Eric Davis Discusses Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADS)
In a recent talk, Eric Davis shed light on Presidential Emergency Action Documents, commonly referred to as PEADS. Established during President Eisenhower’s administration in the 1950s, PEADS enable extraordinary presidential authority in critical situations without the need for congressional oversight.
Davis explained that these classified documents play a crucial role in keeping unacknowledged Special Access Programs (SAPs) and UAP crash retrieval initiatives out of the reach of Congress. The PEADS are not disclosed to Congress and have never been leaked; in fact, they have never been shared outside the executive branch. Although a few members of the ‘Gang of Eight’ in Congress have received briefings about UAPs, those discussions were limited to the general nature of the phenomenon, rather than specific details involving PEADS.
Additionally, the legacy UAP programs, both waived and acknowledged Special Access Programs, rely on contractual relationships with select defense industry firms that work closely with certain U.S. government agencies. These contracts are typically sole source agreements, which are not open to public bidding due to security concerns. Consequently, there’s little transparency around these programs, making it difficult for Congress to identify which programs to potentially defund when it comes to the power of the purse—since they lack awareness of which programs exist and who oversees them.
For more insights from Davis, check out his full presentation at the SOL Conference 2024. Watch here.
Eric Davis’s discussion on Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADS) sheds light on a significant but often overlooked aspect of U.S. governance regarding national security and classified programs. The fact that these documents allow for extraordinary presidential authority without Congressional oversight raises important questions about transparency and accountability in government.
The origins of PEADS under Eisenhower highlight how long-standing structural issues can persist and evolve, particularly around sensitive topics like Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and defense programs. The lack of disclosure to Congress means that elected officials, and by extension, the public, remain in the dark about critical activities that could impact national security and trust in government.
Davis’s mention of the exclusive contracts held by defense intelligence firms adds another layer of complexity. It suggests a closed loop where information is tightly controlled, potentially sidelining public interest and oversight. This thirst for accountability makes it crucial for Congress to exercise its power, but as Davis points out, the challenge lies in not knowing which programs to target for defunding due to the secrecy surrounding them.
The implications of this discussion are profound, indicating a need for reform in how classified programs are managed and monitored. Increased transparency could rebuild public trust and ensure that vital national security activities do not operate without checks and balances. As these issues continue to surface in public discourse, it is essential for citizens and lawmakers to engage in conversations about how to align national security efforts with democratic principles of oversight and accountability.