GAO testimony on special access programs (1986)
From the UAP Encyclopedia, the open encyclopedia of UFO and UAP history · 🗓️ Event
Contents 7
| Date | 24 July 1986 |
|---|---|
| Topics | Secrecy & cover-up (topic), Government programs (topic), Congress & law (topic) |
| People | David Grusch |
| Testimony | Shellenberger testimony, p. 99 |
| Year | 1986 in UFO history |
| Timeline | 1986 on the UAP Timeline |
| Sources | 7 |
In July 1986 the U.S. General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office), the investigative arm of Congress, reported to Congress on weak controls over classified documents in a Lockheed special access program — the most tightly controlled category of classified, or "black", programs — and on limited Pentagon oversight.[1][2]
The 1986 report
GAO's report "Controls Over Classified Documents for a Special Access Program at Lockheed Corporation", dated 24 July 1986, was prepared at the request of Congress. GAO compared the contractor's policies and practices for its special access programs with its controls for documents in its regular classified programs. Testimony reprinted in a GAO report of August 1986 — given by Associate Director Martin Ferber and transmitted by Frank Conahan, director of GAO's National Security and International Affairs Division — described Lockheed's poor control of classified special-access documents and ineffective oversight by the Defense Department program office.[1][2]
Later reports
Later GAO reports in 1988 and 1989 found that the Defense Department lacked a clear definition of special access programs and could not always show how many existed or what they cost, while noting that oversight had increased. Congress was concerned that black programs, such as the B-2 bomber and F-117 stealth fighter, were escaping proper oversight.[3][4]
Relevance to UAP debates
These reports are often cited in modern UAP debates. Whistleblowers such as David Grusch have claimed that UAP programs are hidden within special access programs that Congress has not been told about. The GAO findings show that oversight problems with black programs were real, though they say nothing about UFOs.[3]
People and topics
- General Accounting Office — The investigative arm of Congress.
- Lockheed Martin — The aerospace company whose Skunk Works built the U-2, SR-71 and F-117.
- Special access program — A U.S. classified program with access limited beyond normal secrecy rules.
- Unidentified anomalous phenomena — The U.S. government's current term for unidentified objects in the air, in space and underwater.
- David Grusch — Former intelligence officer who testified in 2023 that the U.S. has recovered non-human craft.
- Unidentified flying object — An object in the sky that can't be identified; the older term for UAP.
On the Timeline
- Wild Weasel UFO detections claim (22 June 1986) — A former contractor tells Vallée Vietnam-era aircraft detected UAP with special equipment.
- Steve Millard's Silicon Valley study group (10 November 1986) — A Silicon Valley investor hosts a private UAP study group including Vallée.
See every 1986 event on the UAP Timeline →
References
- "Controls Over Classified Documents for a Special Access Program at Lockheed Corporation", GAO (24 Jul 1986) · gao.gov · archived copy
- "Information Security" (NSIAD-86-191), GAO (Aug 1986), via Justia · gao.justia.com · archived copy
- "Special Access Programs" (NSIAD-88-152), GAO (May 1988), via Justia · gao.justia.com · archived copy
- GAO report NSIAD-89-133 · gao.gov · archived copy
- GAO: information security at a special access program contractor (1986, PDF) — DTIC · apps.dtic.mil · archived copy
- Special access programs and the Pentagon's ecosystem of secrecy — The War Zone · twz.com · archived copy
- gao.gov · gao.gov · archived copy
Further reading
- Skunk Works — Wikipedia · en.wikipedia.org · archived copy
- U.S. congressional hearings on UFOs — Wikipedia · en.wikipedia.org · archived copy
This page was last edited on 29 October 2026. Articles are written in our own words from the sources listed under References; disputed claims are attributed to the people who made them.
No discussion yet.