A 2025 parliamentary answer said the UK had not joined international groups “specifically focused on UAP” since May 2023. Public reporting of a Five Eyes working-group meeting that month leaves unanswered questions about the answer’s scope, not proof of a contradiction.
Labour MP Clive Lewis says he was “definitely misled” by a Ministry of Defence response about UK cooperation with Five Eyes partners on unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP. His criticism, reported after an on-record conversation with Sol Foundation executive director Peter Skafish, centres on a written parliamentary answer published in September 2025.
The MoD said the United Kingdom had not participated in international groupings “specifically focused on UAP” since May 2023. Lewis’s concern arises alongside reporting of an inaugural Five Eyes UAP Caucus Working Group meeting dated 24 May 2023.
The central gap is whether Britain attended that meeting, belonged to the group, or took part in later activity. The public material cited in reports of the dispute does not answer those questions, so it does not establish that the MoD’s wording was false.
The parliamentary answer under scrutiny
- Written question 69989 asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the UK had participated in international groupings focused on UAP since May 2023. In its answer of 4 September 2025, the MoD said it had not participated in any international groupings “specifically focused on UAP” since that date.
- That qualifying word is at the centre of the disagreement. The parliamentary record confirms the question and the answer, but it does not define what the MoD counted as a grouping specifically focused on UAP.
- It does not say whether a one-off meeting, attendance by another UK body, or UAP discussion within a wider defence or intelligence forum would have fallen within that definition. Nor does it explain how the department applied the phrase “since May 2023” to events during that month.
- Those missing details could affect how the answer is read, but they cannot on their own demonstrate that it was misleading. Lewis’s accusation is his assessment of the answer and surrounding information; there is no public finding by a court, parliamentary committee or independent investigator that the department deliberately deceived him.
What is known about the reported Five Eyes meeting
Liberation Times linked Lewis’s remarks to what it described as an official Pentagon agenda for the inaugural Five Eyes UAP Caucus Working Group, dated 24 May 2023. The publication treated that agenda as the basis for the apparent tension between the parliamentary answer and allied UAP coordination.
UAPRAD separately summarised the Lewis-Skafish discussion and connected it to Lewis’s earlier parliamentary questions. It characterised the exchange as a discussion of transparency and oversight, rather than new publicly testable evidence about the origin of unresolved UAP.
Neither specialist account provides a public attendance list, minutes, terms of reference or a UK departmental explanation of the meeting. The reports therefore establish a claimed documentary basis for questions about the MoD response, not British attendance or membership.
The date creates a separate ambiguity. The MoD answer says “since May 2023,” while the reported meeting took place in May; publicly available summaries do not clarify whether the department meant after the month, after a particular day, or used another administrative boundary.
A narrow policy question, with a wider oversight issue
UAPRAD says the MoD told Lewis that its dedicated UAP investigation function ended in 2009 and that it had neither conducted nor commissioned UAP studies since 2013. Those reported positions help explain why the 2025 answer was framed narrowly, but they do not resolve whether UAP-related matters were discussed with allies elsewhere in government.
Ending a dedicated investigation function is not, on its own, evidence that no UAP-related material could be discussed elsewhere in government or with partner states.
Likewise, the reported existence of a Five Eyes working group does not demonstrate a UK role, continuing coordination or a contradiction in the parliamentary answer. A forum’s existence and a country’s participation in it are different questions.
The issue is one of government disclosure and the limits of an official answer, rather than evidence for an extraordinary explanation of any aerial sighting. The parliamentary answer contains no disclosed operational intelligence, classified exchanges or assessment of individual UAP cases.
Editorial analysis
Analysis: the disclosure that would settle the dispute
The MoD may have used “specifically focused on UAP” accurately under an internal definition while leaving unresolved questions about allied forums that addressed UAP among broader defence or intelligence matters. Lewis’s response shows the answer did not settle those questions for him.
A categorical MoD response could materially clarify the matter without revealing sensitive content: whether any UK representative attended the 24 May 2023 meeting, whether the UK was a member or observer, and whether any related engagement followed. Until then, claims of a proven contradiction exceed the published record, while the scope of the original answer remains unresolved.
Sources
Follow the story
Jennice Vilhauer Says ODNI Meeting Covered Plan for Possible NHI Confirmation
In a September 3 post, the UAP Science Advisory Council member described preparedness planning discussed at an August 31 meeting; no plan or…
Roscommon Herald Reports RTÉ Documentary on Boyle Lights and Lough Key Experiment
The reported film follows astronomer Dr Eamonn Ansbro’s inquiry into local accounts and a planned public test; RTÉ has not announced a broadcast…
Times of India Attributes UAP, Trump Legacy Comments to Avi Loeb
The August 27 video frames the remarks as a White House dispute, but provides no underlying interview or official record establishing Loeb as…