logo
The release of a 1961 plan to break up the CIA revives an old conspiracy theory about who killed JFK

The release of a 1961 plan to break up the CIA revives an old conspiracy theory about who killed JFK

Yahoo20-03-2025

A key adviser warned President John F. Kennedy after the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 that the agency behind it, the CIA, had grown too powerful. He proposed giving the State Department control of 'all clandestine activities' and breaking up the CIA.
The page of Special Assistant Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s memo outlining the proposal was among the newly public material in documents related to Kennedy's assassination released this week by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. So, too was Schlesinger's statement that 47% of the political officers in U.S. embassies were controlled by the CIA.
Some readers of the previously withheld material in Schlesinger's 15-page memo view it as evidence of both mistrust between Kennedy and the CIA and a reason the CIA at least would not make Kennedy's security a high priority ahead of his assassination in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. That gave fresh attention Thursday to a decades-old theory about who killed JFK — that the CIA had a hand in it.
Some Kennedy scholars, historians and writers said they haven't yet seen anything in the 63,000 pages of material released under an order from President Donald Trump that undercuts the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, a 24-year-old Marine and onetime defector to the Soviet Union, was a lone gunman. But they also say they understand why doubters gravitate toward the theory.
'You have this young, charismatic president with so much potential for the future, and on the other side of the scale, you have this 24-year-old waif, Oswald, and it doesn't balance. You want to put something weightier on the Oswald side,' said Gerald Posner, whose book, 'Case Closed,' details the evidence that Oswald was a lone gunman.
The first 'big event' in the US to spawn conspiracy theories
But Jefferson Morley said the newly released material is important to 'the JFK case.' Morely is vice president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, a repository for files related to the assassination, and editor of the JFK Facts blog, and he rejects the conclusion that Oswald was 'a lone nut."
Morley said that even with the release of 63,000 pages this week, there is still more unreleased material, including 2,400 files that the FBI said it discovered after Trump issued his order in January and material held by the Kennedy family.
Kennedy was killed on a visit to Dallas, when his motorcade was finishing its parade route downtown and shots rang out from the Texas School Book Depository building. Police arrested Oswald, who had positioned himself from a sniper's perch on the sixth floor. Two days later Jack Ruby, a nightclub owner, fatally shot Oswald during a jail transfer broadcast live on television.
'It was the first big event that led to a series of events involving conspiracy theories that have left Americans believing, almost permanently, that their government lies to them so often they shouldn't pay close attention,' said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and author of 'The Kennedy Half-Century"
The Bay of Pigs fiasco prompts an aide's memo
Morley said Schlesinger's memo provides the 'origin story' of mutual mistrust between Kennedy and the CIA.
Kennedy had inherited the Bay of Pigs plan from his predecessor, President Dwight Eisenhower, and had been in office less than three months when the operation launched in April 1961 as a covert invasion to topple Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Schlesinger's memo was dated June 30, 1961, a little more than two months later.
Schlesinger told Kennedy that covert all operations should be cleared with the U.S. State Department instead of allowing the CIA to largely present proposed operations almost as accomplished tasks. He also said in some places, such as Austria and Chile, far more than half the embassies' political officers were CIA-controlled.
Ronald Neumann, former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Algeria and Bahrain, said most American diplomats now are 'non-CIA,' and in most places, ambassadors do not automatically defer to the CIA.
'CIA station chiefs also have an important function for ambassadors, because the station chief is usually the senior intelligence officer at a post," Neumann said, adding that ambassadors see a CIA station chiefs as providing valuable information.
But he noted: 'If you get into the areas where we were involved in covert operations in supporting wars, you're going to have a different picture. You're going to have a picture which will differ from a normal embassy and normal operations.'
A proposal to break up the CIA that didn't come to fruition
Schlesinger's memo ends with a previously redacted page that spells out a proposal to give control of covert activities to the State Department and to split the CIA into two agencies reporting to separate undersecretaries of state. Morley sees it as a response to Kennedy's anger over the Bay of Pigs and something Kennedy was seriously contemplating.
The plan never came to fruition.
Sabato said that Kennedy simply 'needed the CIA' in the Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union and its allies like Cuba, and a huge reorganization would have hindered intelligence operations. He also said the president and his brother, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, wanted to oust Castro before JFK ran for reelection in 1964.
'Let's remember that a good percentage of the covert operations were aimed at Fidel Castro in Cuba,' Sabato said.
Timothy Naftali, an adjunct professor at Columbia University who is writing a book about JFK's presidency, discounts the idea of tensions between the president and the CIA lasting until Kennedy's death. For one thing, he said, the president used covert operations 'avidly.'
'I find that the more details we get on that period, the more it appears likely that the Kennedy brothers were in control of the intelligence community,' Naftali said. 'You can you can see his imprint. You can see that there is a system by which he is directing the intelligence community. It's not always direct, but he's directing it.'
___
Associated Press writer David Collins in Hartford Connecticut, contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion - Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors
Opinion - Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors

Winston Churchill once warned that 'appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.' When it comes to the crocodile of censorship, history is strewn with defenders who later became digestives. Censorship produces an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech limits, and today's censorship supporters often become tomorrow's censored subjects. This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped feeding the crocodile. On May 28, 2025, Rubio shocked many of our allies by issuing a new visa restriction policy that bars foreign nationals deemed 'responsible for censorship of protected expression' in the U.S. The new policy follows a major address by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich challenging our European allies to end their systematic attacks on free speech. Vance declared, 'If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.' At the time, I called the speech 'Churchillian' in drawing a bright line for the free world. Rubio's action is no less impressive and even more impactful. Europe has faced no consequences for its aggressive efforts at transnational censorship. Indeed, this should not be a fight for the administration alone. Congress should explore reciprocal penalties for foreign governments targeting American companies or citizens for engaging in protected speech. After Vance spoke in Munich, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, where European leaders gathered in one of the most strikingly anti-free speech conferences I have attended. This year's forum embraced the slogan 'A New World Order with European Values.' That 'new world order' is based on an aggressive anti-free speech platform that has been enforced for years by the European Union. At the heart of this effort is the Digital Services Act, a draconian law that allows for sweeping censorship and speech prosecutions. Most importantly, it has been used by the EU to threaten American corporations for their failure to censor Americans and others on social media sites. After the World Forum, I returned home to warn that this is now an existential war over a right that defines us as a people —the very 'Indispensable Right' identified by Justice Louis Brandeis, which is essential for every other right in the Constitution. The irony was crushing. I wrote about how this nation has fought to protect our rights in world wars, yet many in Congress simply shrug or even support the effort as other countries move to make Americans censor other Americans. What was most unnerving about Berlin was how Americans have encouraged Europeans to target their fellow citizens. At the forum was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter on a pledge to dismantle its massive censorship system, called upon the EU to use the Digital Services Act to force him to resume censorship. Other Americans have appeared before the EU to call upon it to oppose the U.S. Nina Jankowicz, the former head of President Joe Biden's infamous Disinformation Governance Board, has recently returned to he EU to rally other nations to oppose what she described as 'the autocracy, the United States of America.' She warned that the Digital Services Act was under attack, and that the EU had to fight and beat the U.S.: 'Do not capitulate. Hold the line.' Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton even threatened Musk for interviewing Trump before our last presidential election. He told Musk that he was being 'monitored' in conducting any interview with now-President Trump. The EU is doubling down on these efforts, including threatening Musk with prosecution and massive confiscatory fines if he does not resume censoring users of X. The penalties are expected to exceed $1 billion. Other countries are following suit. Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes shut down X in his entire country over Musk's refusal to remove political posts. These countries could remotely control speech within the U.S., forcing companies like X to meet the lowest common denominator set by the EU and anti-free speech groups. There are free speech concerns even in such measures designed to protect free speech. This policy should be confined to government officials, particularly EU officials, who are actively seeking to export European censorship systems worldwide. It should not extend to academics or individuals who are part of the growing anti-free speech movement. Free speech itself can counter those voices. These are the same voices that we have heard throughout history, often using the very same terms and claims to silence others. However, Rubio showed Europe that the U.S. would not simply stand by as European censors determined what Americans could say, read, or watch. As the EU threatens companies like X with billion-dollar fines, it is time for the U.S. to treat this as an attack on our citizens from abroad. Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it simply during World War II: 'No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.' It is time to get serious about the European threat to free speech. And Rubio is doing just that — finally imposing real consequences for censorship. We are not going to defeat censors by yelling at them. Speech alone clearly does not impress them. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

China replicating U.S. military model in Africa as American presence declines
China replicating U.S. military model in Africa as American presence declines

Business Insider

time42 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

China replicating U.S. military model in Africa as American presence declines

A senior U.S. military commander in Africa has issued a warning, cautioning that China is actively seeking to replicate nearly every aspect of U.S. military assistance on the continent, as Washington scales back its direct involvement. China is replicating U.S. military engagement tactics in Africa as the U.S. reduces its involvement. General Langley highlighted China's strategic military ties with African nations, modeling programs on U.S. methods. Global rivals like China and Russia are filling gaps left by reduced U.S. presence, increasing their influence in the region. China has significantly expanded its footprint in countries such as Tanzania, Djibouti, and the Central African Republic, with its military academies now training an increasing number of African officers. General Michael Langley, commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), warned that China's programs are deliberately modeled on established U.S. engagement strategies, which could further disadvantage Washington if it scales back its military presence on the continent, particularly as countries increasingly lean towards Beijing and Moscow " They're trying to replicate what we do best, especially in education and joint training," Langley said. " It's not just competition — it's duplication." He added, highlighting China's swift efforts to win over African militaries through deepened defense ties and alternative partnerships that are increasingly attractive, especially to governments sidelined by U.S. sanctions or aid freezes. ' They even put on joint exercises in Tanzania this fall, styled just like ours. ' He said. Langley however advised African governments to voice their support for AFRICOM's continued presence through diplomatic channels. He said: "If we're important to you, make your voice heard in Washington, ' Recall that General Michael Langley, while addressing military leaders from over 30 nations at the African Chiefs of Defense Conference in Nairobi, stated that the U.S. is shifting its approach from providing extensive military aid to empowering African self-reliance, with the goal of enabling Africa to " do more for itself." ' Our aim is not to serve as a permanent crutch, but to achieve US security objectives that overlap with our partners. We should be able to help African nations build the self-reliance they need to independently confront terrorism and insurgencies,' he said. However, he noted that the State Department, in the process of absorbing USAID, is currently evaluating which aid programs to keep, acknowledging that some programs are "really helpful" to US military stability operations. U.S. rethinks AFRICOM's future Langley's remarks coincided with reports that the U.S. is considering merging AFRICOM into European Command as a cost-cutting measure. Established in 2008 to centralize U.S. military efforts in Africa, AFRICOM has played a pivotal role in counterterrorism operations and partnership-building initiatives. Even as Washington called on African nations to take more responsibility for their own security, global rivals are moving to fill the gap. Langley described the Sahel region as the " epicenter" of global terrorism, noting that: "terrorist networks affiliated with ISIS and al Qaeda are thriving there, particularly in Burkina Faso, where the government no longer controls vast parts of its own territory." The threat also includes Mali and Niger, where a wave of military coups has strained U.S. relations, and groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS have surged in strength. Some, like Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), have quadrupled in size since 2022. He said 'They could soon have the capacity to attack the U.S. homeland,' 'And if they gain access to the West African coastline, they'll diversify revenue and evolve tactics. ' He added. The recalibration of U.S. engagement is already reshaping alliances. In Niger, the ruling junta ordered U.S. forces to withdraw from a $100 million drone base last year. Although the U.S. still maintains limited intelligence-sharing with the Sahel region, its full-spectrum military support has significantly diminished. Meanwhile, Russia has strengthened its ties with several African juntas, offering security support in exchange for access to minerals and political influence. At the same time, insurgent groups like al-Shabaab in Somalia are capitalizing on aid reductions to portray the West as unreliable. Despite these developments, Langley reassured that the U.S. is not abandoning Africa. Airstrikes, intelligence efforts, and military education programs continue, albeit increasingly framed as support for African-led initiatives rather than permanent interventions ' We're not here to dominate or dictate, ' Langley said.

Iran boosting enriched Uranium stockpiles, U.N. nuclear watchdog says
Iran boosting enriched Uranium stockpiles, U.N. nuclear watchdog says

UPI

timean hour ago

  • UPI

Iran boosting enriched Uranium stockpiles, U.N. nuclear watchdog says

This is a view in 2010 of Iranian nuclear power plant in Bushehr, southern Iran. File photo by Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA/EFE May 31 (UPI) -- Iran has increased production of highly enriched uranium, according to the United Nations nuclear watchdog, as the nation conducts talks with the United States on a nuclear deal. The International Atomic Energy Agency said the Middle East country now possesses more than 408.6 kilograms, or 900 pounds, of uranium enriched to 60% purity as of May 17, according to a confidential report obtained by the BBC and Al Jazeera. That's a nearly 50% increase since February. In December, the IAEA said Iran was rapidly moving closer to the 90% threshold needed for weapons-grade material. This is enough for about 10 nuclear weapons if further refined. Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed state producing uranium at this level. "The significantly increased production and accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran ... is of serious concern," IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said. IAEA concluded that Tehran conducted nuclear activities at three previously unknown sites: Lavisan-Shian, Varamin, Turquzabad. And IAEA stated said it "cannot verify" the development of nuclear weapons, citing Iran's refusal to grant access to senior inspectors and not answer questions about its nuclear history. The IAEA board plans to meet in the coming days to discuss next steps. Iran has long said its nuclear enrichment is for peaceful purposes. "If the issue is nuclear weapons, yes, we too consider this type of weapon unacceptable," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a televised speech. "We agree with them on this issue." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Saturday in a statement that Iran is "totally determined" to acquire nuclear weapons. "Such a level of enrichment exists only in countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons and has no civilian justification whatsoever," Netanyahu's office said. U.S. officials estimate Ian could produce weapons-grade material in less than two weeks and potentially build a bomb within months. Since talks began in April, both sides have expressed optimism but are divided over key issues, including whether Iran can continue enrichment under any future agreement. Two of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's advisors -- Ali Larijani and Kamal Kharazi -- have suggested Iran might reconsider building nuclear weapons if international pressure mounts. The IAEA findings could be a negotiation tool for Iran, Hamed Mousavi, professor of political science at Tehran University, told Al Jazeera. "I think both sides are trying to build leverage against the other side," he said. "From the Iranian perspective, an advancement in the nuclear program is going to bring them leverage at the negotiation table with the Americans. "Enriching up to 60% - from the Iranian perspective - is a sort of leverage against the Americans to lift sanctions." He said the U.S. could threaten more sanctions and refer the situation to the U.N. Security Council for its breach of the 2006 non-proliferation agreement. On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said he sees a nuclear deal with Iran that would allow the destruction of labs and inspections. Iran has rejected inspections. He said a deal is "very strong, where we can go in with inspectors. We can take whatever we want. We can blow up whatever we want. But nobody getting killed." In 2018, Trump unilaterally exited the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and reimposed harsh sanctions. In 2015, Iran reached a deal with the U.S., Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China and the European Union. Some sanctions on Iran were lifted for limits on its nuclear development program.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store