Government releases latest batch of JFK assassination documents
More than 60 years after President John F. Kennedy was gunned down in Dallas, the federal government began releasing what could be the final trove of documents delving into the assassination that shocked the nation and spawned countless conspiracy theories.
The Justice Department's National Security Division on Tuesday started unveiling the long-awaited files a day after President Donald Trump announced that 80,000 pages related to the fatal Nov. 22, 1963, shooting were about to be released.
'You got a lot of reading,' Trump said while visiting the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. 'I don't believe we're going to redact anything.'
Trump was cagey about what would be in those files, but historians contend that there are around 4,700 documents that haven't yet been released.
"The origins of the 80,000 pages of material are unknown," Jefferson Morley, an expert on the JFK assassination and the CIA, wrote on his JFK Facts blog.
DOJ lawyers worked all night to review hundreds of pages of classified documents before they were released, a person familiar with the matter told NBC News.
It remains to be seen whether this document drop will finally put to rest the widespread public skepticism of the government's official explanation of who killed Kennedy — a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald who fired the fatal shots from the Texas Schoolbook Depository.
'People have so many doubts,' presidential historian Michael Beschloss said. 'There are so many theories that are conflicting. It's very hard for me to imagine that there will be one piece of evidence that will make everyone agree on what happened here. What most people do agree is that the killing of John Kennedy changed history, and mainly in a bad way.'
When Trump was campaigning last year and trying to win the endorsement of JFK's nephew, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., he renewed his promise to release the files.
Hours after snagging RFK Jr.'s endorsement in August, Trump vowed that if elected, he would establish a commission on assassination attempts in honor of RFK Jr., who is now the Trump administration's secretary of Health and Human Services.
Shortly after he began his second term, Trump signed an executive order mandating the release of all records related to President Kennedy's assassination, as well as the 1968 assassinations of RFK Jr.'s father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy Sr., and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
But under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, all the documents related to the assassination were supposed to be released by 2017, when Trump was president the first time.
Trump released some JFK-related documents then, but he also gave the intelligence agencies more time to assess the remaining files.
It wasn't until December 2022 that President Joe Biden released more than 13,000 records after the Mary Ferrell Foundation, the nation's largest nonprofit repository of the JFK assassination records, sued the administration to make all the documents public.
But Biden only released about 98% of all the documents related to the killing that remained in the National Archives, which controls the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection.
'It's high time that the government got its act together and obeyed the spirit and the letter of the law,' Morley, who is also the vice president of the nonpartisan Mary Ferrell Foundation, said at the time.
'This is about our history and our right to know it,' said Morley.
The 4,700 or so records that were kept under wraps were believed to have included more information on accused Oswald's sojourn in Mexico City before the JFK assassination.
Among those documents were 44 related to then-CIA agent George Joannides and a covert Cuba-related program he ran that came into contact with Oswald less than four months before Kennedy was shot, according to calculations made by JFK researchers with the Mary Ferrell Foundation.
In a memorandum explaining why some documents were not being released, Biden noted that the records act 'permits the continued postponement of disclosure of information ... only when postponement remains necessary to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.'
Prominent historians didn't buy that explanation.
'We're 59 years after President John Kennedy was killed and there's just no justification for this,' Judge John Tunheim, who chaired the Assassination Records Review Board from 1994 to 1998, said when Biden released the records.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Obama's doctor makes candid confession about Biden's mental decline while in office
The former White House physician to President Barack Obama has broken his silence, candidly admitting that President Joe Biden should have undergone rigorous cognitive testing throughout all four years of his presidency. Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as Obama's doctor from 2009 to 2013, didn't mince words warning that Biden should have been subjected to extensive annual neurocognitive exams and that the results should be made public. 'My position is that a 78-year-old candidate, Trump at the time, an 82-year-old president [Biden], would both benefit from neurocognitive testing,' Kuhlman stated, noting how age-related decline is inevitable. 'Any politician over the age of 70 has normal age-related cognitive decline.' Kuhlman, the author of Transforming Presidential Healthcare, has been making these recommendations for nearly a year - notably publishing them in a New York Times op-ed on the very day Biden bowed out of the 2024 race. Despite multiple detailed physicals during Biden's time in office, Kuhlman pointed out that none included neurocognitive assessments like the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) - a basic test famously taken and 'aced' by President Trump. 'I have no doubt that President Trump aced it,' Kuhlman remarked. Yet Biden's evaluations, spanning five to six single-spaced pages and referencing 10 to 20 specialists, conspicuously omitted any serious cognitive screening. Biden's physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor who also treated Biden during his vice presidency never subjected him to a formal cognitive battery or even the routine MoCA test. Such an omission has become more glaring given the president's visible struggles, culminating in his disastrous debate performance in June 2024 that effectively ended his reelection bid. 'Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest,' Kuhlman said to the New York Post acknowledging his respect for O'Connor's medical judgment but hinting at blind spots that may have endangered the presidency itself. Kuhlman also emphasized that simple cognitive screens like the MoCA are not enough to fully assess deeper mental deterioration. True evaluation requires extensive testing for memory, reasoning, processing speed, and spatial visualization. Such faculties begin to decline starting around age 60. The White House had long insisted Biden was 'fit for duty,' yet Kuhlman's remarks cast fresh doubts on those assurances. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre brushed aside concerns at a February 2024 briefing declaring, 'The president doesn't need a cognitive test. He passes a cognitive test every day.' But the former presidential physician's comments now suggest that claim was complacent. Adding fuel to the fire, White House logs revealed Biden met with Dr. Kevin Cannard, a Parkinson's specialist from Walter Reed, as part of his annual physical in January 2024. While O'Connor insisted the meeting was routine, other medical professionals weren't convinced. 'If somebody turns up a report that Kevin Cannard said he has Parkinson's then that's a completely different story,' Kuhlman said. He did, however, express trust in Cannard's evaluation based on their long-standing professional history. In the past, critics pointed to Biden's stiff gait, slow movement, and shuffling walk as signs of something deeper. 'I could've diagnosed him from across the Mall,' neurologist Dr. Tom Pitts bluntly told NBC in July 2024. In one final blow, Special Counsel Robert Hur's bombshell decision not to indict Biden over his handling of classified documents cited that a jury would likely view the president as 'a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.' The Republican-led House Oversight Committee is now turning up the heat. Chairman James Comer (R-Kentucky) has subpoenaed O'Connor to testify under oath on June 27 about Biden's mental fitness. In a pointed letter, Comer raised concerns about O'Connor's 'financial relationship with the Biden family' and suggested there may have been a cover-up to conceal the president's cognitive decline from the American public. Jean-Pierre who has since left the Democratic Party and is preparing to release a scathing tell-all book about the 'broken' Biden administration is also expected to testify. Last month, a new book titled Original Sin by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson hit the shelves with allegations of a vast cover-up of Biden's final years in office. According to the book's authors, O'Connor resisted administering a cognitive test during Biden's last two years. Days before the book's released Biden revealed he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer with the cells having spread to the bone. Kuhlman emphasized that cancer testing protocols should have been maintained after 2014, but hinted that Biden may have been let down even in that regard. 'I hope that Kevin O'Connor had that conversation every year with his patient, Joe Biden, and documented that in the medical record,' he said. 'If he did the PSA and chose not to release it, I don't agree with that.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Travel ban may shut door for Afghan family to bring niece to US for a better life
Mohammad Sharafoddin, his wife and young son walked at times for 36 hours in a row over mountain passes as they left Afghanistan as refugees to end up less than a decade later talking about their journey on a plush love seat in the family's three-bedroom suburban American home. He and his wife dreamed of bringing her niece to the U.S. to share in that bounty. Maybe she could study to become a doctor and then decide her own path. But that door slams shut on Monday as America put in place a travel ban for people from Afghanistan and a dozen other countries. 'It's kind of shock for us when we hear about Afghanistan, especially right now for ladies who are affected more than others with the new government,' Mohammad Sharafoddin said. 'We didn't think about this travel ban.' President Donald Trump signed the ban Wednesday. It is similar to one in place during his first administration but covers more countries. Along with Afghanistan, travel to the U.S. is banned from Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Trump said visitors who overstay visas, like the man charged in an attack that injured dozens of demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, earlier this month, are a danger to the country. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, which isn't included in the ban. The countries chosen for the ban have deficient screening of their citizens, often refuse to take them back and have a high percentage of people who stay in the U.S. after their visas expire, Trump said. The ban makes exceptions for people from Afghanistan on Special Immigrant Visas who generally worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade war there. Thousands of refugees came from Afghanistan Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office. It is a path Sharafoddin took with his wife and son out of Afghanistan walking on those mountain roads in the dark then through Pakistan, Iran and into Turkey. He worked in a factory for years in Turkey, listening to YouTube videos on headphones to learn English before he was resettled in Irmo, South Carolina, a suburb of Columbia. His son is now 11, and he and his wife had a daughter in the U.S. who is now 3. There is a job at a jewelry maker that allows him to afford a two-story, three-bedroom house. Food was laid out on two tables Saturday for a celebration of the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday. Sharafoddin's wife, Nuriya, said she is learning English and driving — two things she couldn't do in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. 'I'm very happy to be here now, because my son is very good at school and my daughter also. I think after 18 years they are going to work, and my daughter is going to be able to go to college,' she said. Family wants to help niece It is a life she wanted for her niece too. The couple show videos from their cellphones of her drawing and painting. When the Taliban returned to power in 2021, their niece could no longer study. So they started to plan to get her to the U.S. at least to further her education. Nuriya Sharafoddin doesn't know if her niece has heard the news from America yet. She hasn't had the heart to call and tell her. 'I'm not ready to call her. This is not good news. This is very sad news because she is worried and wants to come,' Nuriya Sharafoddin said. While the couple spoke, Jim Ray came by. He has helped a number of refugee families settle in Columbia and helped the Sharafoddins navigate questions in their second language. Ray said Afghans in Columbia know the return of the Taliban changed how the U.S. deals with their native country. But while the ban allows spouses, children or parents to travel to America, other family members aren't included. Many Afghans know their extended families are starving or suffering, and suddenly a path to help is closed, Ray said. 'We'll have to wait and see how the travel ban and the specifics of it actually play out,' Ray said. 'This kind of thing that they're experiencing where family cannot be reunited is actually where it hurts the most.' Taliban criticizes the travel ban The Taliban itself criticized Trump for the ban, with leader Hibatullah Akhundzada saying the U.S. was now the oppressor of the world. 'Citizens from 12 countries are barred from entering their land — and Afghans are not allowed either,' he said on a recording shared on social media. 'Why? Because they claim the Afghan government has no control over its people and that people are leaving the country. So, oppressor! Is this what you call friendship with humanity?'
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
New questions emerge from the new charges in Kilmar Abrego Garcia case
The sudden return of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia to the United States on Friday to face federal charges of smuggling migrants across the country was a messaging triumph for the Trump administration. The news deflected public attention from a series of unanimous court rulings —including a Supreme Court decision —that President Donald Trump did not have the power to unilaterally detain and deport individuals to foreign prisons without a review by a judge. And the allegations against Abrego-Garcia are damning. A federal grand jury found that the 29-year-old was an MS-13 member who transported thousands of undocumented immigrants, including children, from Texas to states across the country for profit for nine years. He allegedly also transported firearms and drugs, abused female migrants and was linked to an incident in Mexico where a tractor-trailer overturned and killed 50 migrants. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer representing Abrego-Garcia, said Saturday that he planned to meet his client for the first time on Sunday, but declined to further comment. A former senior law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation, said he was struck by the large amount of resources the DOJ put into investigating Abrego Garcia. 'It is odd that they would use all of these folks to go after a low-level driver,' said the official. 'Usually, we used the driver to go after the coyotes and up if we could. But they really wanted to get this guy and it looks like they found a path.' In a telephone interview with NBC News's Kristen Welker on Saturday, Trump hailed Abrego-Garcia's indictment and predicted it would be easy for federal prosecutors to convict him. 'I think it should be,' he said. 'It should be.' Multiple questions about Abrego-Garcia, the case against him, and the political fallout remain unanswered. Will Democrats pay a political price? For months, Abrego-Garcia's lawyers, his wife, and some Democrats, have denied that he was an MS-13 gang member. They generally portrayed him as a Maryland construction worker and claimed he was transporting co-workers when a Tennessee state trooper stopped him on Interstate 40 on November 30, 2022. The indictment paints a different picture: Abrego-Garcia was transporting nine Hispanic males without identification or luggage in a Chevrolet Suburban. Prosecutors allege he 'knowingly and falsely' told the trooper they 'had been in St. Louis for two weeks doing construction' and were returning to Maryland. However, license plate reader data showed that the Suburban had not been near St. Louis for twelve months. Instead, it had been in Houston where, according to prosecutors, Abrego-Garcia had picked up the men. The vehicle was not carrying tools or construction equipment, but its rear cargo area had been modified with makeshift seating to transport more passengers. The apparent strength of the government's case could reignite debate among Democrats about the risks of focusing on Abrego-Garcia's case. For weeks, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, and other Democrats emphasized that their criticism targeted Trump's decision to unilaterally deport Abrego-Garcia without judicial oversight, not a defense of Abrego Garcia himself. When Welker asked about Van Hollen, President Trump mocked the Senator and said defending the Abrego Garcia would backfire on Democrats. 'He's a loser. The guy's a loser,' Trump said, referring to Van Hollen. 'They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear. He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular.' Van Hollen defended his stance in a CNN interview. 'You know, I will never apologize for defending the Constitution,' he said. 'In fact, it's the Trump administration and all his cronies who should apologize to the country for putting us through this unnecessary situation.' What happened inside the Trump Administration? In an Oval Office visit on April 15, 2025, Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other Trump administration officials asserted that it was not possible for the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador as the Supreme Court had ordered. El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele mocked areporter for asking whether he would do so.'How can I return him to the United States? Like if I smuggle him into the United States?' Bukele said, sitting beside Trump in the Oval Office. 'Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous.' Trump, in turn, chided the assembled journalists, saying, 'They'd love to have a criminal released into our country. These are sick people.' Bondi said only El Salvador could decide whether to return Bukele. 'If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane,' said Bondi said. 'That's up for El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us.' Yet, in a Friday press conference at the Justice Department, Bondi described the return of Abrego-Garcia as smooth and seamless. 'We want to thank President Bukele for agreeing to return Abrego-Garcia to the United States,' she said. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant, and they agreed to return him to our country.' Asked what had changed since the traffic stop in 2022, she lauded Trump. 'What has changed is Donald Trump is now president of the United States,' Bondi said, 'and our borders are again secure.' In an unusual move, Bondi also described allegations against Abrego-Garcia that were not included in the indictment. She said that co-conspirators alleged that Abrego-Garcia 'solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor' and 'played a role in the murder of a rival gang member's mother.' For decades, attorneys general from both parties and state and local prosecutors have generally accused defendants of crimes only for which a grand jury indicted them. Discussing other potential crimes has long been regarded as an abuse of prosecutorial power, risking unfair harm to defendants' reputations. A former senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity, citing fears of retaliation, said that Bondi often speaks as a partisan Trump loyalist, not a neutral law enforcement official. 'She says the president's name every time,' said the former DOJ official. 'She talks more like a politician, stumping for a candidate than an attorney general who is out there talking independently. You can see that in the words she uses.' Why did a top federal prosecutor in Tennessee resign? The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that people close to the matter said the indictment prompted the resignation of a veteran career prosecutor who headed the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office where the case was filed. The Journal did not name the prosecutor. However, days after Abrego-Garcia was indicted by a federal grand jury in Nashville, Ben Schrader, the head of criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's office in Nashville, resigned. 'Earlier today, after nearly 15 years as an Assistant United States Attorney, I resigned as Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee,' Schrader posted on LinkedIn. 'It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons. I wish all of my colleagues at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nashville and across the Department the best as they seek to do justice on behalf of the American people.' :
