Who?
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) — Ranking Member, Oversight Subcommittee on Military & Foreign Affairs
LISTEN: Laslo & Subramanyam
#UAPWeek special — limited time SALE!*
*through end of week of May 12th (or when we run outta stakeout exclusives to post. Buckle up, fam! We trained for this…)
Ask a Pol asks:
Do you think you guys might need to provide the Pentagon a statutory answer so they know whether they have the authority to shoot these UAP — or ‘drones’ or ‘UAS’ (Unmanned Aircraft System)* — down on US soil?
*on Capitol Hill ‘drone’ is often used interchangeably with ‘UAP’ and ‘UAS’
Key Subramanyam:
“Yeah,” Rep. Suhas Subramanyam exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “I want to work with the rest of the committee on trying to push some legislation. One is also trying to expand the definition of covered entities so that more installations have the ability to defend themselves, trying to make sure that people are very clear on when and how they can respond and trying to make sure that, generally, the people and installations have the technology and tools to defend themselves when they know UAS is coming.”
ICYMI — April 29, 2025 Oversight hearing
Subscribe & pass it on — LIFETIME VIP MEMBERSHIP to Ask a Pol’s 5,000th subscriber!
Was craft recovered during 17 day Langley swarms?
You’ve been briefed on it but haven’t seen it?
“I haven't seen it myself, no,” Subramanyam says.
Have you guys requested to see it?
“Oh, no,” Subramanyam says. “Not yet.”
New bipartisan bill in works…?
”I had actually asked [Chair William Timmons] during the hearing, like, kind of privately, if he's willing to work together. He said, ‘Yes,’” Subramanyam says. “So very much so, I think there's going to be consensus around trying to do something. It’s just what we do.”
Caught our ear:
“I haven't seen significant change the first 100 days, but I'm hopeful that we can push for significant changes moving forward,” Subramanyam tells us of transparency — or the lack there of — in the Trump administration. “It's important.”
What should we ask Congress next?
Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), slightly edited for clarity.
TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Subramanyam (4-30-2025)
SCENE: The day after the House “Securing the Skies: Addressing Unauthorized Drone Activity Over Military Installations” on April 29th, Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo runs into Rep. Suhas Subramanyam as he makes his way to a vote on the House floor.
It’s the first time they’ve met, so Laslo starts by introducing himself to the freshman congressman.
Matt Laslo: “I used to be the correspondent for Virginia Public Radio for years…”
Suhas Subramanyam: “Oh nice.”
ML: “…and I was also WAMU’s correspondent.”
SS: “Oh yeah, absolutely.”
ML: “But it’s interesting, I was watching that hearing yesterday. What’d you…?”
SS: “Which one?”
ML: “The one on — not Langley, but the one tangential to Langley.”
SS: “Oh yes. Yeah, yeah.”
ML: “Did you — like what was your takeaway from that?”
Laslo passes the congressman a business card for his wire service, The LCB.
ML: “That's me.”
SS: “Oh, great, yeah. The LCB, that's awesome.”
SS: “What was my takeaway? Oh, I think we are all in agreement that there's a problem when it comes to UAS and flying over military installations, and really over any critical infrastructure. The rear admiral made a point that I agree with, which is, we've developed the technology for UAS offense but not really for UAS defense.”
ML: “Yeah. Right?”
SUBSCRIBER-ONLY CONTENT*
*Student? Lost a gig? Blind? Health issues?
Got you. No questions asked. Just ping us.
SS: “It's kind of a hodgepodge of things that isn't always effective. And then, you know, another person made a point about trying to shoot em all down with a shotgun. And it's not so simple. Because one, you have to be really good at shooting a shotgun. Two, when you shoot something down and it falls somewhere, and often there's homes, there's even critical infrastructure around some of these installations. So you know, we have to figure out a better way to address all those, streamline things, make things more effective.”
ML: “And that was where yesterday was interesting, because last year, Senator [Tim] Kaine pushed the heads of North and South Com on it, and he said the big problem with Langley is rules of engagement over suburban areas, which is different than Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, but it kind of seems like the Pentagon — it seems like some members are like, ‘No, the Pentagon has the green light.’ What is it? [130i] or whatever, but the Pentagon doesn't seem to think that. Do you think you guys might need a statutory answer too?”
SS: “Yeah. I think, I want to work with the rest of the committee on trying to push some legislation. One is also trying to expand the definition of covered entities so that more installations have the ability to defend themselves, trying to make sure that people are very clear on when and how they can respond, and trying to make sure that generally the people and installations have the technology and tools to defend themselves when they know UAS is coming.”
ML: “And so now one of your colleagues on the Republican side told me that Pentagon didn't shoot one down with that during that 17 day incursion over Langley, that one of them crashed and that it's been retrieved. Have you seen that?”
SS: “Yeah.”
ML: “Or have you guys gotten testimony on that?”
ICYMI — did the Pentagon recover a craft at Langley?
SS: “I've gotten a briefing on it. Yeah. I'll just say generally that, identifying UAS is very difficult. That's what makes it a very difficult proposition.”
ML: “Yeah?”
SS: “And you know, overall, we have to figure out a better detection system. We have to figure out a way to identify where they're coming from and who is sending them, right? These are all important.”
ML: “So when you saw images of it, was it intact or was it just totally wrecked in a million pieces?”
SS: “Which images are you talking about, because I don’t know if I saw images.”
ML: “Oh, because you said they retrieved one that crashed.”
SS: “Oh they retrieved, oh yeah.”
ML: “But you’ve been briefed on it but haven’t seen it?”
SS: “I haven't seen it myself, no.”
ML: “Have you guys requested to see it?”
SS: “Oh, no. Not yet.”
ML: “And you’re not Intel?”
SS: “I'm not on Intel.”
ML: “They get all the fun.”
SS: “They do get all the fun.”
ML: “Mr. [Mark] Warner.”*
*Dean of Virginia’s congressional delegation is also vice-chair of the Senate inteligence Committee.
SS: “But I did get a classified briefing. The same one he got.”
ML: “Do you — I mean, because him and Kaine came out of there pissed off, like, ‘hey, a year after Langley incursion and the Pentagon still doesn’t know what’s going on.’”
SS: “That’s the reason why we had that hearing.”
ML: “Yeah? Do you guys — all the Republican colleagues are like, ‘oh, the administration’s so transparent, they’re releasing all this stuff,’ but no, like, practically, it doesn't seem there’s been any real change in stance. Do you have any more questions?”
SS: “I haven't seen significant change the first 100 days, but I'm hopeful that we can push for significant changes moving forward because I think it's important. We're talking about protecting American people. We're talking about very valuable military assets. I mean, we've got F-22’s at Langley, so, you know, at the very least, we want to make sure that other nation’s can't just easily do reconnaissance anytime they want. Even the threat of being able to fight back against UAS, very important.”
ML: “And Timmons, he seems like a serious guy?”
SS: “Yeah, I had actually asked him during the hearing, like, kind of privately if he's willing to work together. He said, ‘Yes.’”
ML: “Oh good. Cool.”
SS: “So very much so I think there's going to be consensus around trying to do something, it’s just what we do.”
ML: “Cool. I'll be watching.”
SS: “Yeah.”
ML: “Good to meet you.”
SS: “Yeah. Take care.”
Subramanyam enters elevator.
ML: “Be well.”
Discussion about this episode
Share this post
I know, due to my and others’ attempts to inform Congress about the 1967 Malmstrom AFB UFO encounters, they are aware of those incidents, yet I have not been asked to testify. Can you bring this up? Mine and other witness testimony is important for their and public consideration. Thanks. Robert Salas
Question: What are concerns or why involvement of FBI regarding UAP? Apparently David Grusch had specifics on this inquiry thread but could not make meeting. What is holding up Grusch’s security clearance?