Disclosure Forum 2026 brought lawmakers, former national-security officials, scientists, journalists and advocates into one of Capitol Hill’s most historic rooms for a day of public discussion on UAP transparency, oversight, science and disclosure policy. The location gave the event institutional weight. The organiser — not Congress — controlled the programme.
The Disclosure Foundation organised the inaugural forum under the theme Humanity at the Edge of Discovery. Registration was free and open to the public, seating was first-come, first-served, and the day ran from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The setting matters: the Kennedy Caucus Room is part of the Russell Senate Office Building and has hosted major Senate investigations historically. But venue does not determine legal status. The forum was not convened by a Senate committee, did not take sworn testimony and did not issue congressional findings.
The strongest description is therefore an advocacy-organised Capitol Hill policy forum with verified participation by sitting members of Congress. That is politically meaningful, but procedurally different from a Senate or House committee hearing.
The official post-event page identifies all four as speakers on the recorded congressional roundtable. That is stronger evidence than relying on an advance programme or promotional graphic.
Rounds appears in the official replay archive with his own presentation, The Case for the UAP Disclosure Act, rather than as part of the House roundtable.
Mellon delivered the opening address and joined the national-security panel in his role as Disclosure Foundation chairman and former defense-intelligence official.
The distinction matters because event pages often blur “featured speaker,” “expected to attend,” and “appeared in the recorded session.” V2 uses the post-event replay roster wherever available.
A policy address on the current landscape of UAP transparency and why disclosure should move through institutions rather than spectacle.
Luna, Burlison, Carson and Subramanyam discussed transparency, oversight, whistleblower protection and the limits they said they encountered obtaining information.
Sen. Mike Rounds delivered a separate policy address explicitly framed by the organiser around the UAP Disclosure Act and the balance between public disclosure, congressional oversight and national security.
Former officials and analysts discussed defense, intelligence sharing, arms control, diplomacy and the problem of unidentified activity around sensitive systems.
Avi Loeb and Harold Puthoff appeared on a science panel framed around calibrated instruments, measurement and moving UAP inquiry beyond eyewitness accounts.
The programme examined how unresolved questions might become research programs, instruments and engineering work rather than remaining only a disclosure debate.
The forum also explored how institutions and the public might process extraordinary claims if future evidence forced a major change in worldview.
During the congressional roundtable, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna said Stephen Miller was “absolutely incredible on this topic” and said lawmakers were providing the White House with a list of people who would be given immunity. Vanity Fair reported the statement from the room.
That establishes that Luna publicly said an immunity effort was being pursued. It does not, by itself, establish that a formal immunity programme had already been created, that named individuals had been legally immunized, or that the underlying crash-retrieval / biologics claims were true.
Her reference to nonhuman vehicles and biological material is therefore retained as Luna’s asserted investigative target, not as a fact established by the Forum.
The organiser explicitly titled the science panel From Anecdote to Instrument Data and described the task as moving toward calibrated instruments, rigorous measurement and analysis. Avi Loeb and Harold Puthoff were the listed panelists. That framing is one of the Forum’s strongest correctives to purely testimonial disclosure culture.
A forum can increase transparency pressure and create access to witnesses or records. It cannot substitute for sensor metadata, provenance, reproducible analysis or case-by-case investigation.
Several participants made substantive statements about alleged secret programs, whistleblowers, immunity, non-human intelligence, government suppression or future policy. Vanity Fair, for example, recorded claims about “80 years” of suppression and scenario-planning for possible NHI. The event record proves those statements were made. It does not independently prove the factual allegations inside them.
This page therefore uses a strict rule: event facts come from the organiser and recording; underlying UAP claims require their own evidence. A repeated allegation does not become verified because it was voiced in the Russell Senate Office Building.
Holding an all-day UAP forum in the Kennedy Caucus Room with verified participation by serving lawmakers is evidence that the subject has gained access to mainstream Washington policy spaces. Vanity Fair’s on-site report independently confirms the event took place there and describes the Disclosure Foundation — not a congressional committee — as the organiser.
That is a real development. The mistake is to overstate it. The forum was not a Senate committee hearing, there was no subpoena power, no witness oath, no committee evidentiary record and no formal congressional conclusion at the end of the day.
The post-event replay page is decisive for who actually appeared, which sessions occurred and how the organiser framed each panel. It remains an advocacy source for interpretation.
Useful because the reporter was physically present and independently confirms Luna’s immunity statement, the event atmosphere and the mix of serious policy discussion with much broader disclosure beliefs.
This version distinguishes pre-event marketing from verified replay attendance, separates Rounds’ UAP Disclosure Act address from the House roundtable, and treats Luna’s immunity claim as a political statement rather than completed legal action.
The event shows that UAP transparency now has enough political traction to place serving lawmakers, national-security veterans and scientists in a full-day public forum inside the Senate complex. The verified replay record makes that stronger than a promotional claim.
That is meaningful. But the evidence standard does not change at the door. Statements remain statements, allegations remain allegations, and science still requires data.
The forum’s real significance is political infrastructure: disclosure advocates, lawmakers and researchers are no longer operating in entirely separate worlds. Rounds publicly defended the legislative disclosure framework, Luna publicly described an immunity effort, and the science panel publicly pushed instrumented evidence — but none of those developments amounted to a congressional finding that NHI or recovered craft exist.