Rep. André Carson has turned the broader UAP transparency debate toward a specific deliverable: the government's unfinished public historical review. In a statement reported by The Hill on October 23, 2026, he called for the historical report's immediate release and criticized the administration's pace. The demand is documented in AOL’s republication of The Hill’s reporting.

The first volume sets the terms

AARO’s March 2024 Historical Record Report, Volume I explicitly promises a second volume. Its scope section assigns that follow-up findings from interviews and research completed between November 1, 2023, and April 15, 2024. Other passages reserve unresolved allegations and possible revisions to earlier findings for the sequel.

Volume I said AARO had found no empirical evidence of government or contractor reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial technology. That was the office's reported assessment of the material examined; the same document acknowledges further investigative work. Reading the commitment alongside the conclusion shows why publication of the follow-up is a concrete accountability question.

What Carson is asking to see

According to The Hill, Carson wants additional findings about historical military and intelligence inquiries, classified programs, investigative practices, and congressional notification. His statement describes the subjects a report should illuminate. It does not disclose its contents or establish that any particular alleged program exists.

Disclosure Diaries’ October 26 review also identifies Volume II as still unpublished. It relies on The Hill for Carson's statement, so it is a second reporting reference, not a separate interview. No released Volume II was located in this review.

The next document test

UFOsoldier analysis: A useful release would identify its evidence cutoff, explain which previously deferred claims were examined, and show whether any earlier conclusions changed. Supporting records and a clear explanation of withheld material would make that comparison more meaningful than a headline alone.

Public availability and delivery to congressional recipients are separate questions. The sources examined here do not establish what classified material Congress may already possess, nor why public release has taken so long. Those gaps should remain questions for officials, rather than become assumed answers about the report's findings.

Hero image: original AI-generated editorial illustration; it does not depict evidence from the reported events.