On a quiet morning in Washington, the House Oversight Committee’s task force on the declassification of federal secrets convened under an atmosphere that felt more like a courtroom than a routine hearing. At issue was not just history, but trust — trust in government, in intelligence agencies, and in whether the American public has ever truly been told the full truth about one of the most traumatic events in modern U.S. history: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The hearing was sparked by the recent release of tens of thousands of previously classified JFK assassination documents, a release ordered by former President Donald Trump but widely criticized as rushed, chaotic, and dangerously careless. What was meant to be a moment of transparency instead ignited fresh controversy, as researchers uncovered troubling revelations about CIA behavior, while privacy advocates condemned the exposure of sensitive personal information belonging to hundreds of former government employees.

Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, who leads the task force, opened the proceedings with a sober reminder that the search for truth was not merely academic. For more than six decades, she argued, the American people had been misled, obstructed, and kept in the dark by their own government. The newly released records, she insisted, proved that secrecy had been used not to protect national security, but to conceal misconduct.

The first witness to testify was Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter and longtime investigator of the JFK assassination. Over three decades, Morley has built a reputation as both a meticulous researcher and a controversial figure, often challenging the official conclusion of the Warren Commission that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Sitting before the committee, Morley spoke with measured gravity, emphasizing that his testimony was grounded in years of documentation rather than speculation.

He described how, in the spring of 2023, the CIA fully declassified its pre-assassination file on Oswald for the first time — a 198-page dossier held in the office of CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton just miles from the White House. On its own, Morley said, the file did not constitute a “smoking gun.” Many journalists initially dismissed it as evidence of bureaucratic incompetence or internal cover-your-tracks behavior.

But Morley’s perspective shifted when he examined newly released transcripts of Angleton’s 1978 testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. These documents, hidden from public view for half a century, revealed that Angleton had lied under oath about the CIA’s surveillance of Oswald while he lived in the Soviet Union from 1959 to 1962. For Morley, this was a turning point.

He told lawmakers that Angleton was the third senior CIA official known to have lied about what the agency knew regarding Oswald before Kennedy’s death. He cited former CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms, who falsely told the Warren Commission in 1964 that the agency had only “minimal” information about Oswald, and George Joannides, a covert operations officer who allegedly obstructed congressional investigations into Oswald’s connections with anti-Castro operatives.

Taken together, Morley argued, these false statements formed a clear pattern of misconduct rather than isolated mistakes. He stopped short of claiming that the CIA directly assassinated Kennedy, but he maintained that the agency was at least culpable or complicit through deception and obstruction.

Filmmaker Oliver Stone, director of the controversial 1991 film JFK, followed Morley with a fiery call for a complete reinvestigation of the assassination. Stone criticized the handling of physical evidence, including the rifle, bullets, fingerprints, and autopsy records, arguing that the original investigation fell far below the standards of even the most basic criminal case. He urged Congress to reexamine the role of U.S. intelligence agencies, whose “muddy footprints,” in his words, appeared all over the case.

James DiEugenio, a researcher whose work informed Stone’s later documentary, echoed these concerns, highlighting missing or inaccessible evidence — particularly an NBC film that may show Oswald standing on the ground during the shooting, rather than firing from the Texas School Book Depository. DiEugenio urged the committee to subpoena NBC to release the original footage so the public could judge for themselves.

Yet as conspiracy theories swirled, another critical issue emerged: the reckless handling of personal data in the document release. John Davidson, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), testified that the rushed declassification exposed the Social Security numbers and other sensitive information of more than 400 former congressional staffers and federal officials, many of whom are still alive.

Davidson called the breach “outrageous,” “sloppy,” and “almost criminal,” noting that basic redaction procedures were bypassed in the haste to meet an arbitrary deadline. While the National Archives and White House have offered credit monitoring and replacement Social Security numbers to those affected, he warned that the damage had already been done. Once personal data is exposed, it can never be fully erased.

Representative Robert Garcia pressed Morley on whether he believed Oswald actually fired the shots that killed Kennedy. Morley responded carefully, stating that while Oswald may have fired a weapon that day, he did not believe Oswald was the intellectual author of the assassination. When asked who was responsible, Morley pointed broadly to “Kennedy’s enemies high in his own government,” particularly within the CIA and Pentagon, though he acknowledged there was still no definitive proof.

Arizona Congressman Eli Crane then raised the case of Gary Underhill, an arms dealer with ties to the CIA who reportedly told a friend shortly after the assassination that a CIA faction had been involved. Underhill later died from what was officially ruled a self-inflicted gunshot wound, though witnesses have questioned that conclusion, noting inconsistencies such as the gun being found in the wrong hand.

Morley conceded that Underhill’s story could not be fully verified, but said it aligned with suspicions held by several U.S. presidents, including Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon, who privately doubted the official narrative.

As the hearing drew to a close, Representative Luna struck a defiant tone. She emphasized that the purpose of the task force was not to indulge in conspiracy theories, but to confront uncomfortable truths about illegal surveillance, abuse of power, and institutional deception. The recent document dump, she argued, had already revealed evidence of break-ins, unauthorized wiretaps, and clandestine operations that violated both law and ethics.

At the same time, she criticized the Trump administration’s handling of the release, accusing it of prioritizing political spectacle over public safety. In her view, transparency must be pursued responsibly — with proper safeguards, funding, and time for careful review — not rushed for headlines.

Experts estimate that it could take years for historians, journalists, and legal scholars to fully analyze the newly released records. Thousands of pages remain disorganized, poorly labeled, and filled with technical jargon that requires specialized knowledge to interpret.

Yet one thing has already become clear: the JFK assassination is not merely a historical mystery, but a living controversy that continues to shape debates over government secrecy, accountability, and the balance between national security and civil liberties.

For many Americans, the hearing reinforced a painful reality — that the institutions meant to protect democracy have, at times, acted in ways that undermine it. Whether the truth about November 22, 1963, will ever be fully known remains uncertain. But as this latest chapter unfolds, one principle seems undeniable: delayed truth is still worth pursuing, no matter how long it takes.