Whistleblower Says CIA Took Back JFK And MK-Ultra Files From Gabbard Review
The allegation now puts two transparency fights on the same track: the intelligence community's handling of politically sensitive reviews, and the public release of assassination and mind-control era files that Washington has promised to open.
WASHINGTON - A witness identified in the submitted hearing video as James Erdmann III alleged that the CIA refused to cooperate with a DNI-directed investigation, monitored investigators' computer and phone use, and took back 40 boxes of JFK assassination and MK-Ultra files that were being processed for declassification by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
The one-minute clip does not by itself prove the allegations. It is testimony, and the claims still require documentary follow-up from the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and congressional investigators. But the testimony is serious because it describes alleged interference with a review connected to presidential declassification policy and politically sensitive historical records.
"The CIA refused to provide information necessary to understand why analytic standards at the CIA were violated." - James Erdmann III, witness in the submitted hearing video
Erdmann then alleged that the agency monitored the people assigned to examine the matter.
"The CIA illegally monitored the computer and phone usage of DIG personnel, their investigations, and contact with whistleblowers." - James Erdmann III, witness in the submitted hearing video
The most explosive line came at the end of the clip. Erdmann said the agency reclaimed records after the investigative unit stopped operating.
"When the DIG ceased operations, the CIA also took back 40 boxes of JFK files and MK-Ultra files being processed for declassification by DNI Gabbard." - James Erdmann III, witness in the submitted hearing video
The Claim Centers On Control Of Sensitive Records
The post that surfaced the clip framed the allegation as a whistleblower claim about the CIA taking back files Gabbard's team was reviewing. The transcript supports the core wording in the post: it refers to 40 boxes, JFK files, MK-Ultra files, and a declassification process tied to the DNI.
That matters because records control is often where transparency fights are won or lost. Agencies can agree in principle that material should be reviewed while still controlling access, pace, staffing, classification recommendations, and the paper trail that explains why information stayed hidden. Erdmann's allegation is that the dispute was not only about judgment calls inside a review. He alleged surveillance of investigators and reclamation of physical records.
The video does not identify the full committee proceeding, the complete witness background, or any written exhibits attached to the testimony. Those details are important before treating the account as established fact. The article therefore describes the testimony as an allegation and treats the submitted clip and transcript as the primary source for what was said.
The JFK Files Are Already Under A Presidential Order
The White House order on assassination records said continued withholding of JFK assassination material was no longer consistent with the public interest. The order, Executive Order 14176, directed officials to prepare for disclosure of records connected to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr.
"I have now determined that the continued redaction and withholding of information from records pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is not consistent with the public interest and the release of these records is long overdue." - Executive Order 14176, White House
The National Archives says its 2025 JFK release followed the president's directive and that records previously withheld for classification in the JFK Assassination Records Collection were released. NARA also says records remain available online and in person at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland, with additional digitized material posted as work continues.
That official background gives the hearing claim its stakes. If boxes of JFK material were being processed under a DNI review, and if a component agency took them back after an internal investigative unit ceased operations, Congress would need to know who authorized the transfer, what inventory changed hands, and whether the move slowed or altered the release process.
MK-Ultra Raises A Different Transparency Problem
MK-Ultra refers to a Cold War CIA program associated with secret human experimentation, drugs, behavioral research, and long-running public distrust of intelligence oversight. Mentioning MK-Ultra in the same breath as JFK files intensifies the political significance of the allegation because both categories sit at the intersection of secrecy, historical abuse, and public demands for disclosure.
The key question is not only whether boxes existed. It is what was inside them, how they were catalogued, whether the materials were originals or working copies, and which office had legal custody when they were reclaimed. Those details determine whether the alleged transfer was a routine records-management action, a classification dispute, or an obstruction of a DNI-directed declassification process.
Erdmann's testimony also alleged retaliation against a contractor. He said one CIA contractor assisting the investigation into events between 2022 and 2023 was fired one day after meeting with the DIG. That claim adds a personnel and whistleblower-protection issue to the records dispute.
Congressional investigators would need employment records, meeting logs, access logs, device-monitoring authorizations, chain-of-custody documents for the boxes, and correspondence between CIA and DNI officials to test the allegation. Without those documents, the public has a witness claim, a transcript, and a sharp set of oversight questions.
What The CIA And Congress Need To Answer
The CIA has not provided a response in the submitted video. The agency may argue that any monitoring was lawful network security, that any contractor action was unrelated to testimony or contacts with investigators, or that any records transfer followed classification and custody rules. Those explanations would still need documentation because the allegation involves Americans working under presidential and DNI authority.
The first question is whether a DIG investigation existed in the form described, what its mandate was, and why it ceased operations. The second is whether CIA systems or officials monitored computer and phone use by investigators beyond ordinary security logging. The third is whether 40 boxes of JFK and MK-Ultra files were transferred away from a DNI-directed declassification process, and if so, who ordered it.
For now, the news value is the allegation itself and the policy context around it. The White House had publicly ordered greater transparency on assassination records. The National Archives had already begun releasing previously withheld JFK records. A witness has now alleged that CIA officials resisted a related review and reclaimed sensitive historical files from Gabbard's declassification process.
If the claim is substantiated, it would become a fight over intelligence accountability and presidential control of declassification policy. If it is not, the CIA and DNI should be able to show the records chain, the legal authority for monitoring or custody decisions, and the timeline that explains what happened to the boxes. Either way, the allegation gives Congress a concrete oversight target: documents, logs, names, dates, and custody records, not just public assurances.
