The Missouri Republican says he heard the object is too large to move and is tied to claims of secret programs.
WASHINGTON, DC — Rep. Eric Burlison said he has heard reports of an unidentified object located outside the United States that is so large it cannot be moved, a claim the Missouri Republican discussed on television this week without naming a country or offering evidence.
The remarks landed in the middle of a new burst of public attention on unidentified anomalous phenomena, often called UAPs, as lawmakers press federal agencies for more transparency while officials warn that many sightings have ordinary explanations. Burlison, a member of the House Oversight Committee, framed the account as something he was told in a restricted setting and said he was trying to learn whether any government offices or contractors hold UAP-related material.
In the Newsmax interview, Burlison said he had been told of an object “not in this country” that was so big it could not be relocated and was being protected at its location. He did not say who provided the information, when it was relayed to him, or what kind of object it was described to be. Burlison also said he would not identify the country because, he said, he was trying to protect the level of classified access associated with what he had heard.
Burlison’s statements quickly spread online, where they mixed with older rumors in UAP circles about a craft too large to transport and a structure built to conceal it. Some commentators linked Burlison’s comments to previous claims by journalist Ross Coulthart, who has said on podcasts that the U.S. government has knowledge of a large object overseas and that a building was constructed over it. Burlison did not confirm a specific location, and in the interview he suggested he did not want to add fuel to speculation based on open-source satellite imagery.
The episode highlights a recurring split in the modern UAP debate: lawmakers and advocates say they want verified documentation, while the loudest claims often arrive as secondhand accounts that cannot be independently checked. In his on-air remarks, Burlison described the issue as a fight for access inside government, arguing that briefings, permissions, and jurisdictional boundaries can make it difficult even for members of Congress to confirm or disprove what they have been told. He said he was still trying to determine what is real and what is rumor.
Neither Burlison nor the program provided documents, photographs, coordinates, or other details that would allow outside verification. Burlison also did not claim he had personally seen the object, visited a site, or reviewed records confirming that a physical craft exists. Instead, he characterized the account as something he had heard and wanted to investigate further, while emphasizing that he was not prepared to discuss specifics in public.
Public attention to UAPs has grown over the past several years as Congress held hearings and the Pentagon created offices to receive reports and review sightings. At a House hearing in 2025, Burlison presented video from a U.S. drone operation that, according to testimony at the hearing, appeared to show a missile striking an object near Yemen and then continuing on its path. In televised coverage of that hearing, former Pentagon official Luis “Lue” Elizondo said the clip raised questions because the impact did not resemble typical missile strikes, while other details about the mission were not publicly explained.
That 2025 hearing and others like it have brought a mix of national security concerns and public fascination into the same room. Lawmakers have pointed to the volume of reports received by the government and the need for consistent reporting and analysis, while officials have cautioned that “unidentified” does not mean “extraterrestrial.” Many cases are later explained as balloons, drones, misidentified aircraft, or sensor errors, and some remain unresolved because of limited data.
In an earlier House proceeding focused on UAPs, Burlison questioned witnesses about whether any part of the U.S. government or defense contractors possess “technology” connected to these incidents. During that exchange, Elizondo referenced documentation and a past effort by a contractor to transfer material collected decades ago, then said details about who might hold any such material could not be discussed in an open hearing. The back-and-forth underscored how the topic often turns on classified settings, where lawmakers say they receive briefings that cannot be fully described in public.
Burlison’s newest claim, however, was different in one key way: he described an object overseas that he said was immovable because of its size, raising questions about how such a site could be secured, who would control access, and what role the United States would have in another country. Burlison did not answer those questions directly on air, and he did not say whether the account involved a U.S. military partner, a defense contractor, an intelligence arrangement, or a separate foreign effort.
After the interview, the story moved across social media in fragments, with some posts treating Burlison’s remarks as confirmation of long-running allegations about “crash retrieval” programs. Others criticized the claim as irresponsible, arguing that a public official should not amplify extraordinary assertions without presenting verifiable evidence or at least clarifying what he knows firsthand. Several online threads also questioned whether citing secrecy and classification, without providing a path for corroboration, makes it harder for the public to separate fact from folklore.
Some foreign researchers and commentators have pushed back on the idea that a conspicuous structure overseas is hiding a giant craft, noting that large domes and radar-related installations exist for conventional reasons and often date back decades. Those rebuttals have circulated alongside the speculation, but the debate has largely unfolded in the absence of a single, confirmed site tied to Burlison’s remarks. Because he did not name a country or provide records, it remains unclear what specific claim he was referencing, whether it was based on intelligence reporting, hearsay, or a mix of sources.
The political stakes are also complicated. UAP discussions in Congress have drawn bipartisan interest at times, with lawmakers pushing for records collection, reporting standards, and oversight mechanisms, while skeptics warn that the issue can become a magnet for misinformation. For agencies, there is a separate concern: if a report involves sensitive surveillance systems, military operations, or intelligence sources and methods, officials may be reluctant to release details even when they believe an object has a mundane explanation.
Burlison, in his public comments, leaned into the oversight argument. He said he wants answers about whether the United States is “alone in the universe,” but he also described the immediate task as sorting claims that can be documented from those that cannot. He said that if he obtains definitive proof, including physical or video evidence he considers conclusive, he would be prepared to speak publicly about what it shows. He did not describe what standard of proof he would apply, or which office would validate it.
For now, the claim sits in the same category as many other high-profile UAP allegations: attention-grabbing, hard to test from the outside, and dependent on what can be confirmed in closed sessions. Burlison has not announced a formal inquiry tied to the overseas object, and no agency has publicly acknowledged such a site. The most immediate next step, based on Burlison’s own description, would be additional classified briefings and requests for records that could confirm whether the account is grounded in official reporting or is simply a story circulating through the UAP community.
Author note: Last updated February 20, 2026.