AARO's cumulative picture: balloons and satellites account for 813 of 941 closed cases
AARO's reporting trends page, covering data through August 15, 2026, lists 468 closed cases attributed to balloons and 345 to satellites. Together they represent 86.4% of the 941 closed cases in the table. That figure is important, but it applies to resolved cases and does not mean that 86.4% of every UAP report received by AARO has the same explanation.
AARO publishes a cumulative table of closed-case outcomes covering January 1, 1996 through August 15, 2026. The listed categories sum to 941 cases: 468 balloons, 345 satellites, 61 unmanned aircraft systems, 23 birds, 15 aircraft and several smaller categories.
The trends page does not provide an open case-level dataset showing the evidence, confidence level or analytic method behind each determination. It also does not place closed, active and data-deficient cases in a single complete inventory.
What was published and when
The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office's UAP Reporting Trends page now displays a data range ending August 15, 2026. It groups closed cases by final attribution, and separately summarizes reported shapes and estimated altitudes. It is a direct government source, not a release of case-level sensor files. The end date extends beyond the information cutoff in the fiscal year 2025 annual report, which stopped at May 30, 2025.
What the 941 closed cases show
The official outcome categories total 941 closed cases. Balloons lead at 468, or 49.7%, while satellites account for 345, or 36.7%. They are followed by unmanned aircraft systems at 61, birds at 23, aircraft at 15, jetpacks at 14, missiles or rocket launches at 8, natural atmospheric effects at 3, sensor artifacts at 2, ordnance at 1 and lasers at 1. Balloons and satellites together account for 813 cases, or 86.4% of the closed-case total. That percentage is an Alien News calculation based directly on AARO's table.
AARO's annual report, released on July 20, 2026, says a new three-dimensional modeling capability enabled analysts to resolve 238 reports as satellite flaring. A flare occurs when sunlight reflects from a satellite surface at a favorable angle. To an observer it may appear as a bright orb that moves, briefly emerges or changes intensity. The explanation should not be applied automatically to every light in the sky. It becomes persuasive only when the observation time, observer location, satellite orbit, solar geometry and reported motion agree.
The FY2025 report says AARO received 319 reports, resolved 114 of them and resolved another 256 cases from earlier periods, for 370 resolutions during the year. Of the incoming reports, 191 went into an active archive because the available data was insufficient, while nine were identified for additional analysis by intelligence, science and technology partners. None of the resolved cases indicated an advanced foreign capability or breakthrough technology. These figures are not identical to the cumulative table spanning many years.
On the trends page, orb, round or spherical is the most common reported morphology, with 229 reports, or 38.6% of reports containing shape information. Lights account for 183, or 30.8%. That does not conflict with the high number of satellites and balloons among resolved cases. A witness describes appearance, not origin. A reflective balloon, satellite flare or distant aircraft can all look like a sphere or point of light, especially at night when range information and visual reference points are absent.
The official categories illustrate a responsible sequence of checks. Balloons are compared with wind direction and drift. Satellites are tested against orbital paths and illumination geometry. Birds can be compared with flock behavior and migration routes. Aircraft and drones can be checked against aviation records, while artifacts must be evaluated against sensor and compression limits. Parallax, zoom changes and movement of the observing platform can create an impression of exceptional speed even when an object is slow or distant. An explanation earns weight by fitting the evidence better than competing accounts, not merely by being possible.
The table cannot establish the current unresolved share of AARO's entire inventory because it presents outcomes for closed cases, not a complete count of every active file. It also withholds the source material for most individual determinations, including original video, radar returns, telemetry and a numerical confidence level. The 86.4% figure should therefore not be used to dismiss every new report. Equally, cases kept in the active archive are not evidence of non-human origin. In both directions, the missing step is proof.
The figures show that better collection and targeted analytical tools can resolve large groups of reports, especially when time, location and viewing geometry are available. At the same time, the 191 reports placed in the active archive during FY2025 illustrate the central limitation: insufficient data is an analytical constraint, not an extraordinary result. Scientific value comes from case-level data, reproducible methods and a clear distinction between something that is temporarily unidentified and performance that is demonstrated to exceed known systems.
This is a meaningful data update, not the disclosure of a new phenomenon. The cumulative picture supports the conclusion that most cases AARO has successfully closed were balloons or satellites, while some reports remained undecidable mainly because evidence was missing. AARO's next test is transparency: publish releasable source material, case-specific reasoning and clear confidence levels. Without those elements, the table is useful for understanding broad trends but remains limited for independent scrutiny.