Back to news

JD Vance tells Joe Rogan he remains skeptical of alien-remains claims

Vice President JD Vance said he remains interested in UAP questions and finds some released videos unusual, but doubts that the U.S. government could hold alien remains without stronger evidence leaking.

JD Vance tells Joe Rogan he remains skeptical of alien-remains claims
The Hill video report thumbnail distributed by Yahoo News, showing Vice President JD Vance beside released UAP imagery.

A July 16 video report distributed by The Hill and Yahoo News highlighted Vice President JD Vance's discussion of UFOs on Joe Rogan Experience episode 2526, released the previous day. Vance said he had repeatedly intended to examine the issue but had not made it a priority amid legislative and foreign-policy work. He expressed interest, not the result of a completed government inquiry.

Vance said he had spoken with former intelligence official David Grusch after Grusch appeared on Rogan's program. He separated crash-retrieval allegations from declassified videos and other possible evidence, saying he did not know which claims were true. He described some released footage as unusual and said he was trying to keep an open mind.

On the narrower claim that the United States possesses physical remains of extraterrestrials, Vance said he was skeptical. His argument was not that such material is physically impossible, but that a program involving extraordinary remains would be difficult to keep from producing clearer leaks, especially in an era of small cameras and many personnel with access.

Rogan countered that sensitive facilities can screen personnel and prohibit devices. Vance acknowledged the counterargument while maintaining his doubt about secrecy at the necessary scale. The exchange produced no new document, image, program name or first-hand official evidence; it was a public debate about plausibility and institutional competence.

The remarks matter because they show how a sitting vice president frames UAP questions: interested in reviewing them, open to unexplained observations and doubtful of the strongest custody claims. They should not be read as confirmation that an investigation has begun, nor as a formal government conclusion that every UAP report has a conventional explanation.