@RepEricBurlison: “The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2024 doesn’t bring us any closer to the truth behind UAPs. Thread🧵🛸”

U.S. House Rep. Eric Burlison has posted a multi-part twitter thread, available HERE, regarding the 2024 NDAA.

Rather than linking directly to Twitter I have included the posts below (with links) for ease of reading, since it is a multi-part Twitter thread.

Rep. Burlison’s tweets are as follows:

Tweet 1: “The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2024 doesn’t bring us any closer to the truth behind UAPs. Thread📷📷” Tweet 2: “For years, bureaucrats have spent millions of taxpayer dollars on something they told us didn’t exist. Now, with mounting evidence, they’ve been forced to acknowledge the truth, but still, we have no transparency. We know UAPs exist, but nothing more.” Tweet 3: “Ultimately, this disclosure language is a gutted, watered down version of what the American people deserve. Signed into law, it won’t bring us any closer to UAP truth. The remaining provisions included in the final text are net negative and work against transparency.” Tweet 4: “Without clear definitions of terms and enforcement mechanisms, the so-called ‘intelligence agencies’ can continue hiding the truth from us. We can’t give them an “out”. We have to force them to tell us the truth.” Tweet 5: “Don’t take my word for it. Look at the NDAA Conference Report for yourself: <report link>” Tweet 6: “It won’t be easy to get the truth about UAPs, but I didn’t come to Congress because it’s easy. I came here to fight for YOU!”

In an tweet earlier today Rep. Burlison also noted: “The NDAA is a hot piece of garbage,” and “It needs to be voted down,” although it’s not immediately clear that these comments were due to his opinions regarding the UAP disclosure language.

/u/showmeufos personal thoughts: It’s worth noting that if the 2024 NDAA as currently written does not pass both chambers it would have a chance to be re-written. This doesn’t mean that it won’t pass (I think it is likely to pass), or that if it was re-written they would add the UAPDA language back in (they probably wouldn’t), but technically it would at least have the opportunity to be added back in. Food for thought since Rep. Burlison is talking about voting it down. I wonder: how many other lawmakers feel this way?