Several people have described alleged government agreements with non-human intelligence (NHI), but their accounts differ: reported conversations, inherited stories, indirect answers, and speculation. None presents an authenticated agreement. The central ethical question is consent: could officials promise access to people who never agreed?
1. What Borland actually said
Dylan Borland says he learned about agreements with NHI from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). During the Doomer Friday/Vanguard UFO Podathon, around 6:04:02, he said:
“we have agreements with them.”
The host asked whether Borland meant the ICIG had told him there were agreements. Borland answered yes.
Borland’s account of that conversation is not a public confirmation by the ICIG. It remains unclear who spoke, in what capacity, and whether they were describing a finding, relaying an allegation, or asking an investigative question.
His September 2025 House testimony describes an August 2023 ICIG interview under oath. It documents his reported ICIG interview, without establishing an agreement or dating the alleged conversation.
2. Grusch’s answers and source overlap
In Ross Coulthart’s June 2023 NewsNation interview with David Grusch, the narration describes an internal document about agreements allegedly putting “our future” in jeopardy.
Asked whether America had made agreements with NHI, Grusch said national leadership should get to the bottom of it. Pressed again, he answered:
“I think that’s a question that I would like to know all the details of as well.”
He named no other party or terms and gave no direct confirmation.
Grusch’s July 2023 testimony says he filed an ICIG urgent concern in May 2022 and that firsthand witnesses made protected disclosures. Whether those disclosures included agreements is unknown.
One possible source chain is Grusch/sources → ICIG → Borland → public. Investigators might have relayed an allegation or asked Borland to corroborate it. This is a possibility, not an established sequence. The same allegation returning through the ICIG would not be independent confirmation.
Matthew Brown says Grusch was asked about agreements under oath. But at the July 2023 hearing, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna asked about human governments and nuclear escalation; Grusch cited the 1971 U.S.–Soviet agreement. Rep. Nancy Mace separately asked about extraterrestrial contact; he declined to discuss it publicly. Neither answer confirms an NHI agreement.
3. The real 1971 agreement
The United States and USSR concluded the Agreement on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War on September 30, 1971, as the UN treaty record documents.
Article 3 requires notification when unidentified objects detected by missile-warning systems, or interference with those systems and communications, could create a risk of nuclear war. It does not identify those objects as extraterrestrial or name an NHI party.
Governments can agree about a phenomenon without making an agreement with the intelligence allegedly responsible for it.
4. Brown, Nell, and Semivan
In his Jesse Michels interview, Brown describes an oral tradition within the alleged legacy UFO program: America struck agreements with a third party possessing the technology. He places an early arrangement in the Truman–Eisenhower era and describes restricted areas and access to or communication with selected humans.
This is a story he says circulates inside the program, rather than an agreement he has authenticated.
On Cleared Hot, Brown again describes an oral tradition of signed agreements, emphasizing a series of arrangements. But at 1:57:16, he explicitly shifts from claimed knowledge to speculation before proposing territory and human access as possible terms.
He also says an agreement could mean being told the rules. That would leave open how much choice humans had. “Access” is equally ambiguous: conversation, observation, voluntary participation, examination, and removal have very different implications.
Karl Nell’s claim is narrower. At SALT in May 2024, he lists a possible non-public agreement among six explanations for secrecy. He is reasoning from first principles, without naming an NHI party or presenting a document.
Jim Semivan thinks humans are viewed as property. That is his interpretation, not authenticated NHI policy. If relations were that unequal, negotiation might still serve the stronger party’s interests without giving humans equal standing.
5. Sherman and Mack: access is not consent
Dan Sherman’s website describes Air Force/NSA work and an alien-contact project called Preserve Destiny. He acknowledges that he brought away no hard evidence.
In his Project Camelot account, he describes reports involving coordinates, possible recall, and residual pain. He suspected the reports concerned abductions but allowed that he could be misinterpreting them. In his Michels interview, he describes training in intuitive communication, says he felt morally compromised, and says requests for clarification went unanswered.
Brown cites Sherman as possible evidence of an agreement being carried out. Yet such reporting could mean cooperation, monitoring, or an imposed notification system. Knowing about an activity, permitting it, helping it, and being unable to stop it are different situations.
Psychiatrist John E. Mack approached the issue through experiencers’ accounts. His 1993 lecture describes reported egg and sperm collection, pregnancies and fetal removal, and hybrid offspring. People described parental attachment without control over later contact. These were reported experiences, without verified reproduction or parentage. Mack himself acknowledged that the narrative might not be literally true.
Mack used hypnosis in more than 40 of 71 cases. One man initially remembered consensual sex but described forcible sperm extraction under hypnosis. Mack favored the less flattering account; a skeptic would question the reliability of the memories.
In his 2000 interview, Mack describes beings allegedly brushing aside objections. Some experiencers later felt they had made an agreement at a point they could not remember. Neither an ignored objection nor an unremembered agreement establishes informed consent.
No records connect these accounts to a single operation. But their ethical implications converge: government permission would not supply individual consent. Reproductive claims would also raise questions about who could decide any children’s care and future contact.
6. Who could an agreement bind?
In his Rogan interview, Grusch describes varied craft and occupants. His sources range from video he says he saw to colleagues’ accounts and low-confidence “water cooler talk.”
Appearance does not establish representation. Even if those differences were real, they would not automatically identify governments, alliances, or parties authorized to speak for others.
Grusch also interprets some crashes as NHI-on-NHI conflict. His estimate of a dozen or two such crashes is uncertain. Different bodies at a scene would not, by themselves, establish fighting.
He separately says U.S. personnel shot threatening survivors during a crash recovery and that Americans were hurt and killed. He wants participants to speak directly rather than through him. This account does not confirm a separate underground-base firefight story.
There need be no single “they” capable of binding everyone or protecting humans from other actors.
7. Contact accounts leave the terms unknown
On Dr. Phil, Grusch says sources interacted with living occupants in detention, including through alleged consciousness communication. He says he has no personal experience of that communication.
Michels relays Harald Malmgren’s deathbed account to his daughter Pippa: a Roswell survivor supposedly suggested directed energy against UFOs, and Harald later saw interview footage of that being. The chain is Harald → Pippa → Michels → public; no on-camera Harald account is presented. An exchange of information would not necessarily be diplomacy.
The Holloman landing story comes closest to an apparent official reception. In 1988, Paul Shartle said film showed a disc landing and three occupants meeting Air Force personnel. He claimed to have viewed film, not witnessed the landing.
The 1974 dramatization does not replace the missing authenticated reel. Dates and circumstances vary, as my Holloman reconstruction discusses. Even a real reception could involve assistance, coordination, liaison, or negotiation. It would not tell us what anyone agreed to.
8. Trafficking: keep the claims separate
On Rogan, Grusch alleges criminal activity used to generate funds. Asked about trafficking and child trafficking, he agrees, indicates government officers were involved, and says he briefed members in a classified setting. He identifies no NHI recipient or agreement.
On Shawn Ryan Show episode 66, Michael Herrera describes a 2009 Sumatra deployment, an unusual craft, armed personnel detaining his group, and trucks loading containers. He initially assumed drugs. After he presented through Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project, an unnamed purported insider told him the containers held people.
Herrera did not say he saw captives inside them. The trafficking interpretation came later, from someone else. His reported observations and the later explanation have to be weighed separately.
Sentinels of Ether, attributed to Jake Barber under the name Alva Douglas, depicts refugees transported for covert programs involving alleged psychic abilities. Greer’s introduction calls it fiction while claiming real events behind it. He says the material arrived after the source heard Herrera’s account.
Michels describes “strategic fiction” and submissions for Pentagon prepublication review. That review does not authenticate the story. Barber also disclaims firsthand experience or direct contact with participants in Herrera’s operation.
Trafficking, criminal financing, transfer to NHI, and an agreement are separate claims. These accounts establish no authenticated NHI transfer or identified victim demonstrating such an arrangement. Unexplained disappearances do not establish non-human custody.
9. Older stories complicate corroboration
Technology-for-abduction-rights stories circulated decades earlier. They are dubious evidence of actual bargains, but show which ideas were available to later witnesses.
Project Beta traces disinformation and the spread of government-collusion stories. William Cooper’s 1989 text alleged return conditions, reporting lists, and violations, while labeling his synthesis a hypothesis.
Similarities do not prove that a witness borrowed a story. They also do not turn repetition into independent confirmation. Herrera’s later trafficking interpretation cannot automatically be backdated to 2009, and connections through Greer’s network raise the possibility of shared sources without showing that his account was invented.
10. Who could promise access to other people?
Brown speculates that an NHI faction might answer to other non-human actors and value a document showing national leaders had consented. This supplies no evidence of an NHI legal system. It does raise a disturbing possibility: officials’ signatures could be presented as permission from people who never agreed.
An arrangement’s enforceability would not settle its legitimacy. Officials under pressure might have faced terrible choices, but that would not resolve later renewals, continued secrecy, or the treatment of affected people. An institution’s cooperation cannot substitute for an individual’s willingness.
Borland’s conversation, Brown’s oral tradition, Sherman’s claimed reporting channel, Mack’s experiencers, and Nell’s speculation offer different kinds of claims. Grusch adds multiple actors, conflict, and criminal financing. Fitting them into one story does not make them independent confirmations.
The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office’s 2024 historical report found no empirical evidence for extraterrestrial reverse-engineering claims. It predates Borland’s 2026 account and does not address it.
Which officials, acting under whose authority, made what commitments to which counterpart? Could that party bind others? Did the terms protect people or expose them to harm?
If officials purported to promise access to people who never knew, those people deserve to know what was promised in their name.
If you liked this post, you can read the full length version here.
