Law

Non-Human Intelligence

the NHI of the 2023 UAP Disclosure Act
The phrase the United States Senate wrote into legislation for whatever might be responsible for UAP. Aliens, in legal language, with eminent domain attached.
Documented

Twenty-two definitions, one bombshell

Senate Amendment 797, the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023, co-sponsored by Schumer, Rounds, Rubio, Gillibrand, Young, and Heinrich, modeled on the JFK Records Act, codified 22 definitions. Non-human intelligence means any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform regardless of nature or ultimate origin that may be presumed responsible for UAP or of which the Federal Government has become aware. The bill asserted eminent domain over recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of NHI in private hands. The Senate passed it; conference stripped the review board and eminent domain, leaving a records collection.

Assessment: The bill text is public law-track record, checkable line by line. What survived and what was amputated is also documented, and the amputations are their own story.
Stories

How aliens got a legal name

The story of the phrase: flying saucer was too silly, extraterrestrial too committed, alien too cinematic, so the grown-ups in the hearing rooms needed a word that meant the thing without saying the thing. NHI is a lawyer's alien: it covers beings from space, from the ocean, from another dimension, from the future, from anywhere, because the drafters deliberately wrote regardless of nature or ultimate origin. The language is a net built wide enough to catch whatever it is they think they might catch.

Assessment: The drafting breadth is documented in the definition itself. Why it needed to be that wide is the question the phrase was designed not to answer.
Interesting claims

The bill as confession

The claim: the legislation is itself the disclosure. Governments do not define recovery boards for leprechauns; the mere existence of legacy program language, covering crash retrieval and reverse engineering predating the act, tells you what the drafters believe exists. The counter is procedural: the language came from believers' testimony, Grusch's 2023 hearing claims, and legislatures define things that do not exist all the time, that is what half of tort law is.

Assessment: Both halves are procedurally true. The bill proves what senators were willing to write, not what sits in any hangar. Filed as the strongest paper artifact in the modern debate, and still paper.
Sources and further reading
  1. S.Amdt.797, 118th Congress, definitions 10, 12, and 18, public text
  2. Schumer-Rounds press release, July 2023, the JFK Act model
  3. FY2024 NDAA conference outcome: review board and eminent domain stripped
  4. Grusch testimony, House Oversight, July 2023
Worth asking

Does a government write eminent domain over alien bodies for a thing it believes does not exist, or for a thing it cannot afford to be caught unprepared for?

Open in the interactive archive
GR8YFILES · competing origin stories, labeled by the strength of their evidence · readers 14+