Who?
Rep. Nick Begich* (R-AK) — Member, Committee on Science, Space & Technology
*while not officially a member of the UAP Caucus or Oversight Committee, Begich was one of a handful of lawmakers allowed to question witnesses during this month’s public UAP hearing.
LISTEN: Laslo & Begich
Ask a Pol asks:
Of all the testimony you heard in this month’s public UAP hearing, what are the next lines of inquiry you think Congress should explore?
Key Begich:
“One of the biggest takeaways was that there appears to be some information that’s been withheld from Congress under authorities that we don’t fully understand,” Rep. Nick Begich exclusively tells Ask a Pol UAP. “Congress needs to do some diligence in understanding who’s been withholding information, how they’ve been able to withhold information, under what constitutional authority that information has been withheld.
“Because Congress has oversight responsibilities in this and many other areas of our lives, and if information is being withheld from Congress, that’s a real problem.”
Interactive political journalism has arrived.
Stop complaining and Ask a question already!
Caught our ear:
Military contractors in particular?
“It seems as though that’s part of the answer to that question,” Begich tells us. “Some of it may be executive branch authorities that have been delegated under the Atomic Energy Act 1947 or other subsequent legislation. And so we need to do a better job of understanding what barriers exist — whether legal or extrajudicial — for Congress getting access to this information.”
Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Rep. Nick Begich (R-AK), slightly edited for clarity.
NEW: Find Ask a Pol on YouTube, TikTok or Instagram!
TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Nick Begich (9-16-2025)
SCENE: Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo peels Rep. Nick Begich away from a couple colleagues to snag this post-UAP hearing chat as he makes his way to the US Capitol to cast a vote…
Matt Laslo: “Look at this young man.”
Nick Begich: “Hey.”
ML: “So your first public UAP hearing. What was your takeaway?”
NB: “Well, I think the witnesses had quite compelling testimony to share. I was encouraged with their willingness to be specific…”
ML: “Yeah?”
NB: “…with names and programs. And I think at the end of the day, I think this is the next step in a long journey to build transparency for the American people.”
ML: “What — of all the things you heard — what are the next lines of inquiry you have?”
NB: “Well, for me, one of the biggest takeaways was that there appears to be some information that’s been withheld from Congress under authorities that we don’t fully understand.”
ML: “Yeah.”
NB: “And I think Congress needs to do some diligence in understanding who’s been withholding information, how they’ve been able to withhold information, under what constitutional authority that information has been withheld.”
ML: “Yeah?”
NB: “Because Congress has oversight responsibilities in this and many other areas of our lives, and if information is being withheld from Congress, that’s a real problem.”
What should we ask Congress next? Let us know, fam!
ML: “Is it the military contractors in particular?”
NB: “It seems as though that’s part of the answer to that question. Some of it may be executive branch authorities that have been delegated under the Atomic Energy Act 1947 or other subsequent legislation. And so we need to do a better job of understanding what barriers exist — whether legal or extrajudicial — for Congress getting access to this information.”
Begich waits for an elevator in back of line of his colleagues.
ML: “Do you think that will have to be in a SCIF? Maybe initially?”
NB: “I think there’s a very good chance that’s where this goes next.”
ML: “Yeah?”
NB: “Thanks.”
ML: “I’ll be watchin. Preciate you sir.”
