Don’t look up? Should the Bank of England plan for non-human intelligence?

In May 2024, Helen McCaw, a former senior analyst in financial security at the Bank of England, published a detailed white paper through The Sol Foundation titled Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Policy Implications for the Government of the United Kingdom. The forty-plus-page document makes a bold case: UAP—once dismissed as UFOs—are real, physical objects displaying capabilities far beyond any known human technology. McCaw argues that the UK government must urgently prepare for the possibility that these phenomena represent non-human intelligence (NHI).

The paper lays out evidence drawn from decades of global observations: military sensor data showing objects with instantaneous acceleration, hypersonic speeds without sonic booms, transmedium travel from air to water, and apparent anti-gravity effects. Credible witnesses, including US Navy pilots, report encounters near nuclear facilities. McCaw references declassified reports such as the UK's own Project Condign, which concluded some phenomena were unexplained plasmas with real effects. She ties this to ongoing US developments—the creation of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), whistleblower protections, and testimony alleging retrieval of non-human craft and biologics. Her central warning is that the United States appears to be in the middle of a controlled, multi-year disclosure process. If NHI is confirmed, the result could be "ontological shock"—a profound existential crisis as humanity confronts a superior intelligence of unknown intent. Concealment is unsustainable; leaks, scientific advances, or actions by the phenomena themselves could force a sudden, uncontrolled revelation.

The implications span every sector. Nationally, UAP raise airspace safety and nuclear security risks. Internationally, they demand coordination to prevent weaponization races. Scientifically, studying them could deliver breakthroughs in propulsion, energy, and materials. Socially, disclosure could strain mental health services, religious institutions, and public trust. But McCaw's unique contribution comes from her financial expertise. She argues that confirmation of NHI would introduce "radical uncertainty" that breaks conventional economic models. Markets could swing between euphoria (expectations of revolutionary technology) and panic (fears of existential threat). Safe-haven assets like gold or bonds might surge—or collapse if advanced technology implies abundant resources. Trust in government-backed systems could evaporate, leading to bank runs, payment system failures, or broader financial instability.

In mid-January 2026, McCaw took her case directly to the top. She sent a letter to Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey urging the Bank to develop contingencies for a potential US announcement confirming NHI behind UAP. As reported by The Times on January 16 and picked up by Newsweek and The Independent, McCaw warned that "ontological shock" could trigger psychological responses with rapid material consequences—potentially causing total financial instability within hours. She highlighted possible rushes to alternatives like Bitcoin if faith in fiat systems collapses, extreme volatility in precious metals, and the risk of emptied shelves or civil unrest over essentials. The timing coincided with heightened UAP discussion in the US, including statements from figures like Senator Marco Rubio about objects over nuclear sites and new documentaries amplifying disclosure momentum.

The Bank of England has declined to comment publicly, and no official response from Governor Bailey has emerged. McCaw's recommendations are pragmatic and proactive: brief Cabinet and Parliament, commission whole-of-government risk assessments, survey public readiness, host an international summit, and explicitly involve the Bank's Financial Policy Committee in scenario planning. Treat UAP disclosure like any other exogenous shock—pandemics, cyberattacks, or geopolitical crises.

The deeper realism is sobering. In mild scenarios—gradual, controlled disclosure with benevolent or neutral intent—financial planning makes sense. Markets might experience volatility but ultimately adapt, potentially benefiting from new technology. In extreme scenarios, however, the financial lens breaks. If evidence suggests hostile capability, no asset class remains safe. Digital networks could go dark, exchanges could be seized or shut down under emergency powers, and correlated panic could crash stocks, bonds, commodities, and cryptocurrencies simultaneously. Survival imperatives—food, water, community, security—would override monetary concerns long before any technological upside materialises. McCaw's work, now moving from academic circles into mainstream headlines, marks a pivotal moment. A former insider is forcing institutions to confront a low-probability, ultra-high-impact risk. Whether governments heed the call remains uncertain, but the conversation she has sparked is no longer dismissible. Preparing for paradigm-shifting truth—financially, socially, and existentially—may soon shift from speculative to essential.