A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) special operations officer, James Erdman III, testified before a Senate hearing on Wednesday, alleging that the CIA reclaimed sensitive files related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the covert MKUltra program. These files were reportedly being reviewed for declassification by a team within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) led by Director Tulsi Gabbard.
"When the DIG ceased operations, the CIA also took back 40 boxes of JFK files and MKUltra files being processed for declassification by DNI Gabbard." — James Erdman III, CIA Special Operations Officer
Erdman's testimony detailed that approximately 40 boxes of JFK assassination records and MKUltra files were taken back by the CIA after Gabbard’s Director’s Initiatives Group (DIG) ceased operations earlier this year. "When the DIG ceased operations, the CIA also took back 40 boxes of JFK files and MKUltra files being processed for declassification by DNI Gabbard," Erdman stated to lawmakers during the hearing focused on the origins of COVID-19.
The Director’s Initiatives Group was established by DNI Gabbard last year. Its mandate included examining alleged weaponization within the intelligence community and enhancing transparency regarding classified government records. The DIG program operated for approximately ten months before it was shut down by the ODNI in February, according to various reports discussing the circumstances.
In addition to the allegations concerning the retrieval of classified documents, Erdman also accused the CIA of improper surveillance of DIG personnel. He claimed the agency monitored communications and activities of DIG staff and whistleblowers who were connected to investigations conducted by the group. "The CIA illegally monitored the computer and phone usage of DIG personnel, their investigations, and contact with whistleblowers," Erdman testified, raising concerns about intelligence community oversight and the protection of internal informants.
The CIA swiftly rejected the whistleblower's claims following the hearing. In a public statement, the agency criticized the Senate proceedings, characterizing them as "dishonest political theater masquerading as a congressional hearing." This rebuttal underscores the contentious nature of the allegations and the deep divisions within government agencies regarding transparency and accountability.
The allegations prompted immediate and strong reactions from several members of Congress. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) issued a public warning to the CIA, demanding the return of the documents within a specified timeframe. "The CIA has 24 hours to return the documents to Tulsi Gabbard’s office or else I will make a motion to issue a subpoena," Luna declared on X shortly after the hearing. Her call for congressional action received public support from Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO). Additionally, Representative Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) reportedly expressed interest in the matter, indicating potential bipartisan concern over the allegations.
The context of President Kennedy’s assassination files is particularly relevant. President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year that directed the declassification of remaining records tied to the Nov. 22, 1963, assassination in Dallas. Since this order, the federal government has released over 80,000 pages of JFK-related documents. However, historians and researchers have noted that these releases have yielded little significant new information.
Project MKUltra, the other program mentioned in Erdman's testimony, was a highly controversial covert CIA program. Conducted between 1953 and 1973, MKUltra involved experiments on human behavior, including the use of drugs and psychological manipulation. The program was publicly exposed during Senate investigations in 1975, sparking widespread public outrage and leading to increased scrutiny of intelligence agency activities.
The current allegations, if substantiated, could reignite debates about the extent of government secrecy, the power of intelligence agencies, and the mechanisms for congressional oversight. The dispute highlights ongoing tensions between the executive branch's intelligence apparatus and legislative efforts to ensure transparency and accountability. Further congressional action, including potential subpoenas, could escalate the confrontation.
