Former Pentagon Official on the Possibility of Alien Life: ‘Evidence’ Is ‘Overwhelming’

December 20, 2017

WRITER

What happened?

The New York Times broke a story about the Defense Department’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, which spent $22 million investigating reports of unidentified flying objects. The program started in 2007, and parts of it are still classified.

Military intelligence official Luis Elizondo was in charge of the program, which “produced documents that describe sightings of aircraft that seemed to move at very high velocities with no visible signs of propulsion, or that hovered with no apparent means of lift,” according to the Times report.

As part of the program, metal alloys and other materials that were reportedly collected from unidentified objects that could fly through the air have been stored in Las Vegas for researchers to study.

Is the program still going on?

That’s not clear … the Defense Department says the program was shuttered in 2012, but its backers told the Times that the program still exists even though it’s not currently getting funding.

Elizondo told the Times that while the funding ended in 2012, the program and its investigation into UFO sightings continues.

Does the government believe aliens exist?

Elizondo joined Glenn on today’s show to answer this pressing question. While he could only speak on his own behalf based on his Pentagon experience, Elizondo cautiously pointed to “evidence” that alien life exists and explain why the U.S. government should continue to investigate UFO sightings.

“The evidence at this point is quite overwhelming,” Elizondo said. “I think we are entering a new era.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: By the way, this is from the Christmas album, Believe Again, which is a great, great CD. Grab it for Christmas, available, you know, on Amazon and everything else.

One of the things that has been really remarkable to me, this year, is our fascination on space. From Elon Musk and what he is doing to go to Mars and last -- what was it? Last Friday. We sent something up for the International Space Station, and we used Elon Musk SpaceX. And to watch that thing launch. And within I think ten minutes, you know, the booster rocket was back landing on the launch pad. It was absolutely phenomenal.

There's something else that's going on. And that is what the New York Times released this last week, which was, are we alone? And the money that the government has spent looking at UFOs. And one of the guys who is a career intelligence officer, he worked with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the national counterintelligence, director of the national intelligence. He was a special agent in charge. Blah, blah.

He has been around this. Now, he is with To the Stars Academy and the director of global security. Luis Elizondo. Hello, Luis, how are you, sir?

LUIS: Good, Mr. Beck. How are you, sir?

GLENN: Very good. So, I would tell you to call me, Glenn. But you're a career military man, so I have a feeling it's going to remain Mr. Beck.

Luis --

LUIS: Old habits are hard to break. Sorry.

GLENN: I know. I know. Thank you for your service, by the way.

Tell me -- tell me what -- do we believe that there is life that is visiting us, or is this hype?

LUIS: Well, when you say "we," let me clarify, at least just from my perspective. Because I -- I certainly can't speak on behalf every American.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

LUIS: I certainly don't pretend to. And as far as speaking for the department, it's been about two months now, since I've been out of the Department of Defense.

So I certainly can't speak on behalf of the department. But what I can do is speak on behalf of my myself and I think on behalf of my colleagues that work this particular portfolio.

And I think the -- the evidence at this point is -- is quite overwhelming.

I think as we -- as we are entering this -- as you said just now, kind of this new era of space, I think we -- we are entering a new era where -- where the evidence is, quite frankly, overwhelming.

GLENN: Yeah. You know, we saw -- we saw the video that they released. And I would imagine that there's maybe even more compelling stuff than that.

But we saw the video. And, you know, the -- the airman talking about -- look at this. It has -- it has no wings. I've heard you talk about, you know, seeing things and having, you know, documented footage of things without a propulsion unit, no -- you know, no wings. No surface. You know, that we would recognize as -- as anything that would keep anything afloat.

Is this the most compelling thing that you have? Is this video. Or is there more that you have seen?

LUIS: Yeah, no. There's significantly more. These two videos that are out in the public domain are simply just a very, very small sample of the collective amount of information that we have over the years.

GLENN: So, Louis, was there a conversation in the agency, or in this group, of -- we -- we need to tell the American people. This is not information that the government should hoard. This is really kind of important stuff.

LUIS: Well, I think that's a fantastic observation, and my perspective, it may be a little bit more selfish. And that was, I needed to be able to tell, the most senior levels of DOD leadership. Please, keep in mind that, you know, as a former soldier and employee of DOD, my loyalties are first and foremost to the American people. Second, is to the Department of Defense. And third is to the Secretary of Defense.

In this particular place, we're in a situation where this country has never had a better secretary of defense, in my opinion. And, yes, I'm a little biased, but I think I can say that, because I served with the man and I've seen him in combat situations.

So my loyalty to the boss is paramount. And when you are in an organization, a department where silos and stovepipes restrict the ability to give the top commander the information he or she may need to make critical decisions, regardless of resources, we have an obligation to make sure that we have that ability.

GLENN: So what -- what kind of decision would they -- would somebody in the Defense Department need to know this information? I mean, have you seen hostility or -- or what?

LUIS: Well, I'll get to that piece in a second. And the answer in short is we haven't seen any overt hostility. But keep in mind, in DOD, we are a national security organization. And so I don't want to say we get paid to be paranoid.

GLENN: Sure.

LUIS: But we definitely get paid to make sure things aren't a threat. So if we're not sure it's not a threat, then we have to presume, it could be a threat. Not that it is. But it could be.

GLENN: Yeah.

LUIS: And so we need to understand how these things work. And from my perspective, you know, our secretary is a guy who likes more information, not less.

And I think the issue really being the stigma within the department. Secretary Mattis inherited a wonderful department, but a department that no less over seven years has developed some silos and stovepipes. And the things that DOD does very well, obviously, looking at define threats, which is terrorism and potential nuclear weapons and chemical weapons and proliferation of issue de jure, the one thing that it's not very comfortable with are those things that are very hard to define.

They tend to be a bit nebulous. Things that we tend to say, look, we don't know what it is. We don't know how it works. And we're not sure we can do anything to stop it.

GLENN: Go ahead.

LUIS: No. Please go ahead. I'm sorry.

GLENN: What is the most amazing thing that you -- you know, it's one thing to say, well, we don't know if it's a plane or something.

What is the most amazing thing that you saw, that you would be comfortable sharing with us?

LUIS: Sure. And thank you for saying that. Because I will caveat that. I still have a security clearance, or at least now.

GLENN: Yeah, sure.

LUIS: And I am obligated to protect any and all classified information. So whatever I share, of course, has to be -- but what I can share with you is I think just the overwhelming amount of data and reports that we have received from people who are -- keeping in mind, these are people with the highest levels of security clearances. These are people who are trained observers. They -- they fly multimillion dollar weapons platforms for their country on a daily basis. And they are the most trustworthy of trustworthy. And on top of that, these folks understand what they're looking at.

If not the fact that they just happened to be astute observers, they're actually trained observers.

And on top of that, we now have equipment that can very quickly ascertain what we're looking at, if it's an aircraft, if it's a missile, if it's a drone, to the point where we actually know what kind of drone it is.

And unfortunately, I can't go into detail and tell them that.

But with that said, the most compelling thing I've ever seen I think is -- it's a bunch of things. It's not just one thing. I think when you -- one thing is to look at an object in a rate of return or on a screen. And if you don't know what you're looking at, it's easy to say, oh, it's just a fuzzy dot, and the camera pans off screen.

When in reality, that's not what's happening. When in reality, what you're looking at, if you understand what the rate of return is telling you, infrared hot, infrared cold, et cetera, is an object that we can't get close to. It is taking evasive measures to avoid us getting close. And then when we do get close, it takes off at incredible velocities that frankly defy our understanding of logic, really.

We're talking about objects that can drop from 80,000 feet down to 50 feet in a hover. And then instantaneously jump back up to 80,000 feet. And when I say 80,000 feet, it's actually higher. It's as high as we can see it with a particular system. Of course, we have other systems that are better than that too. In this particular case, and other cases, we are seeing things that will -- that will interfere with equipment and our ability to --

GLENN: Study.

LUIS: Right. Correct.

GLENN: I only have 30 seconds. Are we going to be seeing more of this, or are they still going to keep tight-lipped? Is this pretty much what we're going to find out?

LUIS: Well, I think -- I think -- I hope that we do more as a nation to insist that we see more.

I think we need to make sure that -- that we engage who we need to engage, our leaders, and say, hey, look, this is worth investing. I hate to say it, but $22 million, that's not enough. I know everybody is getting wrapped around the axle, about the money. When really, the bigger story here is, folks, we have been looking at this stuff for a while, and it's real. And as a nation, we need to decide, is it a national security imperative?

GLENN: Former Pentagon UFO official, Luis Elizondo. Fascinating.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep