Only Liberal Societies Can Handle Alien Life

Its existence will raise confusing and difficult questions for earthlings that authoritarians won’t have the credibility to negotiate

Miloje, Shutterstock, The UnPopulist illustration

Suppose humanity receives a signal from the stars—a transmission, unmistakably intelligent, from somewhere beyond our solar system. This would answer one of science’s most profound questions: Are we “alone” in the universe? It would also raise further, far-reaching questions—not just for scientists but humanity at large: What are they trying to tell us? What does their existence mean for our worldviews? Perhaps the most consequential question would be: Who decides how we respond, and whether we respond at all?

These are not mere speculative concerns. For more than six decades, scientists have scanned the skies for exactly such signals in a field known as the search for extraterrestrial intelligence—SETI—and investigation has expanded well beyond radio telescopes to encompass biological and technological signatures on exoplanets, the thousands of worlds beyond our solar system we now know to exist. Far from being the exclusive province of tabloids, possible life and intelligence beyond Earth is a serious and growing area of scientific inquiry, broadly called astrobiology.

Mainstream science quite reasonably remains skeptical of claims that aliens have visited Earth—but that skepticism has done little to dislodge widespread beliefs that such visits have occurred and been systematically covered up. Those beliefs, long dramatized by shows like The X-Files, have only grown more entrenched. However poorly founded, they corrode public trust in government and science alike.

But while contact with extraterrestrial intelligence has long been a fixture of the science fiction shelf, it is also the perfect stress test for human institutions—one that liberal democracies, with their avowed commitments to transparency, scientific accountability, and international cooperation, are better positioned to pass than their authoritarian rivals. The reason is structural: challenges that unfold over years, demand correct interpretation under uncertainty, and require legitimacy beyond any individual nation’s borders are precisely the challenges that centralized, opaque systems are least equipped to handle. And that is what liberal democracy, at its best, is designed to do.

Any confirmed evidence of sentient life beyond Earth could roil society, spurring authoritarian measures, along with competition among governments and megacorporations over access or advantage. Even negative results carry weight—silence from the stars raises its own troubling questions about whether civilizations advanced enough to communicate across interstellar space are unlikely to arise, or to last. And efforts to send signals outward raise a more unsettling question still: What risks might we be inviting?

The question of how governments handle alien disclosure is already live—and the answers so far are instructive.

Seeking Disclosure

When former President Barack Obama recently said, “They’re real, but I haven’t seen them,” in response to an interviewer’s question about aliens, he stirred a contentious and conspiracist vein of public opinion—one that suspects official concealment of alien contact. He later clarified that he meant they exist somewhere in the universe, not that he had been privy, as president, to evidence of visits to Earth. President Trump’s announcement a few days later that he would direct federal agencies to identify and release all files related to aliens and UFOs points in a needed direction of greater openness regarding government activities related to aliens.

---

Oligarchs in Bed with Autocrats Would Kill the Prospects for Liberalism in Space

---

The government has indeed misled the public about putative space visitors—but the deception runs in the opposite direction from what conspiracists suppose. Rather than covering up evidence of alien visits, officials have actively promoted belief in them to protect classified military programs from scrutiny. Last June, The Wall Street Journal reported on exactly this pattern, including an incident from the 1980s in which an Air Force colonel brought images of apparent flying saucers to a bar near Area 51, the Nevada testing site for weapons programs. The colonel’s mission was disinformation: “Military leaders were worried that the programs might get exposed if locals somehow glimpsed a test flight of, say, the F-117 stealth fighter, an aircraft that truly did look out of this world. Better that they believe it came from Andromeda.”

The recent documentary The Age of Disclosure illustrates the lure of such ideas despite shortfalls of logic and evidence. The film presents interviews of former government employees claiming to have first-hand knowledge of projects involving extraterrestrials, interwoven with interviews of prominent officials simply wondering what’s going on. The latter push for disclosure of whatever the government knows or, like former CIA director John Brennan, doubt that humanity is alone in the universe, a question distinct from whether aliens have made contact here. The effect is a misleading impression that all of these figures are circling the same explosive secret, soon to be divulged.

Skeptics about alien visits have pointed out that, despite proliferation of smartphones and surveillance cameras, imagery of purported alien vessels remains limited and low-quality. Another point of skepticism regards claims that aliens have crashed, perhaps repeatedly, on Earth, a curious outcome for beings able to cross interstellar space. One interviewee in The Age of Disclosure, physicist Hal Puthoff, longtime proponent of UFO and paranormal claims, suggests that such apparent accidents may be deliberate efforts by aliens to spread technology to humanity or test our intellectual capacity, as part of some mysterious agenda. He also says the aliens may travel in “spacetime bubbles” that defy clear imagery, and that these travelers may be not mere visitors from distant physical worlds but interdimensional beings or time travelers. Such theories are convenient precisely because they cannot be disproven.

One may wonder what disclosure of government files would satisfy those inclined toward such expansive possibilities. Still, disclosure is a worthwhile ideal: governmental and military propensities for secrecy, along with willingness to actively foster diversionary and obscurantist claims, have served the public poorly, corroding trust in ways that feed paranoia and demagoguery. Liberals should welcome release of information without subscribing to lurid theories that classified files reveal alien arrival. And reasoned discourse about possible intelligent aliens requires keeping two questions clearly distinct: whether they are out there, and whether they’re here.

Searching the Cosmos

The question of whether they are out there at all is one scientists have been working to answer for decades. The Drake Equation attempts to estimate how many communicable civilizations may exist in the Milky Way at one time, taking into account factors such as the rate of star formation, estimates of the fraction of planets that may develop life, and, crucially, how long such civilizations survive.

Silence from the stars may mean that civilizations are short-lived. That possibility raises uncomfortable questions about humanity as well as aliens. It could be that technological species arise frequently in the galaxy but have a brief lifespan in the scheme of things—perhaps mere centuries or less—before going extinct or reverting to a pre-technological state. Negative results of SETI have spurred grim speculations that civilizations promptly destroy themselves through nuclear war or other self-inflicted calamities. Another dour prospect is the “dark forest” view that alien civilizations exist but conceal their existence, from a fear (perhaps justified) that hostile forces would attack them upon detection.

---

The Administration’s Foolish War on Basic Science

---

However, the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, popularized by astronomer Carl Sagan in his advocacy of SETI, remains applicable. Searches for radio signals have only gradually expanded from thousands into millions of star systems, still a small fraction of the Milky Way, and have covered limited frequencies, leaving enormous potential for further exploration.

SETI has been almost entirely privately funded—a NASA program was canceled by Congress after one year in 1993 because, as one Democratic senator said, “Not a single Martian has said, ‘Take me to your leader.’” Astrobiology more broadly, though, remains a central focus of NASA.

Efforts to detect biosignatures or technosignatures on exoplanets are in their infancy, though growing capacities of artificial intelligence to sift through astronomical data offer genuine promise. The interstellar object ‘Oumuamua, which passed through our solar system in 2017, was discussed by astrophysicist Avi Loeb and colleagues as a possible alien probe, though the broader scientific reaction to this possibility was one of marked skepticism.

Making Contact

What if evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence arises that the scientific community considers sound? The question is not entirely without an answer. Scientific committees under the rubric of the International Academy of Astronautics have worked out protocols for verifying and communicating an apparent detection—regularly updated to account for a world of social media and industrialized misinformation—and their emphasis is on openness, cooperation, and international consultation before any reply goes out. It is a serious framework for a serious possibility. The problem is that almost no government has followed suit.

Avoiding uproars such as followed Obama’s “They’re real” comment is surely a reason for this. But public-facing commitments by governments to pursue scientific accuracy and international cooperation in response to any detection would both moderate public suspicions and establish sound principles for how to react if such a detection occurs.

We can only speculate what an actual transmission might contain—whether directed at Earth or an omnidirectional beacon, whether from beings vastly more advanced than us or from ones roughly comparable. Sagan was optimistic, suggesting the civilizations that endure may be those that develop tolerance and peace. By contrast, physicist Stephen Hawking was cautionary, remarking that contact “could be like Native Americans encountering Columbus.”

How humans would react is almost as unpredictable as the contact itself. Many people might not believe it has occurred. Religious and political figures might denounce an alien message as demonic—JD Vance has already suggested that “demons,” rather than aliens, may be behind UFO phenomena, offering a preview of how some will frame whatever arrives. The evidence might be so ambiguous—a garbled radio signal, an eroded chunk of ancient metal—that scientific debate over its origin drags on inconclusively. If an information-rich message arrives, some might be inspired; others demoralized. Some might want to emulate alien ways; others might engage in a terrestrials-first backlash.

Across every version of this story, what emerges is not simply chaos, but the kind of radical uncertainty that institutions are rarely designed to absorb—and that tends to expose the difference between systems built on accountability and those built on control.

---

Dear Liberals: Don’t Forget to Brag About Liberalism

---

A natural objection arises: surely a development this momentous calls for decisive, centralized action, and liberal democracies—slow to deliberate, vulnerable to panic, accountable to publics that may not be ready for what they’re hearing—seem poorly designed for the moment. But this mistakes what kind of problem alien contact actually is. This is not a military emergency where speed wins; it is a civilizational reckoning demanding correct interpretation, sustained legitimacy, and decisions whose consequences no single government can claim the right to determine alone. Authoritarian information control forecloses the ability to correct mistakes, build broad trust, and speak credibly on behalf of anyone beyond its own borders. Democratic deliberation, with all its friction, is the only process that could plausibly generate responses the rest of humanity might actually accept.

The same principle applies to the question of whether humanity should transmit signals into the cosmos at all—including signals that could bring our existence to the attention of unknown and possibly dangerous entities. No single government or organization has the standing to make that decision unilaterally. It is precisely the kind of choice that would reveal whether liberal democracy can pass the stress test that contact with the unknown, in any form, will ultimately demand of it. But if it can’t, an authoritarian system certainly wouldn’t.

© The UnPopulist, 2026

Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.

We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy.