Research note for Issue D3 (false statements to Congress, 18 U.S.C. §1001; perjury, §1621). Compiled October 15, 2026 from the official hearing transcripts. Page numbers are the printed transcript pages (the [[page N]] markers in the text files are PDF pages; for the House printed hearing the printed page is the marker minus 3, for the Senate stenographic transcripts the marker minus 1, and for the 2022 HPSCI transcript the two match). Quotations follow the transcript text.
The purpose of the file is narrow. A §1001 or perjury analysis needs the exact words, the forum, whether the witness was sworn, and the qualifications the witness attached. Nothing here shows that any statement was false. Several statements are expressly limited to the witness’s knowledge or to “official” programs, which is the first thing a prosecutor or defense lawyer would examine.
| Date | Forum | Witness (role) | Sworn? | Statement | Qualifications and notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2022 | House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation (open hearing) | Ronald Moultrie (Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security) | No oath appears in the transcript | Asked whether he was aware of DoD or contractor programs on UAP from a technological or engineering perspective: “I am not aware of any contractual programs that are focused on any anything related to this, other than what we are doing in the Navy task force and what we are about to launch in terms of our effort.” (Tr. 36) | He immediately qualified it: “I can’t speak to what people may be looking at in the Department. … I speak to official programs that we have on the record.” (Tr. 36). On activity between AATIP and the task force: “Not aware of anything that is official that was done in between those two.” (Tr. 35) |
| May 17, 2022 | Same | Scott Bray (Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence) | No oath appears | “Same answer. Not aware of anything outside what we are doing in the UAP Task Force.” (Tr. 36). Earlier: “When it comes to material that we have, we have no material. We have detected no emanations within the UAP Task Force that is – that would suggest it is anything nonterrestrial in origin.” (Tr. 33-34) | Statements framed as the UAP Task Force’s holdings and knowledge (“within the UAP Task Force”) |
| Apr. 19, 2023 | Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities | Sean Kirkpatrick (Director, AARO) | No oath appears | “I should also state clearly for the record that in our research AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics.” (Tr. 13-14) | Limited to AARO’s research “thus far” |
| July 26, 2023 | House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs (Serial No. 118-53) | David Grusch (former NRO and NGA officer; UAP Task Force member 2019-2021) | Yes; oath administered (printed p. 9) and “as I stand here under oath now” (p. 12) | “I was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program to which I was denied access to those additional read-ons when I requested it.” (p. 12). On recoveries: “biologics came with some of these recoveries”; asked whether human or nonhuman: “Nonhuman, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program.” (p. 40) | Expressly based on information from others: “My testimony is based on information I have been given by individuals …” and “I am speaking to the facts as I have been told them” (p. 12) |
| Nov. 19, 2024 | Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities | Jon Kosloski (Director, AARO) | No oath appears | “We will continue to keep you fully and currently informed of all UAP information, active or historical.” (Tr. 12) | A commitment, not a factual assertion; relevant to later claims that information was withheld from the committees |
Observations for counsel.
- None of the executive-branch witnesses was sworn in the transcripts reviewed. Unsworn statements to a congressional committee can still violate §1001 if made in “any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee” (§1001(c)(2)); the analysis in Issue D3, §2 applies. Perjury under §1621 would require an oath.
- The 2022 statements are carefully limited to the witnesses’ awareness, to “official” programs, and to the UAP Task Force’s holdings. A false-statement theory would need proof that the witness personally knew of a responsive program or material at the time. The limits also mark the questions a committee should ask next time: whether any unacknowledged or waived special access program, in any department or at any contractor, concerns UAP material (Issue D1, Form D1-1).
- Grusch’s testimony is sworn but is, by its own terms, a report of what others told him. It is evidence that a program may exist and a lead to witnesses; it is not first-hand evidence that any official’s statement was false.
- Later sources to add: AARO’s Historical Record Report, Volume 1 (Mar. 8, 2024), and any classified-briefing summaries that become public; the September 9, 2025 House hearing (Serial No. 119-44) had no executive-branch witnesses.