Trump Administration’s JFK Files Release Exposes Sensitive Personal Information, Sparks Legal Action
Washington D.C. – A wave of controversy has erupted following the release of previously classified government documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, spearheaded by the Trump administration. In an effort to provide unprecedented transparency, the unredacted files have inadvertently exposed the Social Security numbers and other sensitive personal information of potentially hundreds of former congressional staffers and individuals connected to investigations surrounding the assassination.
The unearthing of this sensitive data has prompted immediate backlash, with at least one individual, Joseph diGenova, a former high-ranking Justice Department official and Trump campaign lawyer, vowing to pursue legal action. "I intend to sue the National Archives," diGenova asserted, alleging a clear violation of the Privacy Act.
DiGenova’s personal information, he revealed, stems from his involvement with the Church Committee in the 1970s, a congressional investigation focused on uncovering misconduct by the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies. The Privacy Act of 1974 explicitly prohibits federal agencies from disclosing records without the written consent of the individual, particularly when such disclosures reveal sensitive information that could compromise their privacy and security.
The National Archives and Records Administration posted thousands of pages of these newly unredacted government files on Tuesday evening, following President Donald Trump’s directive to release them to the public. However, the sheer volume of data, coupled with the lack of a keyword search function, has rendered it nearly impossible to fully assess the scope of the breach and identify all affected individuals.
Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer who represents current and former spies and other government officials, expressed his outrage on social media. "Your Administration doxxed former public servants who staffed 1977-79 congressional investigation by revealing their SSNs. Many are still alive. Completely unnecessary & contributed nothing to JFK assassination understanding," Zaid wrote. He also urged the government to provide free credit monitoring to those whose information had been compromised.
Zaid, who has long advocated for the release of the JFK records, highlighted that many of these documents had been previously declassified and made public, with the exception of sensitive personal information. The release of this information now, he argued, poses a significant threat to individuals whose dates and places of birth, and especially their Social Security numbers, have been exposed.
"The purpose of the release was to inform the public about the JFK assassination, not to help permit identity theft of those who actually investigated the events of that day," Zaid stated. "This decision was completely avoidable and either reflects intention or incompetence."
The disclosures extend beyond the Church Committee staffers, encompassing individuals involved with other congressional investigative bodies that touched on the Kennedy assassination, including the House intelligence committee. While the exact number of affected individuals remains unclear, Zaid estimates that hundreds may have been impacted, although it is unknown how many are still living.
DiGenova, a staunch defender of Trump, acknowledged that the breach might lead to physical threats and financial theft against him. He revealed that past threats have been serious enough to warrant reporting to the FBI.
"I can tell you that whatever the review process was, it did not include notifying people who were alive and whose personal identifiable information was included for release, which is a violation of the law," diGenova said. "And so the people physically doing the review process at the National Archives and the FBI were sloppy and unprofessional."
Despite the controversy, diGenova stated that he does not blame Trump for the breach, even though the president ordered the files to be unredacted and released on a tight timeline. He placed the responsibility squarely on the individuals responsible for reviewing the records.
"This is not President Trumps fault. This was the fault of the people responsible for reviewing the records," diGenova said. "Your job as a reviewer is to get it right. They got it wrong."
He added that the reviewers should have requested more time to ensure the removal of sensitive information before releasing the files. "All they had to so is say, ‘Mr. President, we need more time. There’s a lot of personally identifiable information in here," diGenova said.
In total, the National Archives released more than 60,000 pages related to Kennedy’s assassination. Many of these pages had been previously disclosed with redactions, but the Trump administration’s directive to release unredacted files has led to the current situation.
While the intentions behind the release of the JFK files may have been rooted in transparency and historical record, the inadvertent disclosure of sensitive personal information has raised serious concerns about privacy, security, and the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens. The potential for legal action, coupled with the ethical implications of the breach, underscores the importance of careful review and responsible handling of sensitive information in the pursuit of transparency.
