Overview
On December 4, 2025, the Pentagon’s All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) released three new videos of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), commonly referred to as UFOs. The footage, reviewed and discussed by UFO journalist Cristina Gomez, includes two unresolved cases from 2024 and one resolved case from 2023. The releases come amid increasing scrutiny of AARO’s transparency, with whistleblowers alleging the office is more focused on downplaying incidents than providing clear answers.
Details of the Released Footage
All three videos originate from the United States European Command and were captured by U.S. military assets. Two of the cases remain unresolved, while the third has been attributed to birds.
The first unresolved case, labeled PR018, consists of over 10 minutes of infrared footage recorded in 2024 by a military platform in Europe. AARO assessed “with high confidence the footage depicts the presence of a physical object,” confirming the object’s reality and physicality through military sensors. However, the office concluded that the object’s features and behaviors were “unremarkable” and did not warrant further analysis. Gomez questioned this assessment, noting that while some viewers speculated it could be an insect, the official determination left many unsatisfied.
The second unresolved video, PR017, is a 30-second clip captured on a commercial cell phone in Europe in 2024. According to AARO, the footage was “insufficient to render a determination” on what was captured. While the case remains open, no new conclusions have been drawn. Gomez herself conceded that the video was “just another disappointing” release, reflecting broader frustrations about the quality of recent UAP disclosures.
The third video, PR016, was resolved by AARO. It consists of 25 seconds of infrared footage from 2023 and was identified with over 95% certainty as birds, based on wingbeat patterns and flight formations. AARO cited this as a standard case of mistaken identification, a recurring theme in UAP investigations.
Whistleblower Allegations and Concerns
The context of these releases is underscored by claims from whistleblowers and former intelligence officials who allege that AARO’s approach is less about transparency and more about controlling the narrative. Matthew Brown, a former official in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, went public earlier this year with serious allegations about AARO’s briefings. Brown claims to have reviewed classified transcripts of former AARO Director Sean Kirkpatrick’s closed-door briefings with senators, including Marco Rubio, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand.
According to Brown, these briefings were “consistently dismissive,” often pivoting from acknowledging the existence of data to stating there was not enough information for a determination. “Sean Kirkpatrick absolutely distorted, downplayed—and can’t prove it, but I would say outright lied—to the people who have direct responsibility for him,” Brown said, reflecting a broader sentiment among critics who see a pattern of obfuscation.
One particularly striking moment described by Brown involved discussions about the alleged “legacy program”—a rumored decades-long crash retrieval and reverse engineering effort. Senator Rubio reportedly responded, “Well, what the hell is the executive branch doing? Have they been running this for 60 years without congressional oversight?” Brown described his reaction to this exchange as one of fear, saying, “I basically closed that file and had a pretty sleepless night.”
Broader Context and Expert Opinions
Brown is not alone in raising red flags about AARO’s conduct. Dr. James Lacatsky, former head of multiple Pentagon UAP research initiatives, has likewise questioned AARO’s commitment to transparency. In a recent interview, Lacatsky expressed skepticism about the office’s willingness to pursue meaningful investigation, a concern that resonates with many advocates for greater openness in government UAP research.
Despite the underwhelming nature of the new video releases, Gomez emphasized their importance for trend analysis and ongoing investigations. “What is important, however, is the context,” she noted, highlighting that public releases—however limited—contribute to the broader understanding of UAPs and the government’s handling of such phenomena.
Conclusion
The latest AARO video disclosures mark another chapter in the ongoing debate over government transparency and accountability in UAP investigations. While the released footage offers little in the way of dramatic new evidence, the surrounding controversy and whistleblower testimony suggest that the true story behind UAPs—and the government’s knowledge of them—remains far from fully revealed. As scrutiny of AARO intensifies, calls for greater openness and independent oversight continue to grow within both the public and legislative arenas.
