Ross Coulthart — Reality Check Q&A: the Elizondo “legacy program” controversy, Shermer on the UAP Science Advisory Council (1 Jul 2026)
Source: NewsNation, “Reality Check” viewer Q&A with Ross Coulthart, co-hosted by Meagan Medick. Title: “Ross Coulthart breaks silence on Lue Elizondo backlash: ‘I was surprised’.” URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWnRAIDUeo4 (2026-07-01; ~22:53; ~156k views). Captured: 2026-07-02. OpenAI Whisper (whisper-1); two speakers (Coulthart answers; Medick reads viewer questions), merged into timestamped paragraphs, verbatim. Provenance only. Analysis: coulthart-career-and-claims · elizondo-career-and-claims · loeb-galileo-project · uap-disclosure-schism. What this is: an “emergency” Q&A Coulthart recorded to address blowback over comments he made about Elizondo. Notable content:
- The Elizondo controversy, clarified. Coulthart says it was misreported (even on his own network) that Elizondo had said Coulthart’s claims about his legacy-program involvement were “wrong.” Coulthart’s reading: Elizondo “very deftly” avoided any breach of his national-security oath and “refused to confirm or deny” whether he was part of the legacy program. Elizondo told Chris Cuomo “I’ve never said I was in the legacy program” — true, per Coulthart, but Elizondo also never denied it, and never responded to the specific allegation that he was involved in the legacy UAP retrieval/reverse-engineering program “in a counterintelligence role.” Coulthart declines to “pillory” Elizondo (national-security constraints), credits him as pro-transparency, and says Elizondo has “changed his tone” since the Grusch interview (now acknowledging retrievals). He names Stratton, Lacatski, Davis, and Puthoff as others asserting knowledge — in Lacatski’s case “direct knowledge” — of retrieved non-human craft, and previews an upcoming Coulthart / UAP Gerb interview (“later this week”).
- Why whistleblowers stay silent. The government doesn’t need criminal prosecution (no one has been prosecuted for a UAP-NDA breach); it revokes clearances, which “destroys them financially.” Cites the Jeff Nussitelli interview. Says there is no overarching MJ-12-style control body — “individual pod programs operating under compartmented clearances,” with possibly Dick Cheney and James Clapper holding some oversight. Argues protections/amnesty are needed, and that any future “UFO czar” (per Stephen Miller / NSC deliberations) must inspire confidence within the national-security state — flagging that some see Elizondo’s own counterintelligence role in the program as a concern for such an oversight seat (“he’s well aware of the retrieval and reverse engineering program, I am told, and he has not rebutted that assertion”).
- Michael Shermer on the White House UAP Science Advisory Council (new). A viewer asks about the appointment of skeptic Michael Shermer to the council (Loeb chairs it). Coulthart is fine with it: skepticism is valuable and holds reporters to account; he’d earlier called Shermer’s attack on Grusch “puerile and insensitive” (Shermer apologized). He relays that Avi Loeb told him in the NewsNation DC green room that he “will be holding Michael Shermer to account,” with Loeb quipping “if I can persuade Michael Shermer, I can persuade anyone.” Confirms Shermer is a seated member of the council.
- NHI and human culture. Speculative answer: anecdotal experiencer accounts suggest the entities are more interested in Earth’s natural environment / its preservation than in human art or culture; some anecdotal interest in music; nothing on art. Coulthart’s “warlike species” musing.
- RF / electromagnetic frequencies. Says 1.6 GHz is a recurring anomaly-associated frequency (Skinwalker Ranch series and Skywatcher); frames the Skywatcher “dog whistle” as electromagnetic signaling also used “by the Defense Department” to attract the phenomenon (ties to Skywatcher); declines to reveal other frequencies (“don’t want to tell the gatekeepers how much we know”); commends Patrick Jackson’s “Sphere Network” book. Weight as Coulthart’s relayed reporting and opinion (his usual withheld-knowledge register — “I am told,” “I’m not going to give those away”); the checkable new facts are the Shermer council appointment and the on-record Loeb remark.
[0:00] G’day and welcome back to Reality Check Q&A. I’m your host, Ross Coulthart, and joining me again today, my colleague and good friend, Megan Medic. Megan, can I say how much fun it was to be on the Hill with you last week and prod and tweak and squeeze the representatives of Congress to see what they had to say about the UAP issue. It was all good fun. Yeah, we had a lot of fun. We got a lot of work done. Great trip overall. So good to be together. So I understand in the flight that I’ve been having home in the last 24 hours, there’s been some blowback on the Elizondo comments that were made on one of the News Nation shows just in the last day or so. Do you want to ask me some questions about that, Megan? I absolutely do. We kind of were texting each other, messaging each other saying, hey, it’s kind of a not an emergency, but time for us to get on time for us to just drop what we’re doing and get back on together. Even though I think that we kind of had a gentleman’s agreement that we weren’t going to see each other this week, but back at it we are. There has been a lot of media attention and social media attention to comments that you made about Lou Elizondo during our Q&A last week. Ross, I’d like to get your take on what we’re seeing from Lou’s response. OK, so let me just say off the top, I was quite surprised to see, even on my own network, that it had been misreported that Lou had said that what I was saying about his past involvement in the legacy program was wrong. I don’t think that’s anyone’s takeaway at all from what Lou Elizondo said. What I saw was Lou very deftly avoiding any breach of his National Security Oath obligations and basically refusing to confirm or deny whether or not he was a part of the legacy program. He’s maintained, the truth of the fact is I’ve always been very clear, I worked in a program called ATIP and he does say I’ve committed myself to transparency to the degree that I could and I respect and understand the constraints that Lou is under. He’s in a very difficult position and I certainly don’t want people to think that I’m trying to hijack him with this stuff. What I do think, and what I said on the Q&A that we did on the weekend, was that I do think there needs to come a time when Lou can be more forthcoming about what his past role was, including his past role with the legacy UAP retrieval reverse engineering program in a counterintelligence role. Lou did actually at one stage say to Chris Cuomo in one interview that when you have a security clearance there’s always these statements you know we cannot confirm or deny and people always take that as some kind of implicit yes but the reality is that’s not at all what that means. Even if I wasn’t, if it’s a classified program I would have to say I can’t discuss that, I can’t even acknowledge that. So he doesn’t say I wasn’t in the legacy program but he also doesn’t say he was in it, which is the classic intelligence community rejoinder to when naughty people like me put good men like Lou Elizondo on the spot. It’s a difficult spot for him. What Lou did say, and I think this has been misreported, is that I’ve never said, he said to Chris Cuomo, I’ve never said I was in the legacy program and that’s completely true. Lou has never made any public admission that he was in the legacy program but what he didn’t do in either his comments to Cuomo or in any public comments anywhere on social media or anywhere in any public space is respond to the specific allegation that he was involved in the legacy UAP retrieval reverse engineering program. It’s a difficult situation for Lou and I deeply admire and respect the fact that he’s very much pro-transparency and pro-disclosure. And as you’ll see in an interview I do with UAP Gerb, which will probably go out later this week, we talk about the fact that I think Lou has changed his tone in recent years, especially after the David Grush interview, he did start talking about retrievals and reverse engineering and he’s been quite upfront about the fact that there have been retrievals. So whatever constraints Lou was under under the previous understandings that he had as a operative and intelligence, counterintelligence officer with the legacy program, it’s quite obvious that he’s been allowed to moderate what he’s allowed to say in the public domain since people like David Grush made their admissions about retrievals. And let’s be honest about it, it’s pretty much a pretty clear case now that there are multiple people, Jay Stratton, James Lekatsky, Eric Davis, all of these men are saying that they have knowledge, in some cases direct knowledge, in James Lekatsky’s case, of retrieved non-human craft. And this is the issue. I don’t think it’s fair to pillory Lou Elizondo about this because of the constraints he operates under his national security obligations. The simple fact is I am deeply frustrated that no one in Congress is addressing the bear in the room right now, which is, yes, OK, there are UAPs, there’s a genuine UAP mystery, but there is a broader issue here, which is what has the US recovered in terms of UAP non-human technology? This is an on-the-record allegation now from multiple people, including from Lou Elizondo. And I think that’s why we can acknowledge and respect him for the fact that he has changed his tone in the succeeding years since he first showed up with the TTSA to the STARS Academy in, I think, moving on from his role in the Defense Department. There is so much now on the public record about the existence of a retrieval program and a reverse engineering program. I think we just need to keep our focus on that issue. What the hell is Congress going to do about the retrieval program? Is it going to allow itself to be snowed with mutterings of national security? Or is it going to do a proper investigation to get to the truth of allegations that the United States has retrieved and in some cases reverse engineered non-human technology? It’s not hard to investigate these claims. It’s not good enough to say that you still need witnesses to come forward because these witnesses have already given evidence under oath to the Congress. It’s time for Congress to do its job and show that it’s capable of enforcing transparency and accountability for the taxpayers who are footing the bill. There, I’ve had my rant, Megan, but I did want to clarify that I don’t think that anything that Lou has said publicly to date has in any way challenged the veracity of what we are saying. Lou has been very careful to neither confirm nor deny his past role in the legacy program and I respect him for doing that. He’s a national security operative who’s basically, well, he was a national security operative who’s operating under constraints and he can’t reveal past roles that he’s secured by under NDAs and national security oaths. But I do think that at some stage there needs to be an acquittal in the public arena where if especially amnesties are offered, if especially exemptions from NDAs are offered, it’s time for people like Lou to come forward and say exactly what they know. And also for that matter, James Lukatsky, Jay Stratton, Eric Davis, Hal Puthoff, and many others.
[8:07] All right, Ross, thank you. While I have you, I might as well throw a couple more questions your way. I will dive into our email. Ross and Megan, I’ve searched and can find no record of anyone ever being arrested or prosecuted for breaking their NDA oath with the government. My question is, why don’t some of the heroic whistleblowers just open up and reveal all? I realize the quandary that if the government prosecutes, then they must admit the existence of the coverup. Thank you for your valiant efforts on behalf of us all. I hope to see you at the Disclosure Foundation event in DC on 625. David, I hope we did see you there.
[8:42] Look, it’s all very well encouraging people to breach their NDAs and their security oaths, but the government doesn’t need to use criminal prosecution, which is a very overt way of holding somebody to account, to punish that person. The best way in Washington and in the national security state is to literally take away their clearance. Once you do that to someone who makes a living in the national security world, you basically destroy them financially, economically. And that’s what happens. There are people, I spoke to Jeff Nussitelli in Washington, DC, and there’s an interview with him that we put to air last week, where he explained what he suffered. There are consequences that people suffer because of the simple fact that they’re speaking out. So look, it’s all very well saying these people should just take the risk and jump. Why should they? Why should they destroy their livelihood? Why should they sacrifice everything, their way of making a living, just because you want them to go public? I can respect and understand why these people, including Lou Elizondo himself, are extremely cautious and reticent about speaking out. They are tied by a national security oath, a series of security clearances and requirements that were imposed during the Cold War on a program that I think quite rightly at the time was probably kept secret. But I think the reasons why that program is being kept secret now are wholly unjustifiable. I haven’t been able to find anyone who can rationalize why there is continued secrecy about the program. I think nobody knows because nobody’s like a supernumerary overseer who’s basically in control and oversighting the whole program.
[10:25] There are, as I understand it, individual pod programs operating under compartmented clearances. And with the exception of, I think, Dick Cheney most recently, and perhaps James Clapper, who’s got some oversight of some of these programs, I don’t really think there’s a huge overarching MJ-12 style body that’s doing the kind of control group monitoring that we all assume. And as a result, for somebody inside that program who’s making the very difficult decision about whether or not they should come public, it’s a hell of a decision for them because it destroys them financially, economically, socially, within their own social group. I think this is why we need protections. It’s not too much to ask. If there are crimes, serious breaches of the law that have been committed, then the White House, the Congress needs to give protection to those people to ensure that they feel safe about coming forward. And more importantly, anyone who’s put into an oversight role inside the National Security Council, say a UFO czar position or whatever it is that Stephen Miller and others in the White House are trying to consider, whoever that is has to inspire confidence from within the national security state. And one of the problems that a lot of people are saying to me they have with Lew is that Lew has operated in a counterintelligence role inside the program. He’s well aware of the retrieval and reverse engineering program, I am told, and he has not rebutted that assertion on my part. And I appreciate that he can’t talk about it, but no matter his good intentions at the moment, one of the concerns that people have is that there needs to be some perception that the individual that would have oversight is someone who people can feel safe about coming forward to. I hope I’ve made myself clear. Thank you. All right, here we go. Hi, Ross and Megan. I’m forever grateful with all the work you do and really appreciate your approach to this entire topic. I’ve been following you for almost a year now and really value your perspective. I may already know how you’re going to feel, but I have to ask, what in the UFO is the appointment of Michael Shermer named to what to White House UAP Science Advisory Council? This guy thrives and makes a living off poking holes and creating the thinnest arguments regarding UAP, age of disclosure, and even the tranches of documents. His writing infuriates me, as I’m sure it does for you. Do you think this is a way to avoid disclosure? I’m all for being skeptical, but this guy makes a living on being the devil’s advocate, even when he’s got arguments that would never pass a basic philosophy course. Would love to know your thoughts on this. Thank you for all that you do.
[13:03] Look, I’ve already commented quite a bit on Michael Shermer. I’ve described his comments where he attacked David Grush as puerile and I think insensitive. And he had the good grace to actually apologize for that. I don’t know if people noticed that, but if you scroll back through my social media, you’ll see that in his public comments, he’s actually acknowledged that he said the wrong thing. And I think he’s recognized that as a member of the UAP Advisory Committee, the Science Committee, he really does have to provide a perception that he’s operating objectively. And I think at times, David has not operated objectively. At times he’s baited people in the UAP community. He seems to have enjoyed the fame that he’s derived from being the arch skeptic and often the arch debunker. I use the word debunker in terms of a person who’s perhaps slightly unhinged in their attack on the UAP community rather than skeptic.
[13:56] Skepticism is good. And so long as he’s skeptical, that’s fine. We need skepticism. It’s really important. Even though you might not like the Mick Wests and the Shermers of this world, whilst sometimes they are a little unhinged and a little unfair, I think they generally do hold us to account and that’s important. I get things wrong. It’s important to be held to account for things you get wrong. Journalists get things wrong all the time and we should correct and move on. These things happen. News is the first draft of history. I think that’s one of the greatest quotes I’ve heard. And as time goes on, often those drafts change as we become aware of more information. We should acknowledge this and move on. And the UAP community shouldn’t really get upset that the UAP Science Advisory Committee has Michael Shermer on its team. What they should do is give him a chance, see if he’s going to be objective. I had a lovely chat with Professor Avi Loeb when I ran into him in the green room in NewsNation’s offices in DC last week, and he was very gracious about Reality Check and he assured me he will be holding Michael Shermer to account. So let’s just wait and see. I don’t have any problem, frankly, with Michael Shermer’s role on the UAP Science Advisory Committee, because as Avi said to me with a chuckle, if I can persuade Michael Shermer, I can persuade anyone. And that’s absolutely right. Let’s go to Scotland. This is from Daniel. Hi, Ross and Megan. Love the show. Makes my long car journeys enjoyable. Most discussions around UAP and non-human intelligence focus on technology, intentions, origins, and disclosure. I’d like to ask something a little different. If we agree that a non-human intelligence has been observing humanity for a long period of time, has there ever been any testimony, whistleblower claim, intelligence reporting, or anecdotal evidence suggesting that they take an interest in human culture itself? By culture, I mean things like our sports, music, art, engineering achievements, film, literature, and even major global events. Do any credible sources you’ve spoken to suggest that NHI might study or appreciate these aspects of humanity? We often discuss what their technology might be, but rarely ask whether they find anything about us interesting beyond biology and geopolitics. I’d be interested to hear whether any insiders or whistleblowers have ever touched on the subject, even indirectly.
[16:24] That’s a fascinating question. Does an alien enjoy a good Mozart symphony? I honestly don’t know. I can’t give you a definitive answer on that. What I can tell you is that there are a lot of anecdotal stories I’ve heard from experiences where, I’ll be honest with you, the perception that I come away with is that the beings, if they do exist, and I suspect they do, are more interested in this earth. And I’ve never really heard, I mean, wouldn’t it be fascinating to know if there are beings that are visiting this planet, perhaps living among us, wouldn’t it be fascinating if they enjoy a good opera or a good Mozart? What do they think of our culture, our art, our civilization? I’ll answer it this way. I certainly think that the biggest message that I get and the concern that I have is there is clearly, from anecdotal accounts from the experiences, entities that are more interested in the preservation of our natural environment and concerns about what we are doing to this earth than they are interested in us as biological entities or human beings with a creative or spiritual context behind us. That’s a really interesting question. I’ve never really thought about it, but now that I think about it, the absence is interesting. No one’s ever told me that they’re aware of conversations with non-human beings about art or culture. I’d love to think that they were interested. There are some anecdotal stories that I’ve heard to suggest that there is an interest in our music. And let’s face it, music is a common cross-species. Animals love music as well. So it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it’s something that transcends human beings. But as for arts, culture, I guess one of the things that I worry about is I sat in my plane for the last 26 hours watching movies and the incredible range of movies, probably, I don’t know, 50, 60% of them dealt with violence, people killing each other. What must these beings think of us? We are a very warlike species and we still use and resort to violence. And there’s a theme that runs through our arts and culture, especially in a lot of our movies about righteous vengeance, righteous violence. And if I was an alien being, I’d be slightly worried about that. I hope that doesn’t make me sound like a peacenik, but if I was somebody on the outside looking in, I have to admit, I’d be a bit worried about these blooming humans. They’re pretty rough apes. All right. We will take one more. This is coming from Jay.
[19:12] Hello, Ross. Firstly, thank you for your continued effort in reporting on the UAP subject matter. Your efforts have inspired myself and the younger generation to question everything. I would love to ask if you are aware of any known data collection from UAP in the form of radio frequency output. My background is in electronic warfare, and I’m curious to know if the use of RF has been reported by teams like Skywatcher or others. If so, what are the characteristics of RF data used by UAP? For example, frequencies recorded as being associated with UAP communications, or has there been noticeably substantial power output on the electromagnetic spectrum in the presence of UAP? Thank you for taking the time to read my question. Okay. Well, I can tell you for a start, yes, there are definitely electromagnetic frequencies that are of interest. And one of the frequencies that Skinwalker Ranch series makes no secret of is 1.6 gigahertz. It’s quite a common feature when they have anomalous phenomena present itself in the Skinwalker Ranch series. And I know this happened for Skywatcher as well, that one of the frequencies where they’re detecting signals, including signals from the actual objects, is 1.6 gigahertz. I am aware of other frequencies, but I don’t want to give those away, frankly, because I don’t want to tell the gatekeepers how much we know. I’m aware of some very creditable work being done to investigate electromagnetic frequencies. And yes, there are signature frequencies. And don’t forget, of course, there’s the dog whistle, which we know was being used by Skywatcher and has been used by other organizations, including the Defense Department, to attract the phenomenon. And the dog whistle is a form of electromagnetic signaling. I’m more aware of the dog whistle now than I was some years ago. But for good reason, I’m not going to talk about those frequencies. Suffice to say, yes, there are frequencies that we’re all aware of, that are currently being investigated. And there are good people trying to emulate the good work being done by Skywatcher and the possibly dastardly work being done by the Defense Department to see if it can be replicated. A kind of a non-intrusive way, a non-invasive or non-violent way of attracting the phenomenon is a really good idea. And it does appear that there are frequencies that manifest themselves when this anomalous phenomena is around. I also commend people, by the way, to my friend Patrick Jackson, who’s written a whole book about what he calls the Sphere Network. And he has reported in his book, the anomalous phenomena that appear to manifest when certain frequencies are generated.
[21:58] His book’s great reading. People should take a look at it. All right, Ross, thank you so much for taking the time to hop on with us for this emergency Q&A today. Short and sweet. Bottom line is, I’m exhausted after last week and 24 or 26 hours flying is just too much for any human being. But thank you very much for your patience, Megan. It was great to see you in Washington. And I will return revived and invigorated next week. Thanks very much. Thank you. Oh, and by the way, if you do want to send us questions to Reality Check, you can send those questions to realitycheckatnewsnationnow.com. And please don’t forget you can listen to our show on all good audio platforms, including Audible and Spotify. Thank you very much, Megan. Thanks, Ross.