Investigating the CIA's Role in the JFK Assassination Based on Declassified Documents

Chronology of Key Events Related to the CIA and JFK Assassination

• 1959-1962 - Oswald Under Secret Operation: In October 1959, former US Marine Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the Soviet Union. The CIA immediately opened a 201 file on his behalf and began monitoring Oswald's communications. Later declassified CIA memos show that Oswald was put on a watch list for the CIA's secret mail interception program (HTLINGUAL), so his letters sent to/from the Soviet Union were illegally opened.This program lasted for at least two periods: November 9, 1959 - May 3, 1960 and August 7, 1961 - May 28, 1962. For example, Oswald's mother's letters sent to him in the Soviet Union were intercepted by the CIA . Thus, the CIA had already gathered information about Oswald's activities during his stay in the Soviet Union and after his return to the US in June 1962.
• 1961 - Bay of Pigs and the JFK-CIA Confrontation: On April 17, 1961, the CIA's covert invasion of the Bay of Pigs (Cuba) was a disgraceful failure. President John F. Kennedy was outraged at this poor operation and felt the CIA misled him. As a result, in late 1961 JFK forced the retirement of CIA Director Allen Dulles and his deputy, and appointed John McCones as the new CIA Director. JFK even said that he wanted to “break the CIA into a thousand pieces.” This tension signaled JFK's intention to control the CIA more tightly after the Bay of Pigs.
• 1962 - Operation Anti-Castro and Mongoose: Following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the Kennedy administration (through the CIA and the Department of Defense) launched Operation Mongoose, a covert campaign to destabilize Fidel Castro's regime. Between 1960-1965, the CIA was involved in at least eight plots to assassinate Castro. Some plots involved collaboration with the US mafia, the use of poison, poison pens, snipers, and other scenarios. Notes: The 1975 Senate Special Committee later revealed that the CIA was never explicitly mandated by the President to kill Castro, but CIA officials nonetheless interpreted general anti-Castro support as a green light. In August 1962, for example, the CIA had twice sent poison pills through mafia intermediaries to kill Castro. These illicit operations were kept tightly hidden from the public and even from watchdogs within the Kennedy administration itself.
• 1963 (Pre-November) - Oswald, Cuba and CIA monitoring: By mid-1963, Oswald was in New Orleans and involved in pro-Castro activities (founding a chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee). He also clashed with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups (e.g. Oswald argued with members of the CIA-backed Cuban Revolutionary Directorate, codenamed AMSPELL) - interactions that would later be highlighted as linking Oswald to Cuban propaganda. In early September 1963, Oswald contacted the Soviet Embassy in Washington by letter (the contents of which were monitored by both the FBI and the CIA) and then decided to travel to Mexico City in late September 1963. In Mexico City, the CIA had intensive wiretapping operations against the Cuban and Soviet embassies. Through coded operations LIENVOY (telephone tapping) and LIEMPTY (secret photo monitoring), the CIA directly monitored Oswald's movements there. In fact, on September 28, 1963, the CIA intercepted a telephone conversation from “Lee Oswald” calling the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City - and heard Oswald speaking in broken Russian with Consul Valeriy Kostikov, a KGB officer known to the CIA. Kostikov was known to the CIA as an agent of Department 13 of the KGB (sabotage/assassinations division), so this interaction was particularly alarming. The MexicoCity CIA also took a photo of the alleged Oswald entering the Soviet Embassy compound, although it later turned out that the photo was not actually Oswald. All intelligence about Oswald's visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies was reported by the CIA to headquarters, but it is important to note that this information was not fully passed on to the other services ahead of the President's visit to Dallas.
• November 22, 1963 - JFK Killed in Dallas, CIA Continues Overseas Operations: President Kennedy is gunned down in Dallas, Texas. Oswald is arrested a few hours later and immediately identified as the sole perpetrator. On the same day, not far from this context, the CIA was also carrying out one of its most audacious anti-Castro plots: On November 22, 1963, top CIA official Desmond FitzGerald met code secret agent AM/LASH (a Cuban military officer in cahoots with the CIA) in Paris. At that meeting - which happened to take place a few hours before JFK was assassinated - the CIA gave agent AM/LASH an assassination device in the form of a “poison pen”, with the recommendation that the poison be used to kill Fidel Castro. This instruction was given on the same day the US President himself was killed. This plot was ultimately never carried out because the situation changed drastically after Kennedy's death.
• November 23, 1963 - Insider Allegations against the CIA: The day after the assassination, there was unease even among intelligence community insiders. John Garrett “Gary” Underhill - a former OSS/CIA officer and intelligence writer - fled Washington DC in a state of fear. He visited friends (the Fitsimmons family) in New Jersey in a “very shaken” state. According to a later-disclosed CIA memo (dated July 19, 1967), Underhill unequivocally stated his belief that a “small clique within the CIA” was responsible for Kennedy's assassination. To his colleagues, Underhill claimed Oswald was only a “patsy” (scapegoat) and that JFK's assassination was masterminded by a corrupt CIA group involved in the illicit business of arms and narcotics trafficking. He warned that the CIA people “had done something desperate” to protect their interests, and Kennedy was killed “before he could blow the whistle” to expose the black operation. Underhill feared for his life and planned to flee the country; ironically, less than 6 months later (May 1964) Underhill was found shot dead in his home in suspicious circumstances (officially ruled a suicide, although the gun was found on his left side even though Underhill was left-handed). Underhill's story only came to public light after the above 1967 CIA documents were declassified in 2023, corroborating speculation that there were internal suspicions of CIA involvement from the start.
• 1964 - The Warren Commission and the CIA's “Benign Cover-Up”: President Lyndon B. Johnson established the Warren Commission shortly after the incident to investigate the assassination of JFK. CIA Director John McCone testifies before the commission and promises the CIA will be “fully cooperative”. The CIA officially stated there was no evidence of foreign involvement or internal conspiracy - Oswald was considered a “lone wolf” who happened to be a communist sympathizer. The Warren Commission's final report (October 1964) validated the narrative that Oswald acted alone. However, internal CIA documents declassified decades later reveal a different reality: According to a 2013 classified CIA report (written by CIA historian David Robarge, declassified in 2014), McCone and other senior CIA officials conducted a “benign cover-up” - deliberately withholding information “that could ignite the situation” from the Warren Commission.The most important information covered up was the entire CIA operation that intended to assassinate FidelCastro (including the CIA's ties to the mafia). By covering this up, the Warren Commission never learned that the CIA had been trying to kill Castro for years, so it did not think to explore the possibility of Cuban retaliation or conspiracies related to JFK's policies. The CIA report implicitly acknowledged the impropriety of the CIA's attitude towards the Commission - an official admission, half a century later, that the CIA was deliberately not transparent in the JFK assassination investigation.
• 1975-1976 - Church Committee Exposes Smuggling and Negligence: A new wave of investigations emerged in the wake of the Watergate scandal, when the US Congress established the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities (chaired by Senator Frank Church, known as the Church Committee) to investigate CIA/FBI malfeasance. In 1975, in open and closed hearings, the Church Committee uncovered a wide range of illegal CIA operations: from plans to assassinate foreign leaders (including Castro) to domestic programs such as HTLINGUAL. The Church Committee found evidence that the CIA had been opening the mail of thousands of citizens (without court authorization) for two decades - a January 22, 1958 CIA memo recorded James Angleton (CIA Chief of Counterintelligence) reporting there were “200-300 CIA employees” dedicated to sorting mail to the Soviet Union, with a secret lab in New York to check for hidden messages. The volume of mail examined was enormous (500,000 items per month in 1961, with ~1,200 letters examined in depth each month). Among the letters, the Church Committee confirmed that Oswald's letters were intercepted by the CIA, including Oswald's correspondence with his family while he was in the Soviet Union.

In its final report (April 1976), the Church Committee also touched on the JFK assassination investigation.They stated that they found “tantalizing but inconclusive details” and admitted that they did not have sufficient evidence to conclude a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Even so, the committee strongly criticized the FBI and CIA for hiding crucial information from official investigators in 1963-1964. The Church Committee's final report said “it is likely that senior officials in both agencies (CIA & FBI) deliberately decided not to disclose potentially important information” to the Warren Commission. The committee's findings underscored that the Warren Commission's investigation was “of questionable accuracy” due to a lack of transparency from the CIA/FBI, and recommended additional investigation by Congress. Senator Richard Schweiker (a member of Church's committee) publicly asserted that his team's findings opened up “many important new leads” on the JFK case. In summary, in 1976 the US legislature concluded that the CIA and FBI made serious omissions (both passive and active) in sharing information, so that the official investigation into the JFK assassination was likely flawed.

• 1978-1979 - House Committee (HSCA) and Alleged Conspiracy: Following a Senate recommendation, the US House of Representatives established the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to reinvestigate the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King Jr. The HSCA conducted forensic and ballistics investigations, as well as interviews with witnesses and intelligence figures (including James Angleton and CIA Director Richard Helms). In 1979, the HSCA released its final report, which concluded that President Kennedy was “most likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”-differing from the Warren Commission's sole conclusion. The House Committee based this conspiracy conclusion in part on an analysis of the voice recordings (which allegedly showed a fourth shot from the direction of the grassy knoll). However, the HSCA was unable to identify the exact conspirators. Regarding the CIA, the HSCA found that the CIA was not fully cooperative: some information related to Cuba and anti-Castro (as well as the CIA's relationship with anti-Castro groups that Oswald had contact with) was not disclosed from the beginning. For example, the CIA assigned George Joannides as the official liaison to the HSCA without informing him that Joannides was in 1963 the lead agent of the AMSPELL program (an anti-Castro DRE group that had confronted Oswald) - a conflict of interest that only came to light years later. Officially, however, the HSCA did not accuse the CIA of complicity in the assassination plot, but rather highlighted the CIA's failure to share pre-assassination intelligence (such as Oswald's activities in Mexico City) that could have prevented the tragedy.
• 1992 - JFK Records Act: A public push for transparency (sparked by Oliver Stone's “JFK” movie) led Congress to pass the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. This act requires all agencies (CIA, FBI, etc.) to submit records related to the JFK assassination to the National Archives (NARA) for full declassification no later than 25 years later (October 2017), unless there are national security reasons approved by the President. An independent Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was established in 1994-1998 to review millions of pages of documents and force the release of thousands of sensitive documents (including the CIA memos on McCone and the “benign cover-up” above, which were declassified in 1997 and 2014).
• 2017 - JFK Documents Deadline and Release: October 26, 2017 marks the 25th anniversary of the JFK Records Act. In late 2017, at the behest of President Donald Trump, the National Archives began releasing a massive wave of previously classified JFK documents. During 2017, six releases were made - including ~3,500 CIA & FBI documents in December 2017. Although Trump had promised to release “all documents”, at the last minute he granted the CIA/FBI's request to delay some of the releases for security review. About 15,000 pages remained withheld or partially redacted after 2017. One of the key findings of the 2017 release was the reinforcement of the fact that the CIA had Oswald under surveillance long before 1963. For example, it was revealed that a 1975 CIA Top Secret memo containing a list of intercepted email targets showed that Oswald had been on the CIA's watch list since November 1959, coinciding with his defection to the Soviets. It was also confirmed that the CIA opened Oswald's mail and the mail of other famous figures (such as author John Steinbeck) in the illegal operation HTLINGUAL. Other findings include a July 1978 FBI memo that revealed Oswald's original fingerprints on the rifle evidence had been “lost” at the FBI so that it was never independently verified by the Warren Commission - a serious procedural omission.
• 2021-2023 - Final Release and New Evidence: Under President Joe Biden, the declassification process was accelerated again. December 2021 and especially December 15, 2022 saw the release of the remaining thousands of CIA documents. A total of about 13,000 documents were released by the end of 2022, followed by several more by mid-2023 - making >99% of the JFK archive collection now open to the public.Historians and researchers immediately began exploring these new documents. As a result, there were no “informational bombshells” that changed the official conclusion that Oswald was the shooter at the scene. However, many details corroborate suspicions of deep CIA involvement: for example, the full transcript of James Angleton's testimony to Congress (1978) in which he lied about the CIA's knowledge of Oswald was revealed; documents about the AMSANTA operation that photographed Oswald's pro-Cuban activities; the identity of the CIA officer (Reuben Efron) in charge of reading Oswald's letters; and the 1967 internal CIA memo recording Gary Underhill's accusations against the CIA. Jefferson Morley, one of the JFK archive experts, called the final release a “breakthrough” in understanding the case. “What we're learning about the CIA's surveillance of Oswald is far more profound and alarming than ever before,” he said, ”Now there's enough evidence to answer: was the CIA merely grossly incompetent in preventing JFK's assassination, or was it complicit? From the new documents, the verdict is complicity”. Morley's statement marks an important shift: based on the latest declassified primary data, it is increasingly difficult to believe that the CIA was completely “clean”-at a minimum, the CIA failed miserably to prevent the tragedy despite having plenty of information, and possibly worse, the CIA played an active role in the assassination scenario and its cover-up.

Thematic Analysis of the CIA's Connection to the JFK Case

A. CIA Surveillance of Lee Harvey Oswald before the Assassination

Declassified evidence shows the CIA watched Oswald closely for four years before November 22, 1963. Although the CIA claimed Oswald was just a “lone nut” with no special credentials, internal records indicate Oswald was the subject of intense attention by many CIA components:

• Intercept Letters & Communications: Through the HTLINGUAL cipher program, the CIA illegally opened and copied Oswald's correspondence since his defection. Every letter from Oswald to his family in America and every letter from the US to him in the Soviet Union was automatically intercepted by James Angleton's Counterintelligence team. Reuben Efron, an Angleton-appointed secret service officer, was specifically tasked with monitoring Oswald's letters. In closed testimony at the 1978 HSCA (which was only declassified in 2023), Angleton initially denied that Oswald was ever “the subject of any CIA project” - but when pressed about Efron's role, he admitted Efron ran the mail intercept program. New facts from the archives show Angleton lied under oath: internal memos prove Angleton himself ordered the surveillance of Oswald's mail as early as November 1959. In fact, Efron's report on Oswald's latest correspondence was still being relayed to his superiors in July 1962 - indicating the CIA continued to monitor Oswald up until the period leading up to his coming out as a pro-Cuban figure in New Orleans. In other words, the CIA knew Oswald's every move “on paper” (through letters) from 1959 to 1962.
• Monitoring Oswald's Pro-Cuba Activities: After returning to the US, Oswald attempted to form a New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) in 1963. Archival data indicates the CIA also monitored this move through the AMSANTA cipher operation - an anti-communist penetration operation that managed to obtain copies of Oswald's application form and correspondence with the left-leaning FPCC headquarters. According to one declassified document, AMSANTA secretly photographed Oswald's requests for FPCC propaganda materials. This means the CIA knew Oswald was active in the pro-Castro movement long before November 1963. In addition, the CIA through the AMSPELL program (code name for the CIA-formed Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil group among Cuban exiles) was also indirectly involved with Oswald. AMSPELL/DRE members in New Orleans had a confrontation with Oswald in August 1963 (when Oswald distributed pro-Castro “Hands Off Cuba” pamphlets). This confrontation led to a small fight and local media coverage, which highlighted Oswald. Importantly, this DRE group was financed and mentored by the CIA - meaning that the Oswald vs. anti-Castro incident was known to the CIA in real-time. After the assassination of JFK, the DRE (with CIA funding) immediately spread leaflets and articles that highlighted Oswald's relationship with Cuba, as if forming an initial public opinion that Castro was behind Oswald's actions. This Oswald-FPCC-DRE triangular relationship shows that the CIA was at the center of information about Oswald's political leanings and activity trails in 1963.
• Surveillance in Mexico City (Operation LIENVOY & LIEMPTY): When Oswald traveled to Mexico City (Sept 27-Oct 2, 1963), the CIA had a large station there running various surveillance operations. Disclosed documents confirm the CIA learned of Oswald's presence in Mexico City through telephone intercepts of the Soviet and Cuban embassies. An October 1, 1963 CIA report (from a reliable source in Mexico) reported that an American man named “Lee Oswald” contacted the Soviet Consulate, speaking in broken Russian. The CIA reported the contents of the conversation to headquarters - Oswald inquired about his visa telegram and mentioned a previous visit to the Soviet consulate (on Sept. 28). In addition, the CIA routinely photographed people going in and out of the Soviet Embassy.The CIA Mexico station thought it had photographed Oswald on the afternoon of October 1 (an automated camera captured a Caucasian man in a white T-shirt entering the Soviet Embassy). The photo was sent to Washington assuming it was Oswald, although the CIA later realized there had been a misidentification (Oswald had actually left Mexico on the morning of October 2, while the photo was taken on October 2 afternoon). Despite the photo error, the key fact is: The CIA had recordings of Oswald's communications with KGB officials in Mexico and knew he was dealing with the Cuban Embassy, thus recognizing the potential dangers that might arise (e.g. if Oswald was colluding with Soviet/Cuban intel). This sensitive information had very limited dissemination - only a handful of senior CIA officials knew about it at the time. In the days that followed, the CIA did send brief telegrams to the FBI, Navy, and State Department about “Lee Oswald” in Mexico City, but with incomplete/opaque data. For example, the CIA telegram dated October 10, 1963 misstated Oswald's physical features and did not emphasize that he was speaking with a KGB agent specializing in assassination operations. These omissions or cover-ups made Oswald's potential threat less serious to other agencies.
• How Many CIA Officials Knew Oswald? An analysis of the CIA's pre-assassination file on Oswald (181 pages now open) reveals how wide the CIA's internal circle was following Oswald's trail. At least 35 CIA officials/employees were involved in handling reports on Oswald between 1959-1963. These included 6 high-level officers who reported directly to the Deputy Director (Richard Helms) or Chief of Counterintelligence (James Angleton). A super-secret unit called CI/SIG (Counterintelligence Special Investigation Group) - a mole-hunting unit under Angleton - received 17 reports on Oswald in 4 years, of which 5 came in just the last 3 months before JFK was killed. Some names of high-ranking officials known to have read/checked Oswald's files: Thomas Karamessines (Deputy Director of Operations, Helms' right-hand man), William Hood (Chief of CIA Western Hemisphere Operations), Jane Roman (senior liaison officer on the CI staff), Birch O'Neal (Chief of CI/SIG), William Bright (Chief of CI of the Soviet Russia Division), Winston Scott (CIA Mexico City Station Chief), and Anne Goodpasture (Scott's deputy). Interestingly, none of these officials ever labeled Oswald as a “harmless lunatic” or “no threat”. On the contrary, the fact that they continued to consume information about Oswald shows that in the eyes of the CIA, Oswald was not trivial. The conclusion of this pattern: The CIA had intimate knowledge of Oswald's movements, communications and political leanings long before the tragedy. However, this knowledge was never optimized to prevent the assassination - raising a big question mark, whether it was simply an act of omission or an indication of intent (acts of commission) from CIA personnel.

B. CIA Dark Operations (HTLINGUAL, Anti-Castro Plot, and Other Activities Related to JFK)

In addition to a direct focus on Oswald, a number of covert CIA operations in the early 1960s overlapped with the motives and consequences of the JFK assassination. Declassified documents reveal some of the relevant CIA programs:

• HTLINGUAL - Illegal Domestic Operations: The HTLINGUAL program began in the 1950s as a CIA collaboration with the U.S. Postal Service to open letters to/from the Soviet bloc. This was clearly an illegal operation (never approved by the President, the courts, or Congress). James Angleton ran it in secret for ~20 years. Through CIA documents and Church Committee reports, it is now known that HTLINGUAL targeted certain American figures - including Lee Harvey Oswald. Even CIA Director John McCone in 1964 deliberately did not tell the Warren Commission about this program, for fear that the domestic wiretapping method would be revealed. The program also opened the letters of a number of public figures (writers, activists) for intelligence. Relevance to the JFK case: HTLINGUAL explains how the CIA was able to obtain detailed information about Oswald early on (e.g. Oswald's intention to return to the US from the Soviets in 1962, or Oswald's correspondence with the Soviet Embassy in Washington). However, the CIA did not pass on this information to the Secret Service or FBI before JFK's visit to Dallas. The Rockefeller Committee (1975) criticized the CIA for not sharing the intercept report of Oswald's letter dated November 9, 1963 - a month before the assassination - in which Oswald wrote to the Soviet Embassy about his meeting with “consulate employee Kostin” (aka Kostikov) in Mexico City. Such information could have turned on the red light that Oswald was interacting with KGB intel, but it never reached the Warren Commission in time. The CIA's cover-up of the HTLINGUAL program (until it was exposed in the 1970s) reflects a broader pattern: The CIA was more concerned with the secrecy of its operations than the transparency of its investigations.
• The Assassination Plot Against Fidel Castro: One of the most important contexts is the CIA's campaign to overthrow or assassinate Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba. Church Committee documents (Interim Report, 1975) confirm at least 8 CIA plots to assassinate Castro between 1960-1965. These plots varied: using mobsters (Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, etc.) in exchange for favors, infiltrating armed agents, providing assassination tools ranging from high-powered firearms, lethal poison capsules, poisoned cigarettes, to ballpoint pens tipped with poison needles. Some plans received the tacit blessing of top CIA officials without ensuring clear Presidential approval. The Kennedy brothers (JFK and Attorney General RFK) knew the outline of the anti-Castro operation, but evidence suggests they were not told the details of the assassination plan, let alone the involvement of the mafia. In one case, in the fall of 1963 the CIA through Desmond FitzGerald began recruiting Rolando Cubela (codename AM/LASH, a Cuban military official) to assassinate Castro. Ironically, on November 22, 1963 - just as JFK was assassinated - CIA representatives still met Cubela in Paris and handed him a poison pen to use against Castro. That day Cubela was told an arms shipment would be made immediately (for the coup/assassination of Castro).The assassination of JFK put a halt to this plan, but the timing of this coincidence is often called “too coincidental a coincidence”. Within hours, the enemy countries (Soviets and Cubans) picked up radio messages about JFK's death - Castro had to comment in surprise: “We knew the CIA was trying to kill me, and suddenly the president himself is killed - is this an act of 'revenge' within the US?”. The CIA clearly did not want such suspicions to spread, as they could potentially expose its illegal operations. The Warren Commission was never informed that JFK was then (1963) secretly exploring peace with Castro through diplomatic envoys (e.g. secret envoy William Attwood was planning a meeting with Castro representatives on November 22, 1963 as well). If the Commission had known this, the analysis of motives might have been different for example, it could have considered the scenario of anti-Castro CIA hardliners angry at JFK's peace policy or the concerns of pro-Castro conspirators. The CIA carefully concealed all of these anti-Castro operations from official investigators.
• Other Operations and Policies Contrary to JFK: Apart from Cuba, JFK also clashed with intelligence circles on other issues, such as Vietnam. In October 1963, JFK signed NSAM-263 ordering the withdrawal of 1,000 US personnel from Vietnam, the first sign of his desire to end involvement in the war. The national security establishment (including some in the CIA) considered this a naive policy. After JFK was killed, the policy was immediately reversed by President Johnson (NSAM-273) and the Vietnam war escalated. Was this difference of opinion a motive for some “deep state” elements to get rid of JFK? Direct official documents about this are almost non-existent (possibly because it was very secret or there was no such conspiracy). However, the Church Committee noted the phenomenon that “government officials seemed more reluctant to adopt hardline policies after Kennedy's death” - though carefully worded, the implication is there.

Another concrete point: the CIA's domestic counterintelligence programs (such as Project MHCHAOS spying on domestic activists, and CIA-FBI cooperation infiltrating agent provocateurs into leftist groups) were activities that JFK was hostile to. President Kennedy in June 1962 had explicitly banned domestic CIA operations without FBI coordination. However, internal CIA memories (later revealed by the ARRB) show that from the early 1960s, the CIA formed “self-contained operational cells” that often acted without central control. Gary Underhill in his report called the CIA “populated by internal cliques that operated without any real central control”. This illustrates that within the CIA itself there are factions that may act beyond their authority or even contrary to Presidential policy. For these hard-line factions, JFK was seen as an obstacle (both on Cuba, the Soviets and domestic issues).

In short, a number of the CIA's clandestine operations in the JFK era - from the Cuba Project, to black operations in Vietnam, to domestic espionage - were outside JFK's full knowledge or against his policy direction. The potential motive for the CIA or individuals within it to keep these illegal operations secret was very strong, given that the revelation of the operations could lead to a major scandal or Kennedy disbanding/combining the CIA (which he had threatened post-Bay of Pigs). The declassified documents show how far the CIA went to keep secrets: they dared to lie before official commissions, to eliminate evidence, to allegedly cover-up vital information. This phenomenon bridges the analysis to the next theme, which is motive and cover-up.

C. CIA Motives and the Post-Assassination Cover-Up

Based on the official archives that are now open, a common thread can be drawn as to why the CIA (or its elements) was so interested in covering up certain aspects of the JFK case:

• Preventing the Uncovering of Illegal Operations: As described, the CIA in 1963 was involved in a series of operations that would be potentially scandalous if revealed. Castro assassination plots, collusion with the mafia, operations to intercept American mail, and plans to provoke Cuba (Operation Northwoods, 1962, for example, proposed that the CIA conduct a false flag operation to spark a war with Cuba). President Kennedy was not fully aware of the details of these operations, but there are indications he was suspicious. In his memoirs, Cuban PM Fidel Castro claimed to have received a message that JFK was willing to make peace - a scenario that if successful could jeopardize the existence of the CIA's anti-Cuba “shadow war machine”. Therefore, hardline elements of the CIA had a strong incentive to maintain the status quo and silence figures who might threaten their secrets. This is in line with Underhill's remark that Kennedy “would blow the whistle” on something he intercepted, so it had to be removed before it happened. Although Underhill's testimony was a one-sided allegation, the CIA itself took it seriously enough to include it in a secret internal report in 1967.
• Fear of Retaliation and Destabilization: From the official side, the most frequently cited reason for secrecy is national security. For example, after JFK was killed and Oswald captured, US officials were very concerned that the assassination was part of an international (Soviet/Cuban) conspiracy that could ignite a nuclear war. Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach wrote a memo on 25 November 1963 that clearly directed the public to be convinced that “Oswald is the culprit, there is no other conspiracy and the evidence is sufficient to convict him”.This kind of discourse - supported by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover - emphasized shutting down speculation for the sake of stability. Katzenbach even said: “Speculation about Oswald's motives should be cut off... and there should be an official narrative basis that he acted alone”. The CIA certainly agreed with this approach, as the “Cuban conspiracy” narrative could lead to demands for a US retaliatory strike on Cuba, which during the 1962 Missile Crisis almost triggered World War III. By pushing the Oswald lone wolf story, the CIA also protected itself: if the public or the Warren Commission investigated Oswald's pro-Cuba motives further, then the CIA's operations against Cuba (including the plan to kill Castro) would come under scrutiny - something the CIA wanted to avoid. Thus, the CIA's motives for maintaining secrecy can be said to be twofold: (1) preventing a larger war/chaos (external reasons), as well as (2) covering up their own unlawful role (internal reasons). The Politico document (2013 CIA report) explicitly states that McCone and his colleagues deliberately limited CIA assistance to the Warren Commission to “the CIA's version of the best truth - that Oswald was alone and his motives were unclear”. All info that leads to other possibilities (such as the CIA's attempt to kill Castro which could provoke retaliation) is withheld. The CIA called this tactic “benign cover-up” - as if for good - but it was still an attempt to obscure the truth.
• Lies by Intelligence Officials in Official Testimony: One strong indicator of a cover-up is the finding that some CIA officials lied when questioned under oath by government investigations. The most obvious example is James Jesus Angleton (Head of CIA Counterintelligence 1954-1974). While testifying under oath before HSCA investigators (1978), Angleton was asked: “To your knowledge, was Oswald ever the subject of any CIA project?” - Angleton replied, ”No.” Then asked if he knew Reuben Efron and his duties, Angleton admitted that he did and replied, “Efron handles mail intercepts”. This answer turns out to be contradictory: new documents show that Angleton himself assigned Efron to intercept Oswald's mail, meaning that Oswald was clearly the subject of a CIA project (HTLINGUAL). In other words, Angleton committed perjury. In addition to Angleton, Richard Helms (CIA Deputy Director of Operations 1963, then Director 1966-1973) is also known to have given misleading testimony. Helms testified to the Warren Commission that the CIA had no information linking Oswald to Cuba, even though the CIA also reported Oswald's contact with the Cuban Embassy. Helms also denied the CIA was involved in other assassination plots, which proved to be false. Similarly, John McCone did not reveal the anti-Castro program. A 2013 internal CIA report said at least three senior CIA officials had lied under oath about what they knew about Oswald or related operations. This pattern is almost certainly no coincidence - but rather a coordinated effort to control the official narrative. CIA historians themselves use the phrase “complicit in keeping incendiary information from the Warren Commission” when describing the behavior of McCone et al.
• The Church Committee's findings on the Cover-Up: The Church Committee's testimony and report validated from outside the CIA that there was indeed an obstruction of the truth. The committee stated that the “Warren Commission was locked in darkness” by CIA/FBI officials. They were unable to ascertain the motives of officials in withholding information, but highlighted that it was a conscious act. Some of the cases raised by the Church Committee: (1) The CIA received a report about a suspicious Mexico City-Havana flight right after JFK was killed (a mysterious passenger who passed immigration checks), but the CIA never followed up on it, let alone reported it. (2) The FBI since November 23 has received an audio recording of the call “Oswald” at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico, but the FBI compared it with Oswald's real voice and found that it did not match - indicating a possible impersonation. Surprisingly, this was not publicized and the CIA remained silent (the issue of “Oswald Impersonation” only came up in the HSCA investigation later). (3) Deputy AG Katzenbach and FBI Director Hoover pushed for a quick conclusion that Oswald was the sole perpetrator, before the investigation was complete. The combination of these indicates a concerted effort to quickly close the case with a simple conclusion. The CIA benefited from this quick closure because with Oswald dead (killed by Jack Ruby two days after the arrest), there was no open court to examine the evidence in more depth.

In short, the CIA's motives in this context can be summarized: damage control. Whether damage in the form of revelation of illegal operations, involvement in a potential conspiracy, or the risk of international conflict - all are avoided by the CIA by keeping information tightly locked up. From the CIA's perspective, it may have been a “patriotic” move to prevent panic. However, from the point of view of justice, it was an obstruction of justice. The fact that it is only after 60 years that the original documents are open and the public knows the true scale of the CIA's surveillance of Oswald as well as the CIA's tricks to the Warren Commission, shows how effective (and long) this CIA cover-up was. Only through the pressure of the law and the efforts of journalists/researchers can the truth of the archives come out. Thus, this study of motives and cover-ups reinforces the notion that the CIA was not a passive party in the 1963 tragedy, but an active actor in directing the post-incident narrative in its favor.

D. Testimonies & Key Testimonies: Angleton, Underhill, and Church Committee

Several intelligence figures and watchdogs gave insightful testimonies regarding the JFK mystery, which can now be evaluated thanks to the declassification of documents:

• James Jesus Angleton (CIA Chief of Counterintelligence): Angleton is known as the paranoid “masterspymaster” who built the “mansion of mirrors” at the CIA. His role in the JFK case was highlighted because of his position overseeing the CIA SIG that held Oswald's files. In a 1963 internal CIA interview (released by the ARRB), Angleton discussed the possibility that Oswald was a Soviet agent (a KGB “monster plot”), but ultimately the CIA concluded there was no evidence in that direction. When subpoenaed by the Church Committee in 1975, Angleton gave extensive answers about the HTLINGUAL operation and other CIA activities (some of his testimony remained classified until the 2020s). It wasn't until later that the 1978 HSCA transcripts were unsealed that Angleton lied about the CIA's knowledge of Oswald (as outlined above).Interestingly, one of attorney Michael Goldsmith's questions at the HSCA was, “Was Oswald ever the subject of a CIA project?” - suggesting Congressional investigators themselves suspected Oswald may have been used as a pawn by the CIA. Although Angleton answered no, the documents point to yes (at least as a surveillance target). When Angleton's dishonesty was exposed by the 2023 documents, researchers concluded Angleton was the third (known) official to lie under oath about the JFK assassination. The other two were: Helms and McCone.Angleton's motive for lying may have been to protect the reputation of the CIA or himself, so as not to be accused of “failing” to read Oswald's red flags - when in fact the CIA knew quite a lot. There is speculation among historians that Angleton deliberately “allowed” Oswald's 1959 Soviet defection as part of an intelligence game (i.e. Oswald was expected to be a double asset). The book Oswald and the CIA (Newman, 1995) suspects Angleton's involvement in managing Oswald's files in such a way that not all info was coordinated (as Angleton held 95 secret CIA files on the Soviets including Oswald). Although these theories are outside official documents, Angleton's now public testimony makes it clear: there was information he was hiding. That Angleton, a renowned perfectionist in counterintelligence, failed to prevent a pro-Soviet defector from taking a rifle to the roof and assassinating the President - this only makes sense if there is another dimension (either an outrageous false flag scenario, or at least extraordinary incompetence). Angleton in his final interview (published by Cigar Aficionado 1997, after his death) called the JFK case “a wilderness of mirrors” - acknowledging the abundance of disinformation. Angleton's cryptic admission is consistent with his ambiguous role in the JFK story: the secret keeper who knows a lot but talks little.
• Gary Underhill (Former OSS/CIA Intelligence): Underhill's chronologized story remains one of the most explosive “smoking memos” of recent document releases.Underhill's assertion - that the “CIA clique” carried out the JFK assassination because it was involved in a racket and Oswald was just a patsy - is now backed up by black-on-white quotes from a July 19, 1967 CIA memo. Before the document appeared, Underhill was only known in conspiracy literature (some 1960s books called his death suspicious).Now archival validation proves Underhill did say this to acquaintances soon after the incident, and the CIA knew this. The fact that the CIA recorded the rumor (the SECRET RYBAT document label indicates high sensitivity) could mean two things: (1) the CIA thought Underhill was simply spreading a wild theory that needed to be monitored (damage control), or (2) the CIA was concerned that Underhill might know something valid. Underhill was an OSS officer in World War II, well known in Washington intelligence circles, so his words could not be completely ignored. In the memo, Underhill's friend said it was initially difficult to believe the claim “the CIA can have elements as evil as the mafia”, but seeing the rational Underhill turn fearful made them hesitate. There are also details from the author's collaborator Asher Brynes who found Underhill's body: the position of the gunshot wound in Underhill's head is strange for a suicide (behind the left ear, even though he was right-handed), and no shots were heard because the gun was allegedly silenced. All this adds to the aura of mystery. Although there is no direct evidence of who the “CIA clique” is, Underhill's claim is in line with the motives discussed earlier. Interestingly, Underhill said the group ran a racket (illegal business) “without central control”. This echoes Senator Church's criticism that the CIA has a “rogue elephant” within it - aka a rogue faction. Underhill's testimony was never made public officially (the Warren Commission didn't call him, probably didn't know). It was only the HSCA in 1978 that traced it, they found the 1967 CIA memo but concluded there was “insufficient supporting evidence”. Now in 2025, the public can judge for themselves: at least, from the first days after the assassination there were insider allegations that the CIA was behind it. Its validity is open to debate, but the written record cannot be erased.
• Church Committee (Senate) - Official Findings: The Church Committee served to give an official stamp that there were indeed things wrong with the JFK investigation. Although the Church Committee did not conclude that the CIA was involved in killing JFK (they did not have enough evidence), their report was categorical about the cover-up. Some key points from Book V: The Investigation of the Assassination of President Kennedy published in April 1976 include:
  • “Investigative deficiencies": A lot of potential evidence was not investigated thoroughly in 1963-64 because information was blocked or dismissed. Example: intel about the Havana-Mexico trip (possible courier) was ignored by the CIA, the fact that Oswald met KGB agents was not explored by Warren, etc.
  • Conscious decision not to disclose info: This phrase indicates the Committee suspects a cover-up at the leadership level. They didn't accuse frontally, but said the “possibility” was real.
  • Impact on the Warren Commission's conclusions: The Church Committee did not overturn the “Oswald lone assassin” conclusion, but emphasized that without full access to CIA info, the Warren Commission could not be sure it was accurate. They recommended Congress establish a new investigation (which materialized as the HSCA).
  • The context of the anti-Castro operation: The Church Committee published (for the first time to the public) details of the CIA vs Castro plot, including plans to involve the mafia. They subtly hinted that if the Warren Commission had known the CIA had worked with the mafia to kill Castro, the question would have arisen: did the mafia (or Castro) avenge JFK? With this fact covered up in the past, the Warren Commission never pursued the possibility. The Church Committee considered it a serious omission.

Overall, this institutional testimony - in contrast to individuals like Angleton/Underhill - has institutional weight. This is not a conspiracy theory, but the result of the US Senate's own investigation. So when the Church Committee says the CIA and FBI obstructed justice, it strongly supports the argument that the JFK case was more than just a “lucky coincidence”. In addition, several Senators on the Church Committee (Gary Hart, Richard Schweiker) privately said after leaving the committee to the media that “there is something in the CIA related to Dallas that has not been revealed.” They couldn't talk in detail due to confidentiality, but the signals were clear.

• House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) - 1978/79: Although the questions focused on the Church Committee, it is worth mentioning the results of the HSCA because this was the last congressional investigation into JFK. The HSCA officially concluded that JFK was probably a conspiracy, with a “95% certainty” that there were two shooters. Regarding the CIA, the HSCA found that the CIA failed to provide some relevant information. For example, the HSCA subpoenaed David Atlee Phillips (former head of CIA operations in Mexico City) who testified that he did not remember details about Oswald's photos/tapes in Mexico - testimony that the committee doubted.HSCA Volume XI report notes that the CIA withheld the identity and role of George Joannides, so the committee was “prevented from exploring Oswald's relationship with CIA-fostered anti-Castro groups”. Although the HSCA ultimately did not implicate the CIA in the assassination, they recommended that the Department of Justice review the CIA's performance in the case. In a 1978 interview, HSCA Chairman G. Robert Blakey famously said: “I want to assume that the people at the CIA deceived us. If I had known then what I know now, I would have investigated the CIA much more aggressively”. Blakey's statement (which was made public decades later after learning about Joannides) confirms that the CIA's representation of the investigation was not entirely honest. This reinforces the pattern of cover-up that began in 1964 and continued into the 1970s.

In the end, the series of testimonies and testimonies above - from Angleton who lied, Underhill who accused, the Church Committee who criticized, to the HSCA who suspected - all led to the same conclusion: The CIA is not transparent and tends to hide important things related to the JFK assassination. Whether it was because the CIA was guilty of complicity, or simply ashamed of admitting negligence, remains a matter of debate - but the archival evidence shows a systematic tendency of the agency to control information in order to protect the institution, not to reveal the truth.

Was the CIA Active, Passive, or Negligent?

Based on the investigation of the declassified documents above, we can assess the CIA's role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy more clearly. Three possible CIA stances - active commission, passive non-involvement, or omission - have long been debated. The archival findings up to 2025 provide strong evidence to make the following arguments:

• CIA as Active Commission: Circumstantial evidence is piling up towards this possibility. The CIA actively monitored Oswald (perhaps even manipulated his trail) but did not prevent his actions. The CIA also actively carried out anti-Kennedy operations (in the sense of JFK's anti-policies, e.g. the continued efforts to assassinate Castro contradicted JFK's post-Missile Crisis stance). After the incident, the CIA actively steered the investigation away from sensitive areas (Cuba, intelligence involvement) by concealing information. The sophistication of the CIA's cover-up - involving directors down to the head of counterintelligence lying, omitting documents, and misleading official commissions - is difficult to explain away as mere face-saving negligence. The pattern is more consistent with the scenario that there is something to hide. It could be the role of CIA operatives in orchestrating the assassination or at least foreknowledge that a plan to assassinate JFK existed, but they let it happen. For example, if Oswald was actually part of a covert operation (e.g. a decoy operation against Cuba or the Soviets) which was then “turned against”, the CIA would certainly try to cover it up. One hypothesis supported by some researchers is the “Oswald Project” - that Oswald was used in a counterintelligence operation (perhaps to lure the KGB), so his movements were deliberately ignored in Dallas. The 2023 document, which shows dozens of CIA officials following Oswald's progress, supports the idea that Oswald was not a stranger to the CIA. The combination of motive (protection of covert operations, post-Bay of Pigs grudges, policy differences) and opportunity (access to intelligence on Oswald, ability to manipulate information) put the CIA in the seat of reasonable suspects in the Dallas conspiracy.
• CIA as Negligent Omission: The alternative moderate view says the CIA did not plan the assassination, but neglected to carry out its duties so that the opportunity for assassination was not detected. For example, Oswald's information in Mexico City failed to be taken seriously due to bureaucracy, or CIA-FBI rivalry made coordination poor. The CIA may also have been too focused on foreign operations and underestimated potential domestic threats. In this scenario, the CIA's post-incident cover-up was driven more by shame and fear of blame than by involvement in the crime itself. David Robarge (CIA historian) called McCone's behavior a “benign cover-up”, as if their intention was to protect the public from the possibility of war with Cuba if the conspiracy issue was raised. Whether the reason was truly “benign” or just a pretext is open to interpretation. Archival evidence can indeed be interpreted that the CIA was incompetent: for example, they knew Oswald was a pro-communist extremist but did not pass on the info to the SecretService, or the CIA Mexico station made a photo misidentification of “Oswald” and did not correct it before it was too late. If it was negligence, it was gross negligence and very systematic (affecting many aspects at once). Skeptics argue, “It's impossible for this much negligence to happen simultaneously without bad intentions.” But proponents of the accidental theory say, Cold War-era intelligence was chaotic - communication between divisions was poor, priorities were split across many operations. The fact that none of the black-and-white documents that came out until 2025 revealed “the CIA told A to shoot Kennedy” leaves room for the conclusion of no direct CIA involvement. In other words, there may have been no order from the top (McCone/Helms) to assassinate JFK; but when tragedy struck, they immediately went into damage control because they felt guilty for failing to prevent it.This view holds the CIA guilty of negligence, then guilty again for covering up the negligence.
• CIA as Passive/Not Involved: This was the position of the 1964 official report - that the CIA played no role in the JFK assassination, either before or after, other than providing intelligence. After reviewing the declassified documents, this position cannot be seriously defended. Too much information that was once unknown to the public now shows that the CIA was neither transparent nor passive. Even the CIA itself, through the declassification of its internal studies, has admitted to withholding important information. Even if we hold that the CIA is not involved in the conspiracy, at least the CIA is involved in a cover-up that goes beyond the “passive” limit. So the “passive” option is actually invalidated by the cover-up evidence.

From the above analysis, the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that the CIA was active in this case - active in at least two ways: active knowledge (but failure to prevent) and active cover-up (after the fact). Did the CIA also actively orchestrate the assassination of JFK directly? There is no primary evidence that confirms this beyond reasonable doubt. However, if we lower the standard of proof to motive, opportunity, patterns of behavior, and obstructionism, then the answer tends to be “yes, the CIA played an active role.”

Some argumentative points in favor of the CIA as an active actor include:

• Intelligence Control over Oswald: The CIA had informational control over Oswald's profile - from defection history, to correspondence, to pro-Cuba activities. They knew Oswald was potentially violent (a former Marine sniper who supported Castro). Normally, intelligence would keep a close eye on a man like this especially ahead of a Presidential visit to his home turf. In fact, there is no record of the CIA warning the SecretService about Oswald. This failure is too glaring to simply “forget”. A darker possibility: Oswald was deliberately “let through” by elements within the CIA / security, so that he was free to act. This allegation is in line with the “stand down order” theory, where presidential security in Dallas was minimal. Dallas Police and Secret Service documents show security irregularities (for example: the motorcade route was announced openly, local FBI intel did not accompany JFK on the road as usual, etc.). There is no CIA memo ordering a “security pull”, but the absence of action from the CIA speaks volumes.
• Anti-Kennedy traces in the CIA: JFK fired the CIA leadership (Dulles, Cabell) and had a falling out with the agency. Dulles ironically became a member of the Warren Commission - perceived by some as “guarding the CIA's interests from within”. Deputy CIA Director Charles Cabell's brother, Earle Cabell, happened to be the Mayor of Dallas in 1963 who was instrumental in arranging JFK's visit. The ARRB in 2017 released documents that Earle Cabell had in fact been a CIA asset (with “Confidential Informant” status). This adds to the complex web of potential local-intelligence involvement. In addition, anti-Kennedy figures in military-intelligence (e.g. General Edward Lansdale, involved in anti-Castro operations; or CIA officer David Morales, who is said to have said “We took care of that son of a bitch” referring to JFK) appear in the testimonies of his colleagues (oral confessions, not official documents, so we do not emphasize). However, the existence of a “hardline community” that disliked JFK for being soft on communism was a sociological fact in Washington at that time. The CIA as an institution was filled with many such figures - so the ideological motive to get rid of JFK existed. Cuban documentary evidence shows that some CIA officials reacted with relief* when they heard that LBJ was replacing JFK, because they thought the policy towards Castro would be more aggressive. This is recorded in archived CIA communications with agents in Miami in late 1963 (released by ARRB, containing the comment “maybe now is the time to go directly to Castro”, etc).
• External Verification of the CIA's Role: It is unusual for the government to admit mistakes, but in this case, government components (Church Committee, ARRB, CIA historians themselves) affirmed that the CIA played a role in covering up data. If the CIA really had nothing to do with it, they shouldn't have bothered lying for decades. Complicated cover-ups are often more dangerous than the original crime. The history of Watergate, for example, exemplifies the saying “the cover-up is worse than the crime”. In JFK, the CIA's cover-up prevented the scandalous outbreak of its time, but left a legacy of deep mistrust towards the CIA. Politico calls this “almost an official CIA admission of impropriety in handling the commission”. This half-hearted admission strengthens the case that the CIA was at least complicit, though perhaps not the executor.

Bringing all the threads together, this report argues that the CIA was active in the JFK case. Active here means: The CIA was not neutral or merely negligent, but played an influential role in the occurrence and especially in the closure of the truth of the case. Recent declassified documents support the view that the CIA's “failure” was very likely deliberate. As Jefferson Morley says, we now have enough evidence to answer the dilemma - was the CIA merely grossly incompetent, or complicit? And the answer leans towards “complicit”. Of course, there's still a small portion of the archive that won't be released until 2025 (reportedly ~1% of the documents remain pending full release, probably about the names of live informants). There may not be a single smoking gun in the remaining archives. However, the pattern of thousands of pieces of documents leads to one historical verdict: the CIA is guilty, at least in the conspiracy to cover up the facts, and very likely also guilty in the conspiracy to eliminate the President who is considered a threat to its interests.

In closing, although President Johnson told the Warren Commission “not to let the world explode” because of the investigation into this case, the historical truth must be revealed. U.S. official archives up to 2025 show that the mastermind of the JFK assassination was not the Soviet Union, not Cuba, and not just Oswald's lone act, but a dark shadow that may have originated in the heart of our own intelligence agencies. This conclusion is argumentative, but it stands on a foundation of primary evidence that has been cited throughout this report. Thus, the question “Who killed JFK?” may not be explicitly answered by the document, but the question “Who covered it up - and why?” can be answered: The CIA covered it up, because their trail was there from the start.

References: All statements and facts above are sourced from official declassified US government documents (National Archives, CIA, FBI) through 2025.