For the first time in years, the House Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets convened a hearing that felt less like a procedural formality and more like a courtroom drama steeped in suspicion, historical trauma, and political tension.

What unfolded inside the chamber was not merely a review of declassified documents, but a confrontation with America’s unresolved past and its increasingly fragile relationship with truth.

Lawmakers, historians, filmmakers, and transparency advocates gathered under the weight of history, aware that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy still casts a long shadow over the nation.

From the outset, Chairwoman Anna Paulina Luna framed the session as a reckoning with decades of secrecy.

She described the release of over 880,000 pages of classified JFK-related documents as a historic moment, accusing federal agencies of systematic stonewalling and excessive redactions.

Her opening remarks were both reverent and incendiary, invoking not only Kennedy’s death but also contemporary controversies such as intelligence interference in elections, misinformation campaigns, and government secrecy surrounding high-profile scandals.

To her, the hearing was about more than JFK — it was about dismantling what she called the “Deep State.

”

Ranking Member Robert Garcia struck a different tone, emphasizing Kennedy’s legacy and the importance of responsible transparency rather than sensationalism.

He acknowledged past abuses by the CIA and FBI, particularly during the Cold War, but cautioned against leaping to conspiracy theories without concrete evidence.

His remarks highlighted the tension that would define the hearing: a struggle between those seeking absolute disclosure and those warning against reckless speculation.

The witnesses called before the task force brought dramatically different perspectives.

Investigative journalist Jefferson Morley presented the most explosive testimony.

Drawing on decades of research, he detailed how CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton had withheld crucial information about Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination and later lied under oath to congressional investigators.

Morley described a disturbing pattern of deception by three senior CIA officials — Angleton, former Director Richard Helms, and covert operations chief George Joannides — arguing that their false statements amounted to more than incompetence.

To him, it suggested culpability or at least complicity in a broader cover-up.

While stopping short of accusing the CIA of directly orchestrating Kennedy’s murder, Morley asserted that intelligence officials had manipulated Oswald and concealed critical facts from the American public.

Filmmaker Oliver Stone, whose 1991 film “JFK” helped spark the 1992 JFK Records Act, spoke with passion and defiance.

He rejected the official lone-gunman narrative and criticized the Warren Commission for its failures.

Stone emphasized inconsistencies in forensic evidence, particularly the controversial “magic bullet” theory and the chain of custody surrounding key materials.

He also pointed to eyewitness accounts that contradicted official findings, including claims of a massive head wound consistent with a shot from the front rather than behind.

For Stone, the assassination represented a fundamental betrayal of democratic ideals, and the CIA’s refusal to fully cooperate with past investigations only deepened public distrust.

Researcher James DiEugenio reinforced these concerns, arguing that the government had violated the spirit — and perhaps the letter — of the JFK Records Act by withholding documents well past the legal deadline.

He recounted how both the Trump and Biden administrations delayed full declassification despite public promises.

DiEugenio also described CIA arrogance during past review processes, recalling instances where agency officials dismissed congressional authority and stalled transparency efforts.

His testimony suggested that bureaucratic resistance, rather than national security, had been the primary barrier to truth.

John Davidson of the Electronic Privacy Information Center introduced a different but equally troubling angle: the mishandling of personal data in the recent document release.

He revealed that Social Security numbers and other sensitive information belonging to former congressional staffers and federal employees had been exposed, potentially putting hundreds of people at risk of identity theft and harassment.

While supporting transparency, Davidson warned that reckless declassification without proper redaction could undermine both privacy rights and public trust.

As the hearing progressed, partisan divisions sharpened.

Republican members pressed witnesses on alleged CIA wrongdoing, covert operations, and possible foreign involvement in the assassination.

They cited newly released documents suggesting Oswald had contact with KGB officials in Mexico City and was accompanied by a mysterious figure known as “El Mexicano.

” These revelations, they argued, challenged the official narrative and justified further investigation.

Democratic members pushed back, cautioning against conspiratorial thinking and drawing parallels to current events.

Representative Jasmine Crockett criticized Republicans for fixating on 60-year-old allegations while ignoring contemporary scandals involving classified military communications and government accountability.

She argued that the real lesson of the JFK files was the need for stronger safeguards against both secrecy and reckless disclosure.

The hearing also veered into unexpected territory when discussions turned to assassination attempts against former President Donald Trump.

Some lawmakers and witnesses suggested eerie parallels between past and present security failures, though opinions differed sharply on their significance.

Oliver Stone expressed concern that insufficient transparency about recent incidents mirrored the opacity surrounding Kennedy’s murder.

Throughout the session, references to missing or destroyed evidence loomed large.

Witnesses described destroyed CIA files, suspicious deaths of potential whistleblowers, and unresolved discrepancies in autopsy reports.

DiEugenio recounted the mysterious death of arms dealer Gary Underhill, who allegedly claimed CIA involvement in the assassination before being found dead under questionable circumstances.

Such stories blurred the line between documented fact and chilling speculation.

Despite the drama, no definitive conclusions emerged.

The task force did not present a smoking gun, nor did it prove a grand conspiracy.

Instead, the hearing revealed something arguably more unsettling: a pattern of institutional behavior that favored secrecy over accountability, even when it undermined public confidence.

The CIA’s historical reluctance to fully cooperate with investigations, combined with modern failures in data protection, painted a picture of an intelligence apparatus still resistant to oversight.

As the session concluded, Chairwoman Luna vowed to continue pressing for complete declassification and accountability, including issuing a formal request to NBC for access to an unreleased film that may show Oswald outside the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting.

She framed the task force’s mission as a moral duty to honor Kennedy’s legacy and restore faith in democratic institutions.

Yet, beneath the rhetoric, the hearing underscored a deeper national anxiety.

More than six decades after Kennedy’s death, Americans remain divided not only over what happened that day, but over whether their government can be trusted to tell the truth.

The JFK files have become a proxy battle in a larger war over transparency, power, and the meaning of democracy itself.

What was meant to be a technical review of declassified records instead became a mirror reflecting the nation’s unresolved trauma.

In that sense, the hearing was less about the past than about the present — a reminder that without trust, even the most meticulously documented history can feel like a contested battlefield.