Lue Elizondo on Security, Intent, and Non-Human Intelligence
Summary
In an interview published on August 14, 2026, Dr. Eliot Koretney introduces Lue Elizondo as the first guest on a podcast from the Project on UAP Studies and International Security at the Ralph Bunche Institute, Graduate Center of the City University of New York. The conversation centers on the dramatic shift in U.S. government discourse around UFOs, now called UAP, especially since 2017, when figures such as Elizondo and others helped bring previously secretive government attention to the issue into public view. Koretney frames UAP through an international relations lens, especially securitization theory, asking whether UAP are moving from taboo or curiosity into an officially recognized national and international security concern. Elizondo argues that this securitization is already underway, citing reports to Congress, UAP-focused offices and programs, law enforcement and intelligence interest, taxpayer-funded investigations, and international activity involving Japan, China, Russia, Latin America, and possible United Nations-linked initiatives. The discussion broadens into UAPs as a possible non-human intelligence issue rather than merely a conventional science problem. The speakers discuss Ronald Reagan’s 1987 United Nations speech, the possibility that some presidents may have been briefed on UAP realities, and the idea that humanity often unites only when facing a shared threat. Elizondo emphasizes that advanced technologies are neither inherently good nor bad; human intent determines whether they become tools for public benefit, cooperation, arms racing, or harm. The conversation closes on the ethics of contact: UAPs may be studying humanity as humanity studies them; they appear associated with nuclear technologies and large bodies of water; aggressive attempts to lure or attack them could be dangerous; and humanity should approach unknown intelligences with caution, readiness, goodwill, love, and neighborliness.
Quotes
“You have had several reports already to Congress about this topic. You have had the FBI, the Department of Justice, the CIA, and others already come out and say, ‘Yes, look, our own agents are witnessing this. We are conducting our own investigations,’ and it is pretty compelling.”
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 3“People always ask me, ‘Is it good or bad?’ It is really neither. It is just like artificial intelligence or nuclear technology. What is good or bad is the user.”
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 4“The first thing we did when we picked up a stone, instead of striking it together and creating fire, was start throwing them at one another. Why is that? That is the human condition.”
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 6“We now realize that our government, which I have known for some time but the American people are finally learning, has actually been involved in UFO investigations for almost 80 years. Despite the constant denials by certain elements in our government, it turns out that we took the topic very seriously.”
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 7“When we are underwater and we are looking at a parrotfish, make no mistake, that parrotfish is equally interested in studying us as we are it because it wants to know: Are you hostile? Are you here to eat me? Are you here just to amuse me and take pictures? It is not that unusual that we come face-to-face with something that is interested in us.”
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 8“What we are not used to is coming face-to-face with something that potentially might be smarter than us, that might potentially have some sort of motivations we are unaware of, or that could do something we may not be able to defend ourselves from. That creates a tremendous amount of insecurity for us.”
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 9"It is up to us. We can react any way we want to. We can react with curiosity and optimism, or we can react with fear and violence. It is really up to us. I liken it to opening the front door to your house. You move into a neighborhood at night. You have no idea what neighborhood, and you just open the front door. Whoever comes through that front door, that is who comes in your front door. Maybe they are coming in for a cup of coffee. Maybe they want to borrow some sugar. Maybe they just want to welcome you to the neighborhood. Maybe they want to rob your house, or worse. We do not know, and it is in that vacuum of knowledge where we behave in ways that we are biologically predisposed to: self-preservation and things like that. We are naturally very wary of things we do not understand and whose motivation we do not understand. That creates a lot of internal anxiety, psychologically, sociologically, and even theologically."
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 9“If we want to solve that, we have to look at ourselves. We cannot blame NHI, or non-human intelligence, for the way we perceive them. That is not their fault; that is our fault. We have to figure that out.”
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 9"Ultimately, if we want to know how to deal with and understand what is out there, first we need to understand what is in here, inside every one of us. What motivates us? Why do we do the things we do? Once we can reconcile that, understand that better, and control some of those aggressive tendencies, then maybe we will be better prepared to engage something beyond us, if that makes sense."
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 10“What I would not recommend doing is something like a Project Interloper for the purposes of shooting down a UAP.… That would be a mistake. That would be a provocation.”
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 12“Goodness, innocence, intent, these are things that might be more universal than we really understand. They might be something beyond human beings that can express and share those types of feelings.… We probably need to extend a welcoming embrace, because it is not going to change anything. It is not going to change the fact that they are here. They are here, whatever they are, for whatever reason they have. Probably best is just to treat them like we would treat a neighbor, would be my advice. Treat them like a good neighbor.”
Lue Elizondo · PDF Page 12-13
Claims
- Claim
An unexplained presence is already here and may represent a superior non-human intelligence
Elizondo begins cautiously, describing something that “potentially might be smarter than us,” may possess unknown motivations, and may have capabilities against which humanity cannot defend itself. By the conclusion, however, his language becomes definite: “They are here,” even though he leaves their identity and purpose unresolved. His internal reasoning draws on the seriousness with which governments investigate UAP, reports of agency witnesses, recurring UAP patterns, and the idea that another intelligence could be observing us while we observe it. His comparisons to fish, octopuses, and dogs demonstrate that different species can study and communicate with one another, but they do not establish that UAP are NHI. The interview presents no individual case, sensor record, or physical evidence proving this central claim.
- Claim
The U.S. government investigated UFOs for nearly 80 years while publicly denying serious interest
Elizondo alleges a sustained contradiction between the government’s public position and its classified behavior. As his principal example, he points to AATIP: while officials publicly dismissed UFOs, the Pentagon secretly spent $22 million investigating them. He also refers to past government programs and suggests that certain presidents may have received briefings. AATIP provides internal support for the narrower claim that at least one comparatively recent, nonpublic investigation existed. It does not, by itself, demonstrate continuous government study over the full 80-year period. The longer historical claim and the possibility that Reagan was briefed are asserted without documents, program records, or named briefers being provided in the transcript.
- Claim
UAP has entered a formal national and international “securitization” process
Elizondo argues that UAP has progressed from official acknowledgment to concrete government action. He cites congressional reports, taxpayer-funded research, the creation of AARO and PURSUE, and investigations involving the FBI, CIA, and Department of Justice. Internationally, he points to Japan seeking a bilateral UAP information-sharing agreement, Latin American interest in cooperation, Chinese efforts involving the United Nations, and Russia’s acknowledgment of earlier UAP studies. These institutional developments form his reasoning that the subject is becoming a genuine international-security issue rather than merely a cultural controversy. However, the transcript summarizes these actions without reproducing the agency statements, agreements, budgets, or international records, so they remain Elizondo’s stated supporting examples.
- Claim
UAP have a reliable global association with nuclear technology and large bodies of water
Elizondo calls nuclear facilities and major bodies of water the two central commonalities in UAP activity, describing the association as global and “absolutely 100% accurate.” He connects this pattern to Project Interloper, which he says was a genuine operational plan intended to create conditions attractive to UAP -- a type of intelligence “honeypot.” The reasoning is straightforward: if UAP repeatedly appear around particular assets, reproducing those conditions might allow investigators to obtain better observations. Yet the interview provides no supporting case list, statistical analysis, comparison baseline, or documentation for Project Interloper. Elizondo also says he would “not be surprised” if similar plans had been executed, signaling that this additional point is inference rather than confirmed knowledge.
- Claim
Humanity’s response to NHI must avoid both naïve trust and reflexive military hostility
Elizondo rejects the choice between greeting a possible NHI peacefully and immediately treating it as an enemy. His reasoning is based on risk under uncertainty: extending unconditional trust to something hostile might expose humanity, while threatening a peaceful but technologically superior intelligence could provoke an otherwise avoidable response. He therefore recommends cautious engagement -- “walk softly but carry a big stick” -- while specifically warning that attempting to lure and shoot down a UAP would be a provocation. He also argues that human fear, tribalism, and aggression may distort how we perceive NHI, making self-understanding and intent part of any responsible contact policy. This is a strategic and philosophical argument rather than an empirical finding, but it is the interview’s clearest policy conclusion.
Notes
The interview is strongest when it connects UAP to broader questions of secrecy, national security, academic legitimacy, human fear, technological ethics, and responsible contact. Elizondo’s most compelling argument is that institutional behavior -- funding, programs, reports, planning, and international interest -- matters more than rhetoric alone. He repeatedly frames UAP as a serious issue that governments have investigated despite public dismissal. He also emphasizes that advanced technology is not inherently good or bad; human use determines whether it becomes beneficial or destructive.
Several recurring themes run through the conversation: disclosure, securitization, international cooperation, government secrecy, taxpayer-funded investigation, academic inquiry, nuclear security, human tribalism, and the ethics of encountering a potentially superior intelligence. The major unresolved questions concern evidence: which specific programs exist, what they have found, how much money has been spent, how much international coordination is actually occurring, what supports the claimed UAP interest in water and nuclear assets, and whether UAP-related technologies are real, recoverable, or reverse-engineerable.
A significant tension runs throughout the interview. UAP are discussed as a possible national security threat, a subject of military planning, and perhaps an intelligence problem involving something more capable than humanity. Yet Elizondo’s final recommendation is neighborliness, restraint, and peaceful intent. That tension is not necessarily a contradiction; rather, it captures the difficulty of the topic. Elizondo argues that humanity should neither deny the issue nor respond with reflexive hostility. His preferred posture is cautious openness: pursue truth, prepare responsibly, avoid provocation, and treat the unknown with the respect one would offer a good neighbor.
Source
- Participants
- Lue Elizondo
- Interviewer
- Dr. Eli Karetny
- Publication
- Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies
- Interview date
- Original source
- Visit source