Former Air-Force intelligence officer David Charles Grusch (b. 1987) surfaced publicly in mid-2023 alleging that classified U.S. programs have retrieved and reverse-engineered craft "of non-human origin." He filed an urgent-concern complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in May 2022 — the ICIG deemed it "credible and urgent" two months later.
Grusch left government service on 7 April 2023, obtained Pentagon pre-publication clearance, and on 5 June 2023 gave Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal the first on-record interview for The Debrief.1 A NewsNation television special followed on 11 June.2
Under oath at the House Oversight UAP hearing on 26 July 2023 he repeated the crash-retrieval claims and added that "non-human biologics" had been recovered.3 Pentagon spokesperson Sue Gough and AARO leadership deny any evidence of such programs, and a March 2024 AARO historical review again rejected the allegations.4
Grusch continues to brief Members of Congress behind closed doors and collaborates with other veterans pressing for expanded whistle-blower protections.
Service Record
Public Timeline
Frequent Collaborators & Support Network
Pushback & Official Responses
Pentagon and AARO spokesperson Sue Gough has stated that investigators have found "no verifiable information" supporting any crash-retrieval or reverse-engineering program.7 The AARO Historical Review released in March 2024 documented one rejected DHS proposal ("Kona Blue") but concluded that no extraterrestrial craft were ever obtained.4 Major media outlets, including CBS, TIME, and PBS, covered Grusch's testimony while noting the Pentagon's denial and the lack of physical evidence.9
2025
Grusch remains a private citizen under whistle-blower protection, coordinating with congressional staff on pending intelligence-authorization language that would compel disclosure of crash-retrieval records and expand retaliation remedies.
He has hinted at a forthcoming book but no publication date is public. The credibility of his claims now hinges on whether additional witnesses—or subpoena power—produce material proof.4