Christopher Mellon: The UFO Lobbyist — Advocate or Opportunist?

13 min readJun 6, 2023

Chris Mellon, a former senior Pentagon intelligence official, has played a vital and visible role accelerating the conversation surrounding Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs), commonly known as UFOs. His extensive experience in government bureaucracy and strong network within political and defense circles have enabled him to effectively lobby Congress and the Department of Defense (DoD) for serious consideration of the UAP issue. But open-source research related to Mellon’s potential conflicts of interest and potential noncompliance with lobbying regulations raises questions about his activities. This article examines Mellon’s contributions to the UAP conversation, the potential legal implications of his lobbying efforts, and his untold background in information and psychological operations.

Mellon’s Influence on UAP “Transparency”

Christopher Mellon’s strategic endeavors with To the Stars Academy (TTSA) have thrust the UAP issue into public dialogue, prompting media interest, congressional inquiries, and policy shifts in the Navy. However, these efforts invite scrutiny under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995. Mellon’s interactions with Congress and the Department of Defense, influence on policy, and financial gains from TTSA suggest that he may qualify as a lobbyist under the LDA. Failure to register as such could potentially breach the Act’s provisions.

Christopher Mellon’s strategic acumen and public engagement have significantly pushed the UAP issue into public consciousness. His role with the To the Stars Academy (TTSA) has stirred media interest, fostered official Congressional inquiries, and catalyzed policy changes within the Navy. Leveraging his bureaucratic proficiency, Mellon has been instrumental in advancing the UAP “transparency” cause.

Bill Cox attests that TTSA, due in large part to Mellon’s involvement, “succeeded in getting the issue on the front page of the New York Times” and “facilitated official inquiries by Congress.” Mellon’s direct engagement with Congress and facilitation of witness testimonies led to language changes in the Senate UAP report and policy shifts within the Navy.

Lue Elizondo commends Mellon’s ability to navigate governmental bureaucracy, stating in an Open Minds UFO Radio interview, “Chris Mellon knows how to swim through government bureaucracy, like a shark.” Mellon and his TTSA counterparts understood the significance of public involvement in pressuring Congress and the DoD, leading to strategic efforts that included sparking a media frenzy to capture the attention of military, intelligence leaders, and Congress.

Mellon’s contribution through TTSA has underscored the importance of understanding unexplained aerial incidents. As he indicated in The Washington Post, “We should know who is operating in U.S. airspace. And everyone can agree on that.”

However, while Mellon’s contributions have been impactful, it is essential to note that his lobbying activities and TTSA’s operations raise questions about compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995. Mellon’s lobbying contacts, influence on policy changes, and financial compensation from TTSA suggest that he and TTSA may meet the criteria for lobbying activities under the LDA. Failure to register under the LDA, if required, could potentially violate its provisions. This is a significant matter that requires further scrutiny, given that Mellon’s actions, while instrumental in bringing attention to UAPs, might inadvertently place him and TTSA under the purview of the LDA.

Given these facts, established by the public record, questions emerge concerning whether Mellon or TTSA’s activities comply with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (“LDA”), as amended by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 — a federal statute requires the registration and regular reporting of certain lobbying activities. The relevant provisions include:

Definition of Lobbying Activities: The LDA defines lobbying activities as “lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation and planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with the lobbying activities of others.” (2 U.S.C. §1602(7))
Definition of Lobbyist: A “lobbyist” is defined as any individual who is either employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client over a six month period. (2 U.S.C. §1602(10))
Registration Requirements: Lobbyists are required to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives within 45 days after making or being employed to make a lobbying contact, unless the individual’s lobbying activities constitute less than 20% of their time engaged in services for that client over a six month period. (2 U.S.C. §1603)

Based on the facts noted above, it appears likely Christopher Mellon’s work for TTSA involved lobbying activities as defined by the LDA. His role involved making lobbying contacts by engaging Congress and the Department of Defense, leveraging his experience and connections, and bringing witnesses forward to testify on UAP issues. This work is directly intended to influence legislation surrounding UAPs, as reflected in his efforts to have specific language adopted in Senate reports and other policy changes within the Navy.

Moreover, Mellon seems to meet the LDA definition of a lobbyist. He was retained by TTSA and compensated, including through consulting fees and stock-based compensation. His lobbying activities, as described, appear to represent a significant portion of his services to TTSA, potentially exceeding the 20% threshold over a six month period. This fact would need further exploration and confirmation. In particular, as of June 30, 2021, TTSA paid Mellon $150,000 for his services. This amount consists of $100,000 in consulting fees and $50,000 in stock-based compensation. The consulting fees were paid monthly at a rate of $10,000 per month for providing “strategic advice and guidance to the company on its science and aerospace projects.” The stock-based compensation is based on the grant of 10,000 shares of Class A Common Stock to Christopher Mellon on January 1, 2020, which vest over a period of two years. Except, as noted in previous articles, TTSA never engaged in any science or aerospace projects.

In terms of lobbying registration, if Mellon’s lobbying activities constituted more than 20% of his time over a six-month period, he would be required to register under the LDA. Given that neither Mellon nor TTSA registered pursuant to the LDA, they could be in violation of its provisions if the 20% threshold was indeed exceeded.

For TTSA’s part, the company could be viewed as a de facto lobbying organization under the LDA, given its extensive involvement in lobbying activities, facilitated by Mellon. TTSA’s role in coordinating lobbying activities, including working to raise public awareness and interest intended to pressure Congress and the DoD, could subject it to similar registration and disclosure requirements under the LDA.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Christopher Mellon’s advocacy for UAP transparency, in conjunction with his past lobbying activities for Xpedion Design Systems, raises potential conflicts of interest. Xpedion, now part of Keysight Technologies, specializes in sky object detection and supporting technologies, a field that could see a significant boost due to Mellon’s public promotion of UAP issues. Furthermore, Mellon’s post-employment involvement with Xpedion, under the disbanded Mellon Strategic Consulting (MSC) work, initiated just eight months after leaving his position at the Senate Intelligence Committee, coupled with a questionable 1900% increase in payment from Xpedion to the defunct MSC, calls for comprehensive investigation. This interplay of Mellon’s advocacy for UAP transparency and his ties with firms whose fortunes could swing favorably due to increased interest in UAPs necessitates further scrutiny to ensure ethical standards are upheld.

In addition to issues related to LDA, research has revealed additional information concerning potential conflicts of interest. Namely, Christopher Mellon’s extensive public engagement on the topic of UFOs is a matter that pertains directly to the financial interests of a company he previously lobbied for over a span of four years: Xpedion Design Systems, a firm known for manufacturing instruments that significantly enhance the efficiency of the military’s ability to detect, identify, and characterize objects in the sky. Following his tenure in public service, Christopher Mellon established Mellon Strategic Consulting, LLC (MSC) in Washington, D.C. in 2004.

MSC catered to defense and intelligence contractors, with clients such as Xpedion Design Systems. From 2004 to 2007, Xpedion annually compensated MSC with the payments never exceeding $50,000 and dwindling to under $5,000 in 2007.

On November 12, 2007, Mellon voluntarily disbanded MSC, ceasing its business license in Washington, D.C. Intriguingly, in the subsequent year, Xpedion, a longstanding five-year client of MSC, paid $100,000 to MSC, marking a staggering 1,900% increase from its 2017 payment.

Despite no longer serving as an active director of MSC, Mellon retained his status as a registered lobbyist. He acquired lobbying contracts in 2008 and 2009, including contracts with Xpedion. This transpired even though MSC had officially been dissolved the previous year. During these years, Mellon maintained communication with Congress, the Department of Defense, the White House, and the intelligence community.

Xpedion Design Systems, which was bought out by Agilent Technologies in 2006, is renowned for its flagship product, GoldenGate. This is an RFIC simulation and verification software extensively employed by numerous companies designing RFICs. Following the acquisition, Agilent incorporated GoldenGate into its EEsof EDA division and rebranded it as Agilent GoldenGate. Agilent continued to enhance and support the software until 2014, when it spun off its electronic measurement business as Keysight Technologies. As of now, Keysight is the proprietor of the GoldenGate software, and it forms part of its comprehensive PathWave Advanced Design System (ADS) suite, which serves as a platform for designing, analyzing, and verifying RFICs.

Between 2008 and 2011, Keysight Technologies Inc. (formerly Agilent Technologies) was granted 382 contracts with the Department of Defense, amassing a total worth of $143,367,281.39. Keysight Technologies supplies a range of advanced electronic equipment to various agencies within the Department of Defense (DoD). Notably, this equipment plays a significant role in optimizing the military’s ability to detect, identify, and characterize objects in the sky, although they are generally components of broader systems rather than independent solutions. Examples of these instruments include the Handheld Spectrum Analyzer, Versatile Diagnostic Automatic Test Station, Microwave Measuring Receivers, Oscilloscopes, Radio Frequency Vector Signal Generators, Field Box Microwave Analyzers, and Weapon System Network Analyzers.

For example, Versatile Diagnostic Automatic Test Stations (VDATS) test and measure various electronic components for among other military aircraft radar: the pulse-Doppler radar system used by the F-15 Eagle fighter jet, the multi-mode radar system used by the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar system used by the B-1 Lancer.

Each of these devices contributes uniquely to the military’s ability to effectively engage with airborne objects. The spectrum of capabilities these instruments provide, from directly examining spectral composition of waveforms to ensuring optimal functioning and reliability of electronic systems, these instruments significantly enhance the military’s capabilities in detecting and identifying objects in the sky.

Mellon’s role in promoting discussion and transparency around UAPs, whether intentional or not, has the potential to significantly enhance the business prospects of companies like Keysight Technologies. If Mellon’s advocacy were to lead to increased investment in detection and tracking technologies, or a surge in interest in research around aerial objects, companies that manufacture relevant technology, such as Keysight would stand to benefit. Should there be an uptick in demand for their products as a result of heightened interest in UAPs, Mellon’s public promotion of the UAP subject would be directly stimulate business growth for the company in form of military procurement contracts.

Christopher Mellon’s advocacy for UAP transparency raises questions of potential conflicts of interest due to his previous lobbying activities for Xpedion Design Systems and its successors, Agilent and Keysight Technologies, all of which could benefit significantly from heightened interest in aerial object detection technology. Additionally, his post-employment lobbying actions and unusual financial transactions with Xpedion, following the dissolution of his consulting firm are at a minimum highly suspicious. These complexities appear to blur the lines between Mellon’s public transparency mission and strategic initiatives favoring former or possibly ongoing clients, warranting further, more detailed investigation.

Mellon’s Background in Information and Psychological Operations

Beyond the apparent financial conflicts of interest associated with turning UFOs into a serious national security concern, Mellon’s numerous public engagements fail to mention his deep, professional experience conducting, coordinating, and overseeing psychological operations in his time at DoD and on the Hill.

Throughout his tenure in the Department of Defense and Senate Select Committee, Mellon played a critical role in the evolution of psychological or information operations. Though not explicitly stated in his biography, the impact and depth of his contributions can be inferred from his professional responsibilities and achievements.

As the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence from 1999 to 2002, Mellon managed the Special Operations and Combating Terrorism portfolio. This role likely involved devising policy and providing guidance for the application of psychological operations (PSYOP) and information operations (IO) within the Special Operations Forces’ missions. PSYOP and IO are integral aspects of modern military strategy, with the former focused on influencing the behavior of governments, organizations, and individuals, and the latter involving the combined use of electronic warfare, computer network operations, military deception, and operations security.

Similarly, in his role as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Security and Information Operations from 1998 to 1999, Mellon’s purview extended to policy and program oversight for the entire Department of Defense (DoD) concerning IO. His responsibilities encompassed critical areas such as cybersecurity, encryption, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Mellon also oversaw the DoD’s participation in interagency IO activities, ensuring coordination and effective action across different government entities.

As a staff member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 1989 to 1996, Mellon influenced legislation and oversight related to PSYOP and IO. His duties would have included participating in hearings and investigations on intelligence issues affecting national security, as well as drafting legislation related to these areas. Given his instrumental role in drafting the Cohen-Nunn Amendment, Mellon’s work would have helped shape the legal and organizational framework for the Special Operations Forces’ use of PSYOP and IO.

In 1988, Mellon delivered a speech at the National War College in 1988, where he explained the background, intent, and implementation of the Cohen-Nunn Act. He also shared his views on the importance and challenges of special operations and low-intensity conflict in the post-Cold War era. Mellon defined low-intensity conflict as a term that encompasses a wide range of political-military confrontations below general war, such as unconventional warfare, counterinsurgency, terrorism, and peacekeeping operations. He argued that these types of conflicts require a balanced and flexible approach that involves political, psychological, military, paramilitary, economic, social, diplomatic, and legal aspects. He also emphasized the need for innovation, adaptation, and professionalism in special operations forces, as well as adequate resources, training, and support. He acknowledged that the implementation of the Cohen-Nunn Act has been difficult and slow, but he was optimistic that progress has been made and will continue to be made.

Mellon’s considerable knowledge in psychological and information operations appears to be strategically deployed in advancing the UAP discourse, potentially serving the interests of his former (or current) client. His campaign to heighten public awareness around UAPs might indirectly stimulate growth in the detection and tracking technology sector, a domain in which his former (or current) client excels. While the legal implications and potential conflicts of interest surrounding Mellon’s actions require further examination, the current evidence suggests a complex intertwining of his advocacy work and his past professional engagements.

Conclusion

Mellon’s advocacy for UAP transparency is not as straightforward as it seems. His actions may not only breach the LDA, but also raise ethical concerns about his possible conflicts of interest and hidden agendas. His previous and possibly ongoing lobbying activities for companies that could benefit from increased interest in UAP detection technology suggest that he might be using his influence and expertise to serve his own interests or those of his former clients. Considering these facts, Mellon’s role in the UAP discourse demands formal investigative scrutiny from the appropriate authorities.

Disclaimer: Currently available information does not allow for conclusive determinations regarding the compliance, noncompliance, or liability of Christopher Mellon and/or To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science under provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, or any other referenced statute, rule, or regulation referenced here directly, or indirectly by implication of the facts. Any initial conclusions drawn by readers must be considered preliminary as further investigation may be necessary to validate them.