By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The CIA released nearly 1,500 pages of declassified documents related to Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination, fulfilling President Trump’s commitment to transparency. These documents detail the agency’s investigation into Kennedy’s death, including previously unknown contacts between Kennedy and the CIA following his 1955 Soviet Union trip where he acted as a voluntary informant. The release also includes information on the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., and other unrelated documents found during the AI-assisted search. The newly released materials further reveal CIA attempts to poison Fidel Castro and internal memos discussing assassination conspiracy theories.
Read the original article here
Newly declassified files reveal that Robert F. Kennedy met with the CIA following a trip to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This shouldn’t be surprising; it was standard practice for the agency to debrief prominent figures returning from the USSR. The sheer volume of individuals who traveled to the Soviet Union during that era would almost certainly necessitate similar debriefings. In fact, it would be far more remarkable if such meetings *didn’t* occur.
The focus on this event as newsworthy seems misplaced. Debriefing individuals with government ties after trips to potential adversaries was standard procedure. Think of it like a post-trip check-in: the CIA, charged with gathering intelligence, would naturally seek information from someone who’d just spent time in a rival nation. It’s analogous to what happens today when officials return from visits to countries like Ukraine—questions are asked, information is shared.
The comments suggesting this is a “non-news” item accurately reflect the reality of Cold War intelligence gathering. Such debriefings were routine. Even Lee Harvey Oswald, infamous for his own trip to the Soviet Union, underwent a similar process. The inherent implication of the event, therefore, is not a secret meeting, but the routine functioning of the CIA.
What’s more significant is the contrast with the current political climate. The difference in approach between the CIA’s past relationship with Russia and that of the current administration is noteworthy and speaks volumes about the evolving dynamics of international relations. Back then, the sentiment regarding Russia may have leaned towards the “not the best bunch of fellows” attitude, while a considerably different perspective seems to exist now.
Some have questioned the significance of this revelation, especially in light of the current state of US-Russia relations. It’s understandable to view this event as a matter of standard procedure given the Cold War context, which allowed for certain actions that may not be considered acceptable today. That said, the article itself doesn’t seem to offer much insight into the specifics of Kennedy’s trip or the content of the debriefing. It’s primarily the disclosure of the meeting itself that constitutes the ‘news,’ which is rather uninformative on its own.
Ultimately, the focus on this declassified document points to a larger concern about how “news” is generated and distributed. The fact that this piece of information is being presented as a revelation raises questions about the journalistic practice of amplifying routine events to fit a narrative. Perhaps the real story isn’t the meeting itself, but the ways in which historical events can be selectively highlighted or reframed for a contemporary audience. The debriefing was likely a common, if not routine, occurrence. Focusing on this event as a sensational revelation distracts from more crucial issues of foreign policy and international intelligence gathering.
The use of AI to uncover this information further highlights this issue. While the technology has potential for unearthing buried historical truths, the accuracy and reliability of AI remain key concerns. If the AI used to uncover this document is flawed, it calls into question the validity of other findings based on the same process. The inherent biases within the training data can drastically affect the results, potentially leading to a misrepresentation of historical context.
The fact remains that high-ranking government officials meeting with intelligence agencies after trips to foreign powers, particularly adversarial ones, is an extremely common practice. Debriefings serve a crucial function in maintaining national security, preventing misunderstandings, and informing policy decisions. In this case, the focus should not be on the act itself, but rather on what the debriefing revealed and how this knowledge might further our understanding of the Cold War. The information, presented as groundbreaking news, ultimately reveals more about contemporary journalistic priorities than about Robert F. Kennedy’s post-Soviet Union activities.