentions that the Director of National Intelligence delivered a preliminary
assessment of UAPs to Congress, emphasizing the collaborative effort involving many departments
and agencies in understanding this threat. He notes, “Incursions into our training ranges and
8 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 0(0)

designated airspace pose safety of flight and operations security concerns and may pose national
security challenges” (U.S. Department of Defense, 2021). This statement underscores the perceived
security risks UAPs present, particularly concerning safety and national security.
Further, the Pentagon’s assessment highlights the challenges in assessing UAP occurrences near
DoD training ranges and installations. Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks directed the
development of a plan and the creation of a new group to formalize the mission previously performed
by the UAP Task Force. This plan aimed to synchronize the collection, reporting, and analysis of UAP.
Its recommendations, which included securing military test and training ranges, signified a strategic
approach to addressing these phenomena as a security concern. The new group, AOIMSG, established
in November 2021, is overseen by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the director of the
Joint Staff, and officials from the ODNI (Reuters, 2021). In addition to the two Pentagon reports, these
official perspectives and actions in the U.S. reflect a growing recognition of UAPs as an NTS issue. In
the case of UAPs, this recognition aligns with the broader shift in security studies towards un-
derstanding and addressing security threats that transcend traditional state and military paradigms.

Legislative Actions, Global Reactions, and International Cooperation

The passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2022, which provides
a framework to address UAPs systematically, marks a notable point of convergence in U.S. politics,
receiving considerable bipartisan support—a rarity in the contemporary legislative climate (Yingling
et al., 2023). However, the act’s bipartisan backing merits a closer examination through the lens of
legislative behavior. Studies on institutional voting patterns suggest that the seeming bipartisanship
often aligns more closely with the majoritarian dynamics of Westminster than the polarized corridors
of Washington, D.C. This insight raises questions about the depth of the consensus on UAPs, in-
dicating that unanimous votes may not always mirror a genuine bipartisan stance (Epstein, 2023;
Walker, 2023).
Moreover, Seeberg’s (2022) research argues that government-initiated legislation can often pre-
empt and suppress the opposition’s ability to set the legislative agenda. In the case of the UAP-focused
legislation, what appears to be cross-party support might be a calculated governmental tactic to steer
the legislative focus. Similarly, Picon’s (2023) findings suggest that bipartisan agreement may also be
swayed by the pragmatic need to channel funds into opposition-held districts, casting further doubt on
the authenticity of the bipartisan enthusiasm for UAP legislation.
This multifaceted situation implies that the acclaimed bipartisan support for the NDAA concerning
UAPs could be less a reflection of unanimous concern and more a product of legislative dynamics,
strategic maneuvering, and fiscal imperatives. Nevertheless, despite these domestic intricacies, the
international response to UAPs has been gaining momentum, with countries worldwide initiating their
own protocols and research efforts. Such international activities amplify the significance of UAPs,
hinting at their evolving role in global security and diplomatic discourse (Yingling et al., 2023). The
juxtaposition of domestic legislative intricacies with international engagement illustrates a complex
array of political, strategic, and security considerations surrounding the enigmatic subject of UAPs.1

Interdisciplinary Approaches
In the academic realm, the narrative surrounding UAPs has transitioned from one of skepticism to
a more open and deliberate engagement, as evidenced by initiatives such as Harvard University’s
Galileo Project, which commenced in July 2021. Under the stewardship of Avi Loeb, this endeavor
exemplifies the academic community’s commitment to demystifying UAPs through rigorous sci-
entific inquiry, aiming to dispel the stigma that has historically relegated such studies to the margins
(Yingling et al., 2023). Faculty and researchers from various disciplines progressively contribute to
Krame et al. 9

this dialogue, bringing diverse perspectives to UAP research and critically assessing the veracity of
associated claims (Andresen, 2022; Yingling et al., 2023). This collective academic curiosity, coupled
with the Pentagon’s openness in declassifying UAP information, the burgeoning global attention to
these incidents, and the shift towards more serious scientific and political discourse, encapsulates
a significant paradigm shift. It underscores a dynamic fusion of security, science, and public en-
gagement, fostering a comprehensive framework for addressing and understanding the complexities
of phenomena that were once dismissed or ignored.
The discourse on UAPs has evolved into a rich tapestry of insights informed by the diverse
contributions of researchers and organizations. Franc Milburn’s work, alongside the RAND
Corporation (2023) study, illuminates the intricate roles of various actors in the securitization
processes of UAPs. Milburn (2020) casts light on critical developments such as the Senate-backed
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) at the Office of Naval Intelligence, which
signifies a structured governmental response to UAPs and examines the complexities faced by the
U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the DoD in grappling with these occurrences. Meanwhile, the RAND
Corporation (2023) emphasizes the growing utility of public reporting mechanisms like the NUFORC
in threat assessment amid more widespread airpower technologies. Adding to this multifaceted
narrative, theorists such as Jack Sarfatti contribute scientific theories on UAP technologies and
intentions. At the same time, government entities, including the Senate Committee, the National
Reconnaissance Office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), indicate an elevated in-
stitutional focus on UAPs (Milburn, 2020). Milburn (2020) also delves into the historical and cultural
imprints of UAPs, suggesting their longstanding presence in human consciousness. Together,
analyses by Milburn and the RAND Corporation sketch a complex, layered understanding of UAPs
that intersects scientific exploration, military strategy, historical significance, and national security.
While we acknowledge the involvement of diverse agencies and academic institutions in ex-
amining UAPs, this does not explicitly delineate the motivations behind these investigations within
the traditional versus non-traditional security framework. To clarify, while entities such as the
Pentagon and academic researchers have engaged in UAP studies, the primary motivation for these
investigations extends beyond traditional security concerns. For instance, the 2023 report’s emphasis
on determining whether UAP can be “attributed to foreign activity” underscores a traditional security
concern (ODNI, 2023). However, the broad spectrum of investigation, including scientific inquiry into
UAPs’ technological aspects and origins, indicates a nuanced approach that transcends conventional
military and national security paradigms. This multifaceted investigation reflects a recognition of
UAP as a complex phenomenon that requires an interdisciplinary approach, merging traditional
security concerns with broader scientific and societal interests.
The Pentagon’s nuanced approach to communicating about UAPs, particularly in the 2022 and
2023 ODNI reports, reflects an evolving strategy that seeks to balance transparency with national
security considerations. This communication is not merely informational but actively shapes the
securitization process. How the Pentagon and the USSF articulate UAP incidents—whether as threats
to sovereignty, potential risks to aviation, or sources of societal anxiety—can significantly influence
their classification as security concerns. The stakes of this rhetorical framing extend beyond mere
policy adjustments; they can lead to substantial shifts in resource allocation, public perception, and
international relations, addressing both state and societal security concerns (Bale, 2007). This strategic
communication underscores the Pentagon’s role not just as a security actor but as a narrative con-
structor, navigating the complex interplay between known and unknown aspects of UAPs to shape the
security discourse.
In summary, the Pentagon’s recent focus on UAPs marks a transformative phase in the U.S.
government’s stance towards what was once a subject of societal skepticism and derision. This
paradigm shift, underscored by increased transparency and strategic initiatives to investigate these
phenomena, is paralleled by a notable rise in public engagement and scholarly research, suggesting
10 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 0(0)

a significant recalibration of the UAP narrative within the security, academic, and public domains.
This collective reorientation from the margins to the mainstream in UAP discourse reflects an
evolving recognition of their potential implications for national security and scientific inquiry.
Transitioning to the application of the Copenhagen School’s securitization theory, in the next section,
we dissect the Pentagon’s 2022 and 2023 UAP reports (ODNI, 2022, 2023) to understand how this
theoretical framework can elucidate changes in the discourse. This analysis aims to trace the trajectory
of UAPs within security conversations, examining how the narrative has expanded and adapted
considering new disclosures and to what extent this reflects broader trends in the securitization of
ostensibly non-traditional threats.

How Language Evolved in Pentagon Reports on Unidentified Anomalous

Phenomena: A Comparison of 2022 and 2023
Referent Objects
The Pentagon’s annual reports on UAPs for 2022 and 2023 (see Table 1 for a comparison of major aspects)
reflect a significant evolution in conceptualizing referent objects, suggesting a paradigm shift in the U.S.
defense and research posture regarding these enigmatic sightings (ODNI, 2022, 2023). The 2022 report
foregrounded UAPs within a security framework, identifying them predominantly as potential threats that
challenge national defense mechanisms and disrupt the sanctity of protected airspaces (ODNI, 2022). This
depiction underscores a strategic imperative to monitor and neutralize potential reconnaissance by ad-
versarial entities, treating UAPs as incursions that could compromise air safety and national sovereignty.
The discourse was characterized by a vigilant approach to these phenomena, with an undercurrent of
urgency to address the vulnerabilities exposed by these aerial objects.
In contrast, the 2023 report signals a departure towards a more inquisitive and less reflexive
stance. It suggests a burgeoning interest in the mechanics and capabilities of UAPs to decipher their
technological underpinnings. The discussion considers the scientific implications of UAPs’ ad-
vanced propulsion systems and aerodynamic performances, which defy current understanding
(ODNI, 2023). This shift in focus from solely security concerns to a broader investigative scope
intimates the Pentagon’s recognition of UAPs as potential vessels of innovation, prompting a more
profound and systematic inquiry into their origin, technology, and intent. Notably, this exploration
is separate from the ongoing commitment to national security and airspace integrity but com-
plements it. The report’s balanced perspective acknowledges the dual potential of UAPs as both
security risks and sources of breakthroughs in aerospace technology and physics (ODNI, 2023).
This nuanced approach suggests a strategic calibration responsive to the dual exigencies posed by
UAPs: the immediate need to safeguard against potential threats and the strategic advantage of
advancing scientific knowledge.
This subtle yet substantive shift in the narrative between the two reports unveils an adaptive
strategy that positions the U.S. at the vanguard of understanding UAPs as a defense issue and
harnessing them as a catalyst for scientific advancement. The Pentagon’s evolving discourse on UAPs
reflects a maturation in policy thinking, moving from a historically constrained view towards a more
expansive engagement that straddles defense strategy and scientific curiosity. The 2023 report en-
capsulates this progression, indicating a readiness to delve into the unknown with a sense of openness
previously overshadowed by the urgency of threat mitigation.
As we move forward, our analysis pivots to scrutinize the dynamics of securitizing actors detailed
in the Pentagon’s reports, delving into how their roles and engagements have been reshaped con-
sidering the shifting narrative on UAPs. This involves examining the interplay between military
imperatives, scientific research communities, and policy frameworks that collectively influence the
ongoing discourse and response to UAP phenomena from 2022 to 2023.
Krame et al. 11

Table 1. Comparative Overview of Pentagon UAP Reports: 2022 Versus 2023.

Aspect 2022 Report Highlights 2023 Report Highlights

Reporting volume 510 total UAP reports catalogued up to 801 total UAP reports catalogued by Apr
Aug 30, 2022 30, 2023
Institutional changes Establishment of the All-Domain Anomaly AARO received 291 new UAP reports
Resolution Office (AARO) in Jul 2022 from Aug 31, 2022, to Apr 30, 2023
to replace the UAP Task Force
UAP characterization 144 initial UAP reports analyzed; A shift in reporting patterns noted, with
and analysis additional 366 reports identified, with a more diverse geographic distribution
new characterizations: 26 as drones or due to increased reporting by
similar, 163 as balloons, and 6 as other commercial pilots. Over 100 incident
clutter reports from the FAA added. No UAP
demonstrated unsafe proximity to
aircraft or posed direct threats.
AARO’s analytical process marked
only a small percentage as exhibiting
notable characteristics
Technological and Focus on enhancing collection and analysis Implementation of new analytic
methodological capabilities through AARO’s processes; increased emphasis on
improvements establishment and coordination improving sensor calibration and data
quality; development of new UAP
detection technologies
Health and safety No reported collisions or direct health No health or physiological impacts
concerns implications related to UAP reported from UAP encounters;
encounters; ongoing tracking of continued monitoring of potential
potential health implications safety of flight concerns without any
unsafe incidents
Government and Coordinated efforts with FAA, NASA, Expanded collaboration, including public-
interagency NOAA, and DoD, among others facing platforms for information
coordination sharing and declassified data, indicating
an increase in transparency and public
engagement

Source: ODNI, 2022, 2023.

Functional Actors
The progression of functional actor involvement in the Pentagon’s UAP discourse, as detailed in the
2022 and 2023 reports, showcases a significant development in strategy and collaboration. The 2022
report underscores the establishment of foundational partnerships within the All-Domain Anomaly
Resolution Office (AARO), pivotal in coordinating efforts across various sectors, including aviation
and national defense. Collaboration with federal entities like the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and scientific bodies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
highlighted an interdisciplinary approach to unify UAP tracking, analysis, and resolution protocols.
This early collaboration stage also involved health and air safety agencies, underlining a solid
emphasis on mitigating potential hazards to aviation posed by UAP incidents (ODNI, 2022).
In contrast, the 2023 report illuminates an expanded engagement, suggesting that the scope of UAP
investigations has broadened beyond immediate response and containment to include a deeper focus
on scientific inquiry and technological exploration. AARO’s role has evolved to advocate for ad-
vancements in sensor technology and data processing capabilities, enabling more precise detection
and identification of UAPs. Integrating space and maritime actors into the investigative framework,
12 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 0(0)

including the USSF and U.S. Space Command, signifies a shift towards a comprehensive, multi-
domain understanding of UAP phenomena (ODNI, 2023).
Three key developments mark this evolution in functional actor engagement. First, the AARO has
progressed from a primary coordinating and collaborative hub to an active participant in spearheading
technological innovation and scientific research within the UAP investigative framework. Second, the
spectrum of collaboration has widened, now enveloping the space and maritime domains, indicating
an acknowledgment of UAPs as phenomena that transcend traditional aerospace boundaries. This
expansion is evident in the active involvement of agencies like the Space Force and U.S. Space
Command, which brings new perspectives and capabilities. Third, there is a discernible pivot towards
leveraging advanced technology and scientific expertise, recognizing that the enigmatic nature of
UAPs requires cutting-edge tools and research methodologies for comprehensive analysis and
understanding.
These developments point to a Pentagon that is reacting to the immediate challenges posed by
UAPs and proactively seeking to unravel the mysteries they present through a robust, technologically
savvy, and scientifically grounded approach. Including a broader range of expertise—from technical
to scientific communities—reflects a strategic adjustment to the multifaceted challenges of UAP
analysis, aiming for a nuanced, informed, and methodically rigorous exploration of these phenomena.
In the next section, we delve into the Pentagon’s reports, scrutinizing the evolving dynamics of
securitizing actors and their roles in the broader context of UAP securitization. This enables us to
discern how the interplay between policy directives, scientific innovation, and security imperatives
shapes the current and future trajectory of UAP research and response strategies.

Security Audience and Acceptance

The Pentagon’s UAP reports from 2022 and 2023 reveal a dynamic shift in the constitution and
engagement of the security audience. In 2022, the report was initially tailored for a narrow, specialized
audience, primarily military and governmental personnel with stakes in national security and aviation
integrity. It communicated a measured narrative to inform and align stakeholders on UAP-related
developments without provoking public hysteria or speculative discourse. The language employed
was guarded to establish a foundational understanding of UAPs while managing the balance between
transparency and security (ODNI, 2022).
By 2023, the audience engagement strategy had transformed, embracing a broader audience that
included the original military and governmental entities, the public, and the scientific community. This
expansion is evidenced by initiatives such as creating a public-facing website and declassifying UAP
information, reflecting a deliberate strategy shift towards greater openness and public inclusion
(ODNI, 2023). The report’s language evolved to match this broader audience, adopting a more
detailed and proactive tone that reveals an increased commitment to engaging with the issue at
multiple levels.
This shift towards transparency suggests a strategic adaptation to the growing public demand for
openness and a more significant societal push for understanding mysterious phenomena. The 2023
report’s approach likely enhanced the acceptance and credibility of its content, indicating a successful
reception of its “security speech acts” by a more diverse audience (ODNI, 2023). The broadened
communication reflects an acknowledgment of the public’s capacity to responsibly engage with
complex security issues.
The discernible evolution from a restricted to a more inclusive audience engagement between the
2022 and 2023 reports signals the Pentagon’s recognition of the multifaceted interest in UAPs. It
shows an institution evolving in its communication strategy, responding to a security environment
where public interest and scientific inquiry intersect more prominently with national defense nar-
ratives. As the analysis progresses, it further dissects how this broader audience engagement
Krame et al. 13

influences the formulation and reception of security policies and actions related to UAPs within the
contemporary socio-political landscape.
After analyzing the evolving engagement with the security audience as detailed in the 2022 and
2023 Pentagon’s UAP reports, it is imperative to further dissect the nuanced dynamics between
securitizing actors and the audience. This entails a deeper exploration of what constitutes full versus
partial securitizing moves. Full securitizing moves achieve widespread acceptance of existential
threats and the necessary extraordinary measures among the audience, leading to a cohesive and
mobilized response. Conversely, partial securitizing moves, as explored in this paper, involve rec-
ognizing potential existential threats without definitive classification. This recognition does not
necessarily lead to immediate extraordinary measures due to the audience’s strategic hesitation or lack
of full endorsement (Lupovici, 2016, 2019; Roe, 2008; Salter, 2008; Salter & Piché, 2011; Wilkinson,
2015).
This distinction is vital for understanding the complexities of securitizing UAPs, where diverse
audience perceptions can lead to varying degrees of acceptance and support for proposed measures.
Moreover, the concept of failed securitizing moves, or instances when securitization efforts do not
achieve the intended audience mobilization, further complicates the discourse surrounding UAPs.
These theoretical considerations prompt a reassessment of how securitization theory applies to the
unique and evolving case of UAPs, necessitating a nuanced approach that acknowledges the spectrum
of audience responses and their implications for national and international security paradigms.
Recent developments in public opinion underscore a significant transformation in how audiences
perceive UAPs, moving from a predominantly skeptical viewpoint to a more engaged and inquisitive
approach. This shift is evidenced by the increased media coverage and academic discourse that
emphasize the public’s transition from passive receivers of information to active participants in the
security dialogue concerning UAPs. For instance, amidst a resurgence of interest in extraterrestrial
possibilities, a 2023 congressional hearing and substantial media attention have refocused public and
academic interest in UFOs, transforming it from fringe conspiracy theories to a topic of credible
scientific inquiry (De Visé, 2023). This nuanced acceptance of the security implications posed by
UAPs reflects a complex societal response, illustrating a form of partial securitization where the public
is hesitant to fully endorse the notion of UAPs as a conventional security threat (Saad, 2021).
Moreover, despite the increased acknowledgment of UAPs, there is limited public support for ex-
traordinary measures such as military preparedness or dramatic policy shifts. These changes are
critical for the success of securitization efforts as they reflect a broader, more inclusive approach to
national and international security concerns. The active engagement of the public, facilitated by recent
governmental openness and scientific studies, underscores the importance of audience acceptance in
the strategy of partial securitization, where maintaining strategic ambiguity allows for a flexible,
adaptive security approach that accommodates evolving public and political landscapes without
inducing unnecessary alarm or resistance. This scenario supports our theoretical discussion on the
pivotal role of audience acceptance in the securitization process, emphasizing that full endorsement of
securitization moves is contingent upon a nuanced understanding of potential threats and the au-
dience’s willingness to support extraordinary measures.

Security Speech Acts

The Pentagon’s approach to communicating about UAPs, as delineated in the 2022 and 2023 reports
by the ODNI, signifies a marked evolution in its strategy for engaging with this complex and po-
tentially sensitive subject. The 2022 report serves as a crucial turning point in this narrative, signifying
an increased awareness and reporting of UAP incidents. This escalation in reporting indicates
a transformative shift in both cultural and operational attitudes within military and government
sectors, progressing towards a more nuanced understanding of UAPs and diminishing the stigma
14 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 0(0)

previously associated with them. The establishment of the AARO, as stated in the report, “facilitate[s]
more coordinated UAP efforts, resulting in greater attribution of UAP” (ODNI, 2022). This de-
velopment signals a more formalized and structured approach to investigating UAPs, denoting
a significant consideration of their potential impact on national security and air safety.
In the 2022 report, the language employed is assertive, providing clear statements about the
number of UAP reports and the creation of AARO. This assertiveness is encapsulated in the report’s
declaration that “additional information is provided in the classified version of this report” (ODNI,
2022), underscoring the document’s factual and confident tone. Additionally, the report is directive,
subtly implying a need for increased vigilance and reporting within airspace monitoring systems. This
directive nature is reflected in the report’s emphasis on the “observed increase in the UAP reporting
rate” and the acknowledgment of UAP as potential “safety of flight hazards or as potential adversary
collection platforms” (ODNI, 2022). The report also conveys a subtly expressive concern for safety
and security, especially regarding UAP events occurring in restricted or sensitive airspace. The
committal stance of the report is pivotal as it lays the groundwork for a more systematic and
comprehensive approach to UAPs, targeting a specialized audience that includes military, govern-
ment, and international stakeholders. The report commits to “apply[ing] rigorous analysis and resolve
events,” highlighting a dedication to enhancing efforts to comprehend and address UAP events
(ODNI, 2022). Overall, the 2022 report marks a significant stride in the Pentagon’s communication
strategy about UAPs, illustrating a shift from a guarded, reactive posture to a more proactive and
structured approach (ODNI, 2022). This transition reflects a growing understanding and acknowl-
edgment of the phenomena. It indicates a readiness to engage with the complexities and implications
of UAPs more transparently and coordinately.
In the 2023 report, there is a discernible continuation in the reporting of UAPs, yet with a notable
shift in focus and tone from the previous year. The report maintains its recognition of ongoing UAP
encounters, explicitly stating, “The report covers unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) reports
from 31 August 2022 to 30 April 2023” (ODNI, 2023). This continuity, however, is accompanied by
a highlighted bias towards military airspace in these reports. The 2023 report observes, “Most reports
still reflect a bias towards restricted military airspace,” suggesting an overrepresentation of UAP
sightings in military zones and underscoring the need for a broader, more globally inclusive approach
to data collection (ODNI, 2023). Further, the 2023 report provides reassurance regarding the safety
implications of UAPs, asserting that “AARO received no reports indicating UAP sightings have been
associated with any adverse health effects.” This statement alleviates public concern regarding the
immediate danger posed by UAPs. Complementing this assurance is the report’s acknowledgment of
ongoing investigations and the absence of any definitive foreign activity attribution, as it states, “none
of these UAP reports have been positively attributed to foreign activities” (ODNI, 2023). This aspect
highlights a commitment to understanding the origins of UAPs while recognizing the challenges
inherent in their detection and analysis, particularly regarding data gaps and sensor limitations.
In the context of the evolving discourse surrounding UAPs, official investigations and public
communications increasingly adopt a holistic approach that transcends the conventional military-
security paradigm. The 2023 ODNI report’s explicit acknowledgment that the UAP incidents have not
been attributed to foreign activities underscores a departure from viewing these phenomena solely
through the lens of international military rivalry. This statement is significant, reflecting a strategic
recalibration towards understanding UAPs in a broader, more nuanced manner. Such an approach
recognizes the potential for UAPs to encompass a range of phenomena with implications that extend
beyond the immediate framework of national security threats potentially emanating from foreign
military powers. Moreover, this approach, rather than indicating a securitization move, may reflect
a strategic de-securitization, aiming to shift the narrative from potential adversarial threats to
a broader, more inclusive exploration of UAPs.
Krame et al. 15

The 2023 report’s speech act analysis reflects an assertive update on UAP incidents, emphasizing
the absence of direct health impacts or threats. The report’s language is directive in advocating for
enhanced data collection and analysis, as evidenced by its statement, “working with military and
technical partners to improve sensor placement and calibration to better collect against UAP” (ODNI,
2023). It is also expressive in acknowledging the uncertainties and concerns regarding UAPs and
committing to the ongoing investigation of UAP phenomena. This evolution from the more cautious,
data-focused approach of 2022 to a more assertive and inclusive communication style in 2023 il-
lustrates the Pentagon’s strategic adaptation to the evolving nature of UAPs. This progression signifies
a growing confidence in handling UAP-related challenges and a responsiveness to public interest in
transparency and information. Through the 2023 ODNI report, the Pentagon demonstrates a readiness
to engage more dynamically with the complexities of UAPs, signaling an openness and a commitment
to a more transparent, inclusive, and informed discourse on the subject.
The terminological evolution in the discourse surrounding unidentified phenomena is notable in
the official reports. The 2022 report utilized the term “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” (ODNI, 2022),
while the subsequent 2023 report adopted the term “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena” (ODNI,
2023). This shift in nomenclature is not merely semantic but indicative of a broader conceptual
framework applied to these phenomena. “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena” encompass a broader
spectrum of unexplained occurrences not exclusively confined to aerial instances. This broader
classification is crucial as it allows for including various categories of UAPs that could manifest in
different domains. Appendix B of the 2023 report is particularly illustrative of this expansive ap-
proach, as it includes a glossary of terms delineating different types of UAPs (ODNI, 2023). This
glossary references categories such as spaceborne UAP, airborne UAP, seaborne UAP, and trans-
medium UAP. Each category represents a different domain of occurrence, suggesting that these
phenomena could manifest in air, space, sea, or even across multiple mediums (ODNI, 2023). The
inclusion of such varied categories underscores the acknowledgment by the ODNI of the multifaceted
nature of these phenomena and the need for a comprehensive framework to categorize and study them.
This terminological evolution is significant as it reflects the intelligence community’s adaptive and
responsive approach to categorizing and analyzing UAPs. It acknowledges the complexities and
uncertainties inherent in these phenomena, moving beyond the traditional confines of aerial-only
occurrences. By broadening the scope of terminology, the reports demonstrate a readiness to engage
with the UAP issue in all its potential manifestations, thereby enabling a more thorough and nuanced
understanding of these unexplained phenomena. This approach indicates an evolving discourse within
the intelligence and defense communities, striving to accommodate the diverse and often puzzling
nature of UAPs within a more flexible and comprehensive analytical framework. The shift in ter-
minology from “UFO” to “UAP” itself is indicative of this broader perspective, aimed at fostering
a more inclusive and open inquiry that is not predicated on the assumption of adversarial origins. This
nuanced understanding acknowledges the complexity of UAP phenomena, advocating for a multi-
disciplinary investigation that leverages advancements in science and technology alongside security
considerations.
In summary, the Pentagon’s evolving communication from 2022 to 2023, as detailed in the ODNI
reports, signifies a strategic recalibration in response to the persistent nature of UAPs and the growing
public demand for clarity and engagement. This evolution is not only marked by a shift from a data-
centric approach in 2022 to a more dynamic, transparent, and inclusive engagement in 2023 but also
by a notable change in nomenclature. The terminological shift reflects an expanded understanding and
categorization of these phenomena, encompassing a broader range of unexplained occurrences. The
Pentagon’s recognition of the comprehensive impact of UAPs is evident in this change, demonstrating
a commitment to proactive and transparent information sharing. This approach, reflecting a nuanced
understanding of a subject historically shrouded in speculation and stigma, balances the need to
inform and reassure the public and stakeholders. The Pentagon effectively manages public perception
16 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 0(0)

by acknowledging the unknown and adapting its terminology and communication strategy. It sets
expectations regarding UAPs in a manner that is both responsible and forward-looking.

Conclusions and Future Research Directions

In conclusion, our research marks a pivotal advancement in the academic discourse on UAPs,
rigorously challenging and expanding upon the foundational ideas of Wendt and Duvall (2008)
regarding the UFO taboo and directly addressing the challenge posed by Murphy (2024) on the
dynamics of this taboo in international relations theory. By illustrating how recent shifts in public and
governmental discourse on UAPs not only acknowledge but also actively engage these phenomena
through a lens of strategic ambiguity, our work demonstrates a substantive move beyond the tra-
ditional UFO taboo. Through the application of the Copenhagen School’s securitization theory, we
have delineated how this emergent discourse navigates the complex interplay between national
security imperatives and the necessities of scientific inquiry and international collaboration. The
Pentagon’s recalibrated strategy, as evidenced in official UAP reports, exemplifies a balanced ap-
proach to security management, knowledge advancement, and public engagement. This strategic
ambiguity serves multiple critical functions: maintaining vigilance, promoting scientific exploration,
and enhancing diplomatic engagement, thereby offering a novel perspective on UAPs within both
national and international security realms.
Our findings significantly enrich the discourse on security studies, demonstrating the utility of se-
curitization theory in addressing complex and evolving security challenges, and underscore the imperative
for an interdisciplinary approach to fully comprehend and tackle the multifaceted challenges posed by
UAPs. We invite further scholarly exploration into how these dynamics reshape the interplay between
secrecy, security, and societal understanding in a rapidly evolving global context.
Future research should adopt an interdisciplinary framework that integrates international law,
political psychology, science, and technology studies to probe deeper into the multifaceted
implications of UAPs. This approach will broaden our understanding of UAPs’ impacts on
national sovereignty, public perception, and the nexus between technological uncertainty and
security. Furthermore, examining the construction of narratives around UAPs and their influence
on public discourse and policymaking will provide critical insights into the securitization process,
revealing how governments balance security, transparency, and public engagement. As the
Pentagon’s stance on UAPs signals a transformative phase in addressing these phenomena, this
shift towards a more open, analytical, and collaborative approach not only demystifies UAPs but
also integrates them into a broader discourse that bridges security concerns with scientific inquiry.
Future research on these domains will further unravel the complexities surrounding UAPs,
contributing to a richer, more informed dialogue that spans the realms of security, science, and
public policy.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs
Ghaleb Krame  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3919-6023
Vlado Vivoda  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0105-1702
Krame et al. 17

Note
1. In addressing UAP within the framework of national security, it is critical to recognize the multifaceted nature
of this challenge that extends beyond traditional military considerations. The complexity and global im-
plications of UAP necessitate a collaborative approach to understanding and mitigating potential risks. While
this paper emphasizes UAPs framed as a “national security concern,” it is imperative to further articulate the
necessity for international cooperation in this context. The observation that different countries have initiated
their own investigations into UAPs lays the groundwork for potential collaborative securitizing moves.
However, the current unclassified discourse lacks explicit evidence of such cooperation or shared strategies
among nations.

References
Agrama, H. (2020). Secularity, synchronicity, and uncanny science: Considerations and challenges. Zygon®,
56(2), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12671
Andresen, J. (2022). Mind of the matter, matter of the mind. In J. Andresen & O. A. Chon-Torres (Eds.),
Extraterrestrial intelligence: Academic and societal implications (p. 281). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Arı, T. (2023). Paris School and the theory of insecurity. In T. Ari (Ed.), Critical theories in international
relations: Identity and security dilemma (p. 145). Rowman & Littlefield.
Baele, S., & Jalea, D. (2022). Twenty-five years of securitization theory: A corpus-based review. Political Studies
Review, 21(2), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211069499
Bale, J. M. (2007). Political paranoia v. political realism: On distinguishing between bogus conspiracy theories
and genuine conspiratorial politics. Patterns of Prejudice, 41(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00313220601118751
Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives:
Global, Local, Political, 27(1_suppl), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270s105
Blumenthal, R. (2017). On the trail of a secret Pentagon U.F.O. program. The New York Times. https://www.
nytimes.com/2017/12/18/insider/secret-pentagon-ufo-program.html
Browne, R. (2020). Pentagon to launch task force to investigate UFO sightings. CNN Politics. https://www.cnn.
com/2020/08/13/politics/pentagon-ufo-task-force/index.html
Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2009). Macrosecuritisation and security constellations: Reconsidering scale in securitisation
theory. Review of International Studies, 35(2), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210509008511
Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Caballero-Anthony, M. (2016). Understanding non-traditional security. In M. Caballero-Anthony (Ed.), An
introduction to non-traditional security studies: A transnational approach (pp. 3–19). Sage Publications.
Ciaccia, C. (2020). Former CIA director says unexplained phenomenon “might … constitute a different form of life.
Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/science/former-cia-director-unexplained-phenomenon-different-form-of-life
Committee on Oversight and Accountability. (2023). Unidentified anomalous phenomena: Implications on
national security, public safety, and government transparency. Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
Hearing, 26 July. https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-implications-on-
national-security-public-safety-and-government-transparency/
Condon, E. U., & Gillmor, D. S. (1969). Scientific study of unidentified flying objects. University of Colorado.
Côté, A. (2016). Agents without agency: Assessing the role of the audience in securitization theory. Security
Dialogue, 47(6), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010616672150
Dean, J. (1998). Aliens in America: Conspiracy cultures from outerspace to cyberspace. Cornell University Press.
De Visé, D. (2023). The truth is out there: More Americans believe in UFOs. The Hill. https://thehill.com/
homenews/space/4131768-the-truth-is-out-there-more-americans-believe-in-ufos/
Dodd, A. (1999). Making it unpopular: The CIA and UFOs in popular culture. M/C Journal, 2(4). https://doi.org/
10.5204/mcj.1767
18 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 0(0)

Emerson, R. G. (2019). Towards a process-orientated account of the securitisation trinity: The speech act, the
securitiser and the audience. Journal of International Relations and Development, 22(3), 515–531. https://doi.
org/10.1057/s41268-017-0110-4
Epstein, K. (2023). UFOs and aliens bring a divided US Congress together. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/
news/world-us-canada-66320498
Floyd, R. (2011). Can securitization theory be used in normative analysis? Towards a just securitization theory.
Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418712
Greenwood, M., & Wæver, O. (2013). Copenhagen–cairo on a roundtrip: A security theory meets the revolution.
Security Dialogue, 44(5–6), 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010613502573
Hansen, L., & Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Digital disaster, cyber security, and the Copenhagen school. International
Studies Quarterly, 53(4), 1155–1175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00572.x
Huysmans, J. (2011). What’s in an act? On security speech acts and little security nothings. Security Dialogue,
42(4–5), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418713
Hynek, J. A. (1972). The UFO experience: A scientific inquiry. Ballantine Books.
Kean, L., Blumenthal, R., & Cooper, H. (2017). Glowing auras and ‘black money’: The Pentagon’s mysterious
U.F.O. program. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-
ufo-harry-reid.html
Léonard, S., & Kaunert, C. (2010). Reconceptualizing the audience in securitization theory. In T. Balzacq (Ed.),
Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve (pp. 57–76). Routledge.
Lewis-Kraus, G. (2021). How the Pentagon started taking UFOs seriously. The New Yorker. https://www.
newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously
Lucarelli, S. (2018). The EU as a securitising agent? Testing the model, advancing the literature. West European
Politics, 42(2), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1510201
Lupovici, A. (2016). Securitization climax: Putting the Iranian nuclear project at the top of the Israeli public
agenda (2009–2012). Foreign Policy Analysis, 12(3), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/fpa.12081
Lupovici, A. (2019). Toward a securitization theory of deterrence. International Studies Quarterly, 63(1),
177–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqy045
Markiewicz, T. (2023). The vulnerability of securitization: The missing link of critical security studies. Con-
temporary Politics, 30(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2267371
McCarthy, T. (2021). UFO report details ‘difficult to explain’ sightings, says US ex-intelligence director. The
Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/22/us-government-ufo-report-sightings
McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the construction of security. European Journal of International
Relations, 14(4), 563–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066108097553
Milburn, F. (2020). The Pentagon’s UAP task force. Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. https://besacenter.
org/uap-task-force/
Murphy, M. P. A. (2024). The “UFO taboo” is what IR theorists make of it: “Sovereignty and the UFO” in
citational perspective. Alternatives, 49(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754231219831
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). (2022). 2022 consolidated annual report on unidentified
anomalous phenomena (UAP). ODNI. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/
Unclassified-2022-Annual-Report-UAP.pdf
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). (2023). 2023 consolidated annual report on unidentified
anomalous phenomena. ODNI. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/FY2023-
Consolidated-Annual-Report-UAP-Oct2023.pdf
Page, T. (1967). Student skeptics study UFOs. Science, 158(3807), 1397. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.158.
3807.1397
Page, T. (1969). Scientific study of unidentified flying objects: Final report of research conducted by the
university of Colorado for the air force Office of scientific research under the direction of Edward U. Condon.
American Journal of Physics, 37(10), 1071–1072. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1975204
Krame et al. 19

Parker, M., Alston, W., Buisson, D., Fabian, A., Jiang, J., Kara, E., Lohfink, A., Pinto, C., & Reynolds, C. S.
(2017). Revealing the ultrafast outflow in IRAS 13224 3809 through spectral variability. Monthly Notices of
the Royal Astronomical Society, 469(2), 1553–1558. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx945
Petrescu, R., Aversa, R., Akash, B., Corchado, J., Berto, F., Mirsayar, M., Apicella, A., & Petrescu, F. I. T. (2017).
What is a UFO? Journal of Aircraft and Spacecraft Technology, 1(2), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.3844/jastsp.
2017.80.90
Picon, A. (2023). 5 issues to watch as Congress wrestles with the NDAA. E&E News. https://www.eenews.net/
articles/5-issues-to-watch-as-congress-wrestles-with-the-ndaa/
RAND Corporation. (2023). Mapping public reports of unidentified aerial phenomena across America. RAND
Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2475-1.html
Rasmussen, M. V. (2001). Reflexive security: NATO and international risk society. Millennium: Journal of
International Studies, 30(2), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298010300020901
Reid, H. (2021). Harry Reid: What we believe about U.F.O.s. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/
2021/05/21/special-series/harry-reid-ufo.html
Reuters. (2021). Pentagon to form new group to investigate UFOs. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/
science/pentagon-form-new-group-investigate-ufos-2021-11-24/
Roe, P. (2008). Actor, audience (s) and emergency measures: Securitization and the UK’s decision to invade Iraq.
Security Dialogue, 39(6), 615–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010608098212
Saad, J. (2021) Larger minority in U.S. says some UFOs are alien spacecraft. Gallup: News. https://news.gallup.
com/poll/353420/larger-minority-says-ufos-alien-spacecraft.aspx
Sahu, A. K. (2019). The democratic securitization of climate change in India. Asian Politics & Policy, 11(3),
438–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12481
Salter, M. B. (2008). Securitization and desecuritization: A dramaturgical analysis of the Canadian air transport
security authority. Journal of International Relations and Development, 11(4), 321–349. https://doi.org/10.
1057/jird.2008.20
Salter, M. B. (2019). Security actor-network theory: Revitalizing securitization theory with Bruno Latour. Polity,
51(2), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1086/701885
Salter, M. B., & Mutlu, C. E. (2023). Materiality. In M. B. Salter, C. E. Mutlu, & P. M. Frowd (Eds.), Research
methods in critical security studies (pp. 243–250). Routledge.
Salter, M. B., & Piché, G. (2011). The securitization of the US–Canada border in American political
discourse. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 929–951. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0008423911000813
Seeberg, H. (2022). The power of the loser: Evidence on an agenda-setting model of opposition policy influence.
European Journal of Political Research, 62(2), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12514
Stritzel, H. (2007). Towards a theory of securitization: Copenhagen and beyond. European Journal of In-
ternational Relations, 13(3), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066107080128
Stritzel, H. (2014). Security in translation: Securitization theory and the localization of threat. Springer.
Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Reports. (nd). Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Reports. UFO. https://www.
faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap9_section_8.html
U.S. Department of Defense. (2020). Establishment of unidentified aerial phenomena task force. U.S. De-
partment of Defense. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2314065/establishment-of-
unidentified-aerial-phenomena-task-force/
U.S. Department of Defense. (2021). Statement by pentagon press secretary John Kirby on unidentified aerial
phenomena assessment. U.S. Department of Defense. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/
Article/2672732/statement-by-pentagon-press-secretary-john-kirby-on-unidentified-aerial-phenome/
Vuori, J. (2008). Illocutionary logic and strands of securitization: Applying the theory of securitization to the
study of non-democratic political orders. European Journal of International Relations, 14(1), 65–99. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1354066107087767
20 Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 0(0)

Walker, J. (2023). Senators move to require release of US government UFO records. Reuters. https://www.
reuters.com/world/us/senators-move-require-release-us-government-ufo-records-2023-07-14/
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
Wendt, A., & Duvall, R. (2008). Sovereignty and the UFO. Political Theory, 36(4), 607–633. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0090591708317902
White, G. (1973). One-party dominance and third parties: The Pinard theory reconsidered. Canadian Journal of
Political Science, 6(3), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900040002
Wilkinson, C. (2015). The securitization of development. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of international security
and development (pp. 32–46). Edward Elgar.
Williams, M. C. (2003). Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics. International Studies
Quarterly, 47(4), 511–531. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0020-8833.2003.00277.x
Yingling, M. E., Yingling, C. W., & Bell, B. A. (2023). Faculty perceptions of unidentified aerial phenomena.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 246–315. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-
01746-3

Author Biographies
Ghaleb Krame, a seasoned law enforcement and consultancy expert with over two decades of
experience, has held key roles in Tamaulipas, Mexico, including Acting Under-Secretary of the Penal
System and Secretary of Public Security of Colima. He notably reduced crime, led institutional
reforms, and implemented community programs. His efforts in conflict de-escalation and collabo-
ration with Federal Forces are highly regarded. Dr. Krame serves as an Assistant Professor at Rabdan
Academy in Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Vlado Vivoda is an experienced scholar with more than 15 years of experience in the field. Dr.
Vivoda serves as an Associate Professor/Associate Researcher at Rabdan Academy. He is also an
Honorary Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Sustainable Minerals Institute. Dr. Vivoda
was formerly Senior Lecturer in Strategic Studies at Deakin University, and Academic Advisor,
Defence and Strategic Studies Course, at the Australian War College, Canberra, Australia.
Tamir Bar-On is Assistant Professor at Rabdan Academy. Dr. Bar-On previously served as a Full
Professor in the Department of International Relations and Humanities at the Monterrey Institute
of Technology and Higher Education (Tecnológico de Monterrey), Campus Querétaro (Mexico).
Dr. Bar-On received his PhD from McGill University and previously taught political science at
Wilfrid Laurier University, University of Windsor, University of Toronto, and George Brown
College.