A newly disclosed FOIA response shows how the Pentagon struggled internally to process a request regarding the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), revealing disorganization, confusion, and evasiveness at multiple levels of the Department of Defense.
The request asked for "mission statements, assessments, contracts, and documentation" associated with AATIP - a controversial program tied to UAP investigations and once funded through black-budget allocations.
Over three years later, the official response offered just two pages of heavily redacted email chains and a familiar refrain: no responsive records found.
"NP-SMS has no view over that mission. Our mission relates strictly to [REDACTED]," read one internal message.
"Can you please inform the front office if you have information… or do you know to whom this task can be redirected?"
What should have been a straightforward document search quickly turned into a paper trail of redirection and silence.
🧠 AATIP: A Program That Officially Doesn’t Exist
AATIP was first exposed publicly in 2017, tied to a $22 million intelligence budget and reportedly aimed at investigating advanced aerial threats - including unidentified craft observed by U.S. military pilots.
The program has since become the subject of congressional scrutiny, media interest, and repeated FOIA requests. Yet this release shows the Pentagon continues to treat AATIP as something that never existed in a formal, documentable way.
"No information pertaining to that FOIA request," an internal contact wrote to colleagues.
"This is more appropriate for our sister office."
Even the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (I&S) could not identify a responsible party.
📨 A Bureaucracy Without Answers
The emails reveal more than just a failure to locate records - they reveal confusion about who even owns the mission.
The back-and-forth reads like a game of hot potato, with officials tossing responsibility across desks, offices, and departments. Despite being a high-profile topic, no one appears willing - or able - to take ownership.
The FOIA response was ultimately closed out with the familiar legal shields: exemption (b)(2) for internal rules, and (b)(6) to protect personal privacy.
But the result was clear. No documents were turned over, and no clarity was provided on how a program that drew national headlines could leave so little trace within the very department that funded it.
🧩 What It Really Means
Though brief, the release underscores a long-running pattern: U.S. government agencies remain unwilling to provide transparency about their handling of advanced aerospace phenomena.
Whether it’s mismanagement, overclassification, or intentional obfuscation, the outcome is the same. The public asks questions - and receives silence hidden behind redactions.
"No further records were located in response to your request," the FOIA office concluded.
And just like that, the Pentagon once again shrinks away from the light cast by its own programs.
