Lue Elizondo Issues Ultimatum to David Grusch Over Collusion Claims With James Clapper

Lue Elizondo has laid down a public ultimatum to David Grusch over claims that Elizondo secretly colluded with former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to run a controlled disclosure narrative. Elizondo says if Grusch or anyone else can prove that collusion happened, he will apologize publicly to the American people and leave ufology forever. If they cannot prove it, Elizondo says the deal should run the other way, with Grusch leaving the topic forever and the journalist involved never working as a journalist again.

This matters to anyone following the UFO disclosure conversation because it is effectively turning two of the most prominent names in the space, Elizondo and Grusch, into open rivals, with Ross Coulthart caught in the middle. I want to walk through how we got here, because there is a lot of back and forth worth unpacking, starting with Coulthart's response, moving through Elizondo's own hour and a half interview, and ending with the ultimatum itself.

Ross Coulthart Gives What I Consider a Non-Answer When Pressed on Elizondo

Before getting to Elizondo's own comments, Coulthart was asked directly to respond to the dispute after he and Grusch had raised questions about whether Elizondo actually held the supervisory role inside the Pentagon that he has described, and about the real nature of the AATIP program and its relationship to what Coulthart called the ASAP program. Coulthart said he likes and respects both men and does not doubt that Elizondo is a friend of disclosure, but said question marks have been raised historically about Elizondo's role.

Coulthart also said Elizondo remains constrained by his security oaths even after a presidential directive on non-disclosure agreements, and that if the president is serious about transparency, it would be important to see people like Elizondo released from those obligations. He added there is a method to the madness and that he has spoken to people inside the program who are supportive of Elizondo being able to speak more freely, before saying he would have to leave it at that.

In my view, that is just not much of an answer. Elizondo had not had kind things to say about Coulthart, yet Coulthart thanked him for his kind words on camera, which struck me as odd. I said on the video that it is all weird, that I do not really trust any of these people, and that we are all just watching it like a reality show, wondering what is actually going on, when what we actually want is proof and evidence of aliens rather than infighting.

Elizondo Defends Himself to Vinnie Adams and Calls the Clapper Claim Baseless

Elizondo sat down with podcaster Vinnie Adams for a wide-ranging interview, and when asked about the public disagreement with Grusch following Grusch's comments to Coulthart, Elizondo said he was disappointed and that the accusation upset him enough that he pulled over on the side of the road to record a video countering what he called baseless accusations. He argued that when someone goes on mainstream media, beyond the UFO community to people who have never taken the topic seriously, those viewers presume the information has already been vetted, and when it turns out to be completely false, that undermines not just the target of the misinformation but disclosure itself.

Elizondo said the claim that he colluded with Clapper on some sort of controlled disclosure never happened, and that all someone had to do was pick up the phone and call him to check, the way you would ask a neighbor if a rumor about them is true. He said using hearsay, described as "so and so I heard them say that," is not information, it is gossip, and that you have to show the receipts. He also said the fallout may make NewsNation reluctant to cover the topic again because of the backlash from airing information that was, in his words, completely wrong.

Here is where I have to push back hard, because Elizondo is describing exactly what he himself has done before. About a year and four months ago at a Disclosure Foundation event, Elizondo presented a photo he said was a lenticular UFO given to him by a civilian pilot, describing it on stage as silver, potentially 600 to 1,000 feet in diameter, and taken at 21,000 feet, while adding he could not vouch for the photo's veracity because he did not take it himself. That photo turned out to be an irrigation circle pulled from Google Maps, and it was debunked within about an hour of the livestream. Elizondo showed a second photo he described as a mothership that pilots had told him about, which turned out to be a reflection of a chandelier in a window, also debunked quickly. Elizondo did later acknowledge he was fooled both times, but in my opinion he has no real standing to lecture others about vetting sources or showing receipts when he presented unvetted pilot claims on a public stage himself.

Elizondo's Lawyer Ivan Henault Attacks Coulthart and Grusch, and a Congressman Fires Back

Elizondo's attorney Ivan Henault also weighed in publicly, saying he does not think Elizondo is litigious and arguing that fear of litigation is being used to manufacture a hero's journey for people like Grusch. Henault said Coulthart should stop calling himself a person with legal training because he displays the opposite of it, calling it an insecurity, and directly told Coulthart's producer Megan to tell him to stop, calling the situation weird.

Henault went further, accusing Grusch and others of always framing themselves as victims of a grand conspiracy involving secret forces, comparing it to villains from Star Wars or Harry Potter, and saying that unless someone is an American soldier in the Middle East facing real danger, they should not compare themselves to people in real danger. I found that ironic, since Elizondo himself has talked about being followed by black helicopters and facing reprisal, so the same criticism applies to his own client.

Henault also went after Missouri congressman Eric Burlison in one of his videos. Burlison responded on social media, writing that he was trying to have a family vacation when Elizondo's attorney decided to attack him, not for anything Burlison himself said, but for something someone else said who might have gotten information from one of Burlison's employees. Burlison posted a GIF joke about it and asked if anyone had a better one. As I see it, none of this proves anything either way, it is essentially Grusch's side versus Elizondo's side, with Coulthart aligned with Grusch and Henault speaking for Elizondo, and the rest of us watching it play out.

Elizondo Describes Meeting Grusch for the First Time, but I Do Not Buy the Details

In the same interview, Elizondo said he had never met Grusch until about a month or a month and a half earlier in Washington, D.C., at a dinner for the UAP Task Force that Grusch attended, either invited or uninvited depending on who you ask. Elizondo said he noticed people circling Grusch and getting heated, stepped in to ask what was going on, was told Grusch had been saying things that were not true, and then approached Grusch himself, gave him his direct phone number, and told him to call if he ever had questions rather than repeating false information.

Elizondo argued it would have been better for Grusch to call and validate the story before it went out, especially since Grusch had his number by then, and said he has spent the last ten years trying to get the truth out without violating his non-disclosure agreement. He said he is not worried about internet trolls, but that when someone gets on a program like NewsNation, which he says has been committed to disclosure, and puts out factually incorrect information, that is a real problem. He said Grusch is responsible for that but may not have the experience or media savvy to know better, so he is willing to give him a pass, and hopes Grusch will call him next time instead of putting out what Elizondo called nonsense.

I do not believe this story unfolded exactly the way Elizondo describes it. In an earlier video Elizondo had described Grusch as crying and himself swooping in to comfort him, and the added detail of handing out his personal number to someone he says he did not know sounds exaggerated to me. It struck me as ironic that Elizondo criticizes others for adding false narrative on top of a search for truth while doing something similar himself in the same interview.

The Ultimatum: Prove Collusion With Clapper or Leave Ufology Forever, Backed by a Polygraph Offer

Later in the interview, Elizondo said this is not a popularity contest and he does not need people to like him, but he does expect honesty, adding that anyone being paid to spread false information is part of the problem and that he has no sympathy for people pushing a narrative for an ulterior motive. He drew a distinction with someone who simply got bad information and is willing to be accountable, saying that is fine and everyone can move on.

He then made the offer directly: if Grusch or anyone else can prove that Elizondo colluded with Clapper to control the disclosure narrative, he will apologize publicly to the American people and leave ufology forever. But if they cannot prove it, Elizondo said the same standard should apply in reverse, with Grusch having to leave ufology and the journalist involved never working as a journalist again. He went further, offering to take a polygraph exam alongside the unnamed source of the claim, saying if he fails he will leave ufology and apologize, but if he passes and the other person fails, they have to leave the topic forever.

I called this a stupid ultimatum that is never going to happen, one Elizondo knows will not be taken up but that he thinks makes him sound tough and willing to put everything on the line for the truth. I also pointed out that polygraph results measure stress rather than truth, and that it is reasonable to assume someone as experienced as Elizondo could be trained to beat one. To me this whole exchange comes down to Grusch versus Elizondo, with Coulthart and Henault as proxies on either side, and I do not fully trust any of them, since none of them have shown proof or evidence, only accusations pointed at each other.

Where do you think this leaves the credibility of everyone involved in this dispute?