Government & Disclosure

The White House Quietly Created a Science Advisory Council for UAP, and Avi Loeb Is Running It

A new White House UAP Science Advisory Council, chaired by Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb, marks one of the more concrete institutional steps yet in Washington's shifting posture on the phenomenon. A new poll shows the public is ahead of Congress on wanting answers.

Source: TIME

JB

James Blackwood

Military & Defense

August 29, 20264 min read
The White House Quietly Created a Science Advisory Council for UAP, and Avi Loeb Is Running It

Amid a year of rolling Pentagon document releases, a quieter but arguably more consequential development has drawn less attention: in June 2026, the White House established a UAP Science Advisory Council and put Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb in charge of it, according to a recent TIME feature examining how far the subject has moved from the political fringe.

From Fringe Theory to Federal Council

The council's creation sits at the end of a chain of institutional steps that started with the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office's founding in 2022, continued through the 2023 UAP Disclosure Act mandating collection and public release of sighting data, and accelerated this year with President Trump's release of more than 450 declassified reports across four tranches. A council chaired by a sitting Harvard professor is a different kind of commitment than a document dump, though: it puts a working scientist's name and institutional credibility directly behind the government's ongoing analysis, rather than leaving that analysis solely to defense and intelligence personnel.

Loeb has not been shy about where his own estimates land. He has put the odds of past alien visitation at roughly 50%, while separately estimating only a 5% chance that reported sightings specifically represent such visits — a distinction that matters more than it might first appear, since it separates "is visitation plausible in principle" from "do these particular reports prove it happened." As Loeb put it in the TIME piece, the council's job is to look hard at "objects the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon do not, cannot figure out."

The Skeptic Inside the Building

Crucially, the council's formation hasn't dislodged the government's own official caution. AARO director Jon Kosloski, whose office continues to log the cases the council will presumably help evaluate, has kept his public position notably measured: "Great claims require great evidence, and the evidence just isn't there yet," he's said — a line that reads less like institutional stonewalling and more like a working scientist declining to get ahead of his data. Former astronaut Scott Kelly, who has also advised on UAP review efforts, has made a similar point about the limits of testimony alone: "Eyewitness testimony is kind of opinion; it's not data," he told TIME, recalling an episode from his own military service in which he mistook a balloon for something stranger.

That tension — credentialed skepticism sitting inside the same government apparatus that keeps declassifying compelling material — is arguably the most accurate one-sentence summary of where U.S. UAP policy actually stands in 2026: institutionally serious, but not institutionally convinced.

The Public Isn't Waiting for the Council's Verdict

While officials debate evidentiary standards, public opinion has already moved. Polling cited in the TIME piece, conducted by the Disclosure Foundation, found 84% of Americans want more government information on UAP, 69% believe the phenomena are real in some form, and 59% support further hearings and transparency legislation — with the appetite for more disclosure running almost identically among Republicans (89%) and Democrats (88%). Trust that the government is being fully truthful, notably, sits far lower, at just 21%, suggesting the public wants more information less because it trusts current explanations and more because it doesn't.

What the Council Actually Changes

A science advisory council doesn't resolve any individual case on its own, and nothing in the TIME report suggests it has access to evidence AARO doesn't already hold. What it does is formalize a channel between working scientists and the government's UAP review process — one more venue, alongside AARO and the congressional oversight committees that have held hearings this year, through which reported incidents get technical scrutiny rather than either dismissal or uncritical amplification. Whether that produces answers or simply more structured uncertainty is, for now, the question the council itself was created to eventually help settle.

Like what you're reading?

Get articles like this delivered to your inbox every morning.

Tags:AAROWhite House UAP councilAvi Loeb
Share

Comments

Loading comments...

Leave a Comment

All comments are moderated before appearing publicly.

Not displayed publicly. Used for gravatar only.

0/2000