UFOs & Disclosure

Newly obtained Secret Service records continue to shed light on the numerous biting incidents involving President Biden’s German Shepherds, Major and Commander. Through a sequence of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) releases. First in February 2024, then unexpectedly again in February 2025, and finally through a September 2025 appeal; the Black Vault has now pieced together a fuller picture of the scope and seriousness of these episodes.
The process itself is highly unusual. The February 2024 release was framed by the Secret Service as a “final” response to the case. Yet, one year later, the agency issued another “final” release in February 2025, adding hundreds of pages of new material. The Black Vault never published those 2025 records at the time. Then, months later, the agency issued an appeal response, tied not to the 2025 set, but to the original 2024 release. This appeal response restored redacted details and acknowledged video files that had never been mentioned before.
Continue scrolling for more…

February 2025 Release: More “Final” Records
Despite labeling the 2024 release as “final,” the Secret Service issued another large production in February 2025. This release, never previously reported by The Black Vault, added a wide range of internal correspondence and media-related communications that had not appeared before.
Media Inquiries and Official Responses
The records reveal repeated press inquiries about the scale of Commander’s biting incidents. On September 26, 2023, multiple reporters pressed the agency for a count. CNN asked if the latest episode was the 11th incident. Fox News, AFP, Newsweek, and others posed similar questions.
Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi replied:
“I do not have a count. These incidents are categorized as workplace injuries… In instances where an employee is bitten, the employee’s supervisor drafts an injury report. Typically these types of workplace injuries are not subject to public release.”
Internal Reactions Among Agents
Some Secret Service staff vented their frustration. In one internal exchange, an officer reacted to a TMZ report:
“TMZ just reported a dog bite at the White House! Can we please find a way to get this dog muzzled.”

Another agent compared the situation to horror fiction:
“It’s like f—ing CUJO, haha!!!”
Workplace Safety Concerns

The 2025 records also include planning notes for a Secret Service “Town Hall” meeting in September 2023. Among the listed challenges:
“…the Bidens’ dog Commander being a continued danger.”
Allegations of Underreporting
A particularly striking detail appears in October 2023 correspondence with CNN, which cited a source claiming 34 incidents in a 90-day period that summer. Internal notes suggest acknowledgment that the number of official reports may have been incomplete, and that bites also affected White House residence staff and ushers.
Photographic Evidence
Media questions also referenced photos. ABC News asked the Secret Service about Daily Mail photographs purportedly showing Commander biting longtime White House grounds superintendent Dale Haney. Emails confirm the agency was pressed to verify whether Haney had been injured.
September 2025 Appeal Release: Restored Narratives and Withheld Videos
Separate from the 2025 production, the Secret Service processed an appeal The Black Vault filed against the February 2024 release. The appeal restored text that had been withheld under (b)(5) and, for the first time, acknowledged video files.
March 6, 2021 – Major Attacks “Unprovoked”
The appeal release restored narrative detail from a reimbursement claim:
“On the evening of March 6th 2021 I was working an evening shift at the White House… While leading the President and First Lady back from the Tennis Pavilion to the Residence… As Major came around the corner he attacked me, unprovoked, tearing the wool overcoat I was wearing that evening.”
Also restored was the sanitized language the Office of Chief Counsel wanted for the reimbursement form:
“The damage to the personal coat occurred while on official duty. Through no fault or negligence of my own, the coat was torn by a dog bite. I could not avoid this unusual circumstance due to the nature and requirements of my position.”
Withheld Videos
The appeal response also disclosed something not mentioned before:
“We have determined that there are two video files from February 9, 2023, totaling approximately 4 minutes and 30 seconds, that are responsive to your request.”
These videos are being withheld in full under Exemptions (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(E).
Taken together, the three waves of records change the public understanding of Commander’s impact on the Secret Service:

2024 release: revealed the existence of numerous incidents but left key details redacted.
2025 release: exposed how press inquiries were handled, showed workplace safety concerns raised internally, revealed staff frustration, and raised allegations of dozens more unreported bites.
Appeal release: restored candid descriptions of “unprovoked” attacks and confirmed the existence of withheld video evidence.

The evolving releases of Secret Service records show that the dog incidents involving the Bidens’ German Shepherds were more serious, more numerous, and more disruptive than the public was originally told. Agents described “unprovoked” attacks, staff privately joked it was like “Cujo”, and management listed Commander as a “continued danger” in workforce discussions. Meanwhile, two responsive videos remain withheld in full.
###
Document Archive
FOIA Appeal Release – September 2025 – [31 Pages, 4.3MB]
Biden Dog Commander Records Reveal Unprovoked Attacks and Secret Video Evidence – February 2025 Release – [272 Pages, 35MB]
Secret Service Documents Reveal White House Dog Commander’s Biting Incidents – February 2024 Release – [272 Pages, 23.4MB]

Follow The Black Vault on Social Media:

The Department of Defense (DoD) has released a set of heavily redacted emails in response to a FOIA request seeking records that would explain why AARO and UAP materials are now being largely withheld under FOIA Exemption (b)(7). This exemption is intended for “law enforcement” records, raising questions about how it applies to AARO, which is not a law enforcement body.

The release was supposed to show the internal decision-making behind this new practice. Instead, nearly all substance was withheld, and more than 95%+ of the content is either blacked out or withheld in full. The result is another chapter in a growing saga of secrecy surrounding AARO, FOIA, and UAP records.Continue scrolling for more…

This issue has now persisted for more than two years. The Pentagon’s Public Affairs office, through spokesperson Susan Gough, continues to refuse to answer The Black Vault’s roughly four dozen inquiries and follow-ups over the course of 27 months sent to her about how this exemption can be legally justified.
The September 18, 2025, release (case 24-F-0154) consisted of 23 pages. Three pages were withheld in their entirety under Exemption (b)(5), while the rest were redacted under (b)(5) and (b)(6).

The unredacted fragments show only hints of the internal process:

Coordination Calls: One email references a call scheduled “with AARO … at 1300 today to discuss a way ahead on Greenewald’s FOIA’s concerning the interviews”.
Media Coordination: Another chain references “OSD/JS; 23-F-0529 & 23-F-0658 for Media Release,” noting “This relates to the AARO request”. Both of these cases were filed by The Black Vault.
Drafting Discussions: Several short exchanges note updates to “language and organization” or “feedback is attached from our interviewers,” but nearly all surrounding context is redacted.

These snippets confirm that AARO and FOIA staff were in active coordination, but they shed no light on the legal reasoning for invoking a law enforcement exemption.
The Appeal denial letter, sent to The Black Vault in December 2023.
This FOIA request specifically sought to answer how (b)(7) could be applied in the UAP context. Yet, the very records that could explain that decision are almost entirely withheld. The lost appeal on the Mosul Orb request (23-F-0389) shows that DoD had already invoked (b)(7)(A) and (b)(7)(E) to justify withholdings in UAP cases, a tactic starting in early June 2023. The appeal, based on the fact that (b)(7) was not legally justified, was denied.
There have now been numerous other cases, all filed by The Black Vault, that were also denied specifically fighting the (b)(7) exemption. Most have been appealed, all of which have received denials. In some of those cases, however, the DoD went a step further. After appeals challenged the validity of using a law enforcement exemption, the Department added entirely new exemptions to its original denials. These included (b)(1) for classified national security information and (b)(3) for material protected under other disclosure statutes.
This tactic significantly raises the barrier for judicial review. While the original (b)(7) arguments could be scrutinized in court, the addition of broader, harder-to-challenge exemptions after the fact makes any legal fight far less winnable. The strategy not only preserves the secrecy around AARO-related records but also ensures that even if one exemption is successfully contested, others remain to block disclosure. It demonstrates an institutional approach to reinforce denials rather than defend the specific use of (b)(7) on its own merits.
If the rationale for (b)(7) is as clear-cut as the DoD suggests through their FOIA appeal denials, then two things should logically follow:

Public Affairs should be able to provide a straightforward explanation of why (b)(7) applies to AARO. Yet, despite years of follow-ups, no statement has ever been given.
The FOIA release should have contained the legal analysis that supports the use of the exemption, and such justification should not itself be withheld by exemption. Instead, the responsive documents justifying the use of (b)(7) denials were hidden behind (b)(5) redactions. (b)(5) is an exemption meant to protect internal deliberations or draft processes, even though the very purpose of the request was to understand how the policy was justified. Once a strategy has been implemented and applied to real-world cases, it is no longer merely predecisional or deliberative. If the government maintains that the use of (b)(7) is legally valid, then the underlying justification should be subject to disclosure and released, at least in part, to the public.

The newly released documents demonstrate that the DoD and AARO are in direct coordination on FOIA matters, and that senior officials in both legal and intelligence roles are involved in the decision-making when it comes to the release of information. The public remains in the dark about the legal foundation for invoking a law enforcement exemption on AARO/UAP records, and has so for more than two years, despite AARO not being a law enforcement agency and no legal justification being given.
The Black Vault has filed an appeal on the over-use of redactions, and those results will be posted, when available.
###
Document Archive
FOIA Case 24-F-0154 Release Package [25 Pages, 1.7MB]

Follow The Black Vault on Social Media: