On March 18, 2025, the Trump administration fulfilled a long-standing campaign promise of releasing approximately 80,000 pages of previously classified documents related to the 1963 assassination of President John F Kennedy. The move, heralded as a step toward “maximum transparency” by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, reignited one of America’s most enduring mysteries.
Among the trove of documents, one line has captured significant attention: “A small clique within the CIA was responsible for the assassination.” Attributed to intelligence asset Gary Underhill in a newly unredacted file, this explosive claim has thrust the Central Intelligence Agency back into the spotlight of conspiracy theories that have swirled around the JFK assassination for over six decades.
The JFK assassination and the CIA’s shadow
The assassination of John F Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, remains a defining moment in American history, not only for its tragedy but for the persistent doubts it has sown about the official narrative.
The Warren Commission, established by President Lyndon B Johnson in 1964, concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine with communist sympathies, acted alone in killing the president. Yet, public skepticism has never abated. Opinion polls over the decades consistently show that a majority of Americans—often upwards of 60%—believe the assassination involved a conspiracy, with the CIA frequently cast as a prime suspect.
The CIA’s potential involvement has been a recurring theme in conspiracy theories, fueled by the agency’s covert operations during the Cold War. At the time of Kennedy’s death, the CIA was deeply engaged in anti-communist efforts, including plots to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro and surveillance of domestic dissidents. Kennedy’s own fraught relationship with the agency added plausibility to such narratives.
Over the years, critics like Jim Garrison, James Douglass, and Mark Lane have argued that the CIA, possibly in concert with the military-industrial complex or organized crime, orchestrated Kennedy’s death to preserve Cold War tensions or thwart his moves toward détente with the Soviet Union and Cuba.
Robert F Kennedy Jr, Trump’s secretary of health and human services and the son of Robert Kennedy and nephew of John F Kennedy, too has alleged that the CIA was involved in his uncle’s assassination, an accusation the agency calls baseless.
Unpacking Underhill’s claim in the released files
The newly released files include CIA memos, FBI reports, and previously unrecognized records.
Gary Underhill, identified as a CIA intelligence asset in the released documents, reportedly made the statement “A small clique within the CIA was responsible for the assassination” shortly after Kennedy’s death. According to the file, Underhill described this group as “a corrupt element every bit as ruthless – and more efficient – as the mafia.” A military journalist with ties to the intelligence community, Underhill claimed to have fled Washington, DC, in fear for his life following the assassination, only to die in 1964 under circumstances some deem suspicious—a single gunshot to the head ruled as suicide. His assertion, now unredacted for the first time, aligns with long-standing theories but raises critical questions about its credibility and significance.
First, the context of Underhill’s claim within the files is key. The document does not present it as an official CIA finding but as a recorded statement from an individual with insider knowledge, likely gathered during post-assassination debriefings or investigations. Underhill’s proximity to the agency lends weight to his words, yet his role as an asset—rather than a high-ranking officer—suggests he may have lacked access to definitive proof.
Second, the phrase “a small clique” implies a rogue faction rather than an agency-wide plot, a nuance that complicates the narrative. This aligns with theories posited by some researchers who argue that specific CIA officers, such as those involved in anti-Castro operations, may have had motives to target Kennedy.
However, according to a Reuters report, an initial review of the documents found no deviations from the main narrative.
Fredrik Logevall, a Harvard history professor and author of “JFK: Coming of Age in the American Century 1917-56,” suggested the new files could provide additional context.
“It’s valuable to get all the documentation out, ideally in unredacted form. But I don’t expect dramatic new revelations that alter in some fundamental way our grasp of the event,” he told Reuters.
Historians like Fredrik Logevall caution against expecting “dramatic new revelations that alter our grasp of the event,” noting that such claims often reflect personal speculation rather than documented evidence.
(With inputs from agencies)
