David Grusch has made multiple claims under oath that the DoD is covering up a UAP retrieval and reverse engineering program. He has given the names and locations of those involved with these programs to multiple government agencies with classified clearance. Seemingly in response his previously private medical history of having PTSD have been leaked to the media in a sloppy attempt at discrediting. But if we break down these facts, it confirms his claims rather than refuting them. Here’s why:

• If Grusch fabricated his claims under oath then the DoD had a simple way to stop him. Have him charged with perjury. A far more damning public impact than announcing he had PTSD. If he was lying, submitting evidence of these lies to congress would be a trivial response to execute.

• Any government office intentionally leaking someone's private medical issues is an illegal (or at minimum highly unethical) activity which makes no sense to engage in if Grusch was simply lying. The Intercept journalist has now stated he was given “vague tips” by an intel community source within hours of Grusch’s testimony to Congress. This is an extreme response. Why commit an unethical smear campaign to attack a witness who is committing perjury about a subject which should be harmless? Harmless if no UAP program exists.

• Grusch testified on July 26th. The FOIA request for the police report was officially filed within 96 hours of Grusch’s testimony at 2:30pm on July 30th. An incredibly rapid turnaround time for any journalist to become aware of such a critical document. source: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23903966/loudon-county-sheriff-request-redacted.pdf

• Who knew about his PTSD medical history and would be motivated to lead a reporter to publicize this? The Intercept article specifically quotes a “former colleague” from the intelligence community that the 2014 PTSD incident was known to Grusch’s superiors. This means the reporter was speaking with someone connected enough in the intelligence community who had access, knowledge and top secret clearance to what the chain of command above Grusch knew:

  "The former colleague said that the 2014 incident was known to Grusch’s superiors" source: https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/ufo-david-grusch-clearance/

• What would be the motivation for seeking and publishing this, since the intelligence community was well aware of the PTSD issues already? Intelligence officials did not deem his PTSD to be any obstacle to confirming Grusch’s top secret security clearances. So what motives explain a media outlet seeking out and publishing his private medical history? None seem logical except a clumsy attempt to publicly smear and discredit him because they can’t dispute his factual claims.

• Grusch accused agents within the DoD of committing illegal activities to keep the program secret. This leak demonstrates exactly the kind of reprisals, public smear tactic, and malicious intimidation he reported to the U.S. Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General in 2022.

• Grusch pre-disclosed his PTSD in his interview to NewsNation, showing he anticipated this type of reprisal. This portion of the interview was never aired. The fact the people behind the DoD program decided to proceed with this public smear attack proves he was correct in his assessments of their disturbing and unethical reprisal campaigns.

• FOIA requests can take weeks or even months to fulfill. While a public body must respond to a FOIA request within 20 business days, there is no specific time frame by which they must fulfill the request. The journalist filed his FOIA request on July 30th after receiving tip from the anonymous US intel source. Within 10 days the journalist received completely unredacted documents detailing medical issues of an U.S. intelligence operative with top secret classification credentials. Documents containing detailed information including details like which hospital treated Grusch’s PTSD. Much of the information included violates HIPA law and would normally be redacted or denied for just an average citizen. Both the speed and the surprising lack of regard privacy law in the document release suggest agencies within the government helped this process along.

• The Intercept author now admits he was given information from a source within the US intelligence community leading him to request these specific documents:

  ”Intel people, they’re vague — they’ll be like, ‘Look into his background,'” he said. As a reporter, Klippenstein said, he can’t just post “innuendo,” so he tried to find an evidence-based way to look into these tips. source: https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/intercept-reporter-vague-tips-ufo-whistleblower/amp/

• Either Grusch spoke to 40 people who work with and have knowledge of a UAP retrieval program or he made it up. If it’s fiction, all those people can certainly dispute they’re involved. The DoD should have no problem disputing their job roles or proving they don’t exist. But instead they chose a brutal public attack tactic which explicitly demonstrates the threat to any other potential whistleblowers. They should expect their deepest private flaws and personal life to be exposed to the media for everyone to see.

• There’s no logical reason for the intelligence community to publicly smear Grusch if he is what they want you to believe: a tragically delusional Afghanistan veteran with PTSD.

The facts support the claim the DoD have a UAP retrieval program. That they have gone to illegal lengths to keep it secret. And that’s no moral or ethical boundary they’re unwilling to violate to hold onto their power and secrecy.

If Grusch is making false claims under oath about the DoD, why smear him using medical history instead of having him charged with perjury?

(edit: adding more details, correcting/clarifying inaccurate portions, additional sources)