New Emails Reveal Pentagon Effort to Align Messaging on AATIP and Luis Elizondo - The Black Vault

Neill Tipton A newly released series of Pentagon emails from May 2019 reveals an internal contradiction at the center of the Department of Defense’s narrative on the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program ( AATIP ) and Luis Elizondo. At the center of the records is a May 7, 2019, email from senior Pentagon official Neill Tipton , former Director of Defense Intelligence for Collection and Special Programs, which states in clear terms that Elizondo “had no assigned responsibilities” related to AATIP during his time under Tipton within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Yet the same batch of emails, along with previously released records published by The Black Vault as released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), shows Tipton was directly communicating with Elizondo about AATIP, reviewing a memo to assume responsibilities tied to it, and participating in internal discussions about how the Department should respond to inquiries on the subject. Continue scrolling for more... The newly uncovered email chain also shows that Tipton’s statement did not stand uncontested internally. Instead, it prompted immediate concern among Pentagon officials about contradictions, prior statements, and the need to keep messaging consistent. Tipton’s Core Statement In the May 7, 2019, email, Tipton wrote: “Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for this program… Elizondo worked for me from 2010 to early 2012.” He added: “At the time he was assigned to me, he brought with him no responsibilities for AATIP (and I was unaware of its existence).” The language is precise and limited in scope, focusing specifically on Elizondo’s time under Tipton within OSD. Immediate Internal Reaction A follow-up email sent later that day by an individuals name that was redacted reflects concern about how the statement could be interpreted: “Neill raises an important issue here—the Department may be putting itself in an awkward position of both contradicting previous ‘statements’ (however they may have been misconstrued) and potential statements from Senator Reid…” The message continues: “As for other, more recent history, I am happy to discuss in person or in another venue/media.” This indicates that additional context existed but was not being fully revealed in the written response. It also suggests that further discussion was being moved to another setting, outside the documented email exchange, which would limit what is preserved in the official record and subject to a future FOIA disclosure. Defining the Scope of the Pentagon’s Answer Another email in the chain further clarifies the Department’s internal reasoning: “The issue for us… is that when we answer, we’re answering for all of DoD, for all of Elizondo’s time in DoD, not just his time in OUSD(I).” It continues: “So while he may not have had any assigned responsibilities for these programs while in OUSD(I), if he did work on these programs while assigned to a different DoD organization… we have to confirm that—or confirm that he didn’t work on them at any time while assigned to DoD, whichever is true.” This internal discussion highlights why the Pentagon’s statement was narrowly framed. It addressed only a specific period and organizational context, rather than Elizondo’s entire time within the Department of Defense. What remains unclear is why the broader context was not included, particularly given the existence of other documented exchanges. Whether additional information influenced how the statement was constructed is not addressed in the available records. Messaging Coordination By May 8, 2019, the email chain shows awareness that the issue extended beyond a single response: “I was asked this afternoon to discuss a FOIA issue which I can only imagine is related to this… we will have to keep our messages in synch.” That same email introduces an important distinction: “There is also a distinction to be made between old, wound-down programs and normal coordination/facilitation within DoD and the IC…” This suggests that internally, officials were grappling with how to define AATIP itself, Elizondo’s role, if any, and how to respond to the public in a unified, synchronized, way. Documented Exchanges With Elizondo 21-FR-0964 Release of the AATIP Memo – “Release” on March 29, 2024. Received August 21, 2024. The significance of these internal discussions becomes clearer when compared to previously released records obtained by The Black Vault. In a September 25, 2017, email, Elizondo wrote to Tipton: “Per SECDEF’s Front Office guidance to you and me, I took the liberty of drafting a memo… that helps you better assume the new responsibilities for AATIP.” Tipton responded days later: “Getting spun back up. Will read and get thoughts back today or tomorrow…” These exchanges show that Tipton and Elizondo were in direct communication about AATIP, including a draft memorandum outlining responsibilities. Those exchanges are not referenced in Tipton’s May 7, 2019, email. The