In a discussion released by the Sol Foundation on October 8, 2026, Peter Skafish, co-founder of the foundation, spoke with Marik von Rennenkampff to review developments concerning advanced platforms. Their exchange reveals a new confidential avenue for witnesses to submit information related to unreported programs, retrieval operations, and reverse-engineering activities.
“There’s enormous, enormous opportunity in that,” Skafish says, adding: “It’s gonna take courage. It will take a clever strategy for anyone wanting to do it. It will take legal protections, but it can produce results.”
Marik von Rennenkampff underscores the exceptional nature of the protection being discussed. He considers that the immunity mechanism, described as a “safe harbor,” shows that the White House is taking allegations of unreported UAP programs seriously. “This waiver … signals that the president, the administration of the White House is taking these allegations of unreported UAP programs and specifically unreported retrieval and reverse-engineering programs so seriously,” he says.
Federal-level protection
Rennenkampff questions the exact scope of the measure. He notes that Department of War authorities fall particularly within the Title 10 framework, whereas the most sensitive allegations frequently concern the intelligence community, the CIA, and activities governed by Title 50. His question is direct: could an additional protection specifically cover intelligence structures?
Skafish replies that the key would not lie solely in the public memorandum, but in a broader executive directive. “It’s really the executive directive that governs this,” he explains. He says he was informed by a person who helped draft it that the directive is classified: “I found out from the person that helped draft it that it’s classified.”
According to Skafish, the directive was designed to cover all relevant information, regardless of which part of the administration holds it. “If there’s intelligence community information, if there is Department of War information, if there was federal law enforcement information, wherever it resides, that nothing is exempt,” he says. He also calls for an attempt to obtain the document: “Someone should start trying to FOIA that.”
No agency outside the framework
Peter Skafish believes the text was not designed to create loopholes that would allow certain intelligence agencies to avoid the process. “I don’t think this was crafted to create exceptions that would allow certain agencies in the intelligence community to kind of wriggle out of this,” he says.
He explains that he attended a meeting bringing together senior executive-branch officials and general counsels from several departments and agencies. “I think that was a response to one of the meetings I was in,” he says, before predicting parallel clarifications from the various administrations.
For Skafish, the decisive question is not which agency an individual works for or once worked for, but whether that person can access an appropriate reporting channel. “I think it doesn’t matter which agency someone is employed by or was employed by,” he says. “They have multiple points of contact where they can come in and bring information.”
Guiding witnesses
Skafish acknowledges that access to these procedures may be difficult. “It’s gonna be tough for people to navigate how to go in,” he says. Nevertheless, he indicates that the Sol Foundation can guide people seeking to enter the official process.
He sets a clear boundary: “We do not want classified information. We are not taking classified disclosures. We will refer you to an attorney for that.”
Skafish says this guidance may involve the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI. “Due to our participation in the UAP Science Advisory Council, we know how to refer people to the appropriate points of contact in the ODNI and/or the FBI,” he explains.
A call for witnesses
Skafish states that the agencies involved are seeking information and witnesses. “Both agencies want that information. They want witnesses,” he says. He adds that the U.S. executive branch views this information as falling within its authority: “The executive branch feels that they have a right to it.”
The message to people holding relevant information is clear: they can turn to institutional channels rather than transmit classified material to outside organizations. For Skafish, the executive branch expects the cooperation of those who may have knowledge of unreported programs or information: “People must comply with this. So if there’s information, they want it.”
The exchange between Peter Skafish and Marik von Rennenkampff therefore places potential witnesses at the center of an initiative to collect information on UAP. The existence of a classified executive directive, the announced extension to military, intelligence, and federal agencies, and referrals to the ODNI or FBI form, according to Skafish, the elements of a system designed to bring forward information long kept in the shadows.
However, there is no guarantee that this will not become another “catch and kill” operation organized by the U.S. administration, following whistleblowers’ stated distrust of existing procedures. Whistleblower Dylan Borland said at the Stockholm conference that the current level of whistleblower protection was “0.0%.” The Sol Foundation is now putting its reputation on the line to convince whistleblowers to provide their information through authorized channels. Hopefully, that information will ultimately be made public.