A CIA whistleblower told Congress that the agency took back roughly 40 boxes of files related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the MKUltra program, documents that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's team had been reviewing for possible declassification. Republican lawmakers responded with threats of subpoenas and demands for immediate return of the materials, setting off a fast-moving confrontation between Capitol Hill and the intelligence community.
The claim first gained wide attention when Fox News host Jesse Watters posted that the CIA "JUST RAIDED TULSI GABBARD'S OFFICE." That framing, dramatic and absolute, quickly drew a flat denial from Gabbard's own press secretary, Olivia Coleman, who posted on X: "This is false, the CIA did not raid the DNI's office."
But the denial did not settle the matter. It sharpened it. Because what followed was not a retraction, it was a clarification that confirmed the core allegation while disputing the word "raid" and the timing.
The central figure behind the disclosure is James Erdman III, a CIA whistleblower who testified before the Senate. Erdman testified that when Gabbard's Director's Initiatives Group ceased operations, the CIA took back 40 boxes of JFK assassination and MKUltra files that were being processed for declassification by the DNI.
"When the DIG [Director's Initiatives Group] ceased operations, the CIA also took back 40 boxes of JFK files and MKUltra files being processed for declassification by DNI Gabbard."
That testimony, delivered during a deposition, according to Watters, triggered the cascade of posts, denials, and counter-statements that consumed Washington for hours.
Two intelligence community officials separately confirmed to the Daily Caller that the agency had taken the files. NewsNation's Katie Pavlich, citing an intelligence official, offered additional detail: the documents were not taken that day, and the episode was not a raid on Gabbard's office. Rather, Pavlich wrote on X, "People from the CIA took documents (related to the JFK assassination/MKUltra) from the National Reconnaissance Office *last year* in the middle of the night during the government shutdown."
Pavlich added that the files had reportedly still not been returned.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) wasted no time. She posted on X demanding action:
"The CIA has 24 hours to return the documents to Tulsi Gabbard's office or else I will make a motion to issue a subpoena. These documents have been requested by Congress."
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) backed the demand, responding "Cosign!" and adding: "I also want the names of who ordered this action and who signed off on this crap!!"
The pattern here is worth noting. Gabbard's own spokesperson denied the "raid" framing. Luna initially appeared to accept the raid narrative, then walked it back, but never walked back the underlying accusation. In a follow-up post, Luna wrote: "Clarification. Took documents that ODNI has jurisdiction over. Also, this did not happen today & was not a 'raid' however it did take place and we are just being made aware of it based on reporting etc."
That distinction matters. The word "raid" conjures images of agents storming an office. What actually happened, based on the available accounts, is that CIA personnel removed boxes of sensitive historical documents from the National Reconnaissance Office, documents that fell under ODNI jurisdiction, during a government shutdown, under cover of night. Whether you call that a raid or a retrieval, the effect is the same: files earmarked for public release ended up back in the hands of the agency with the most to lose from their disclosure.
The episode fits neatly into a larger story about the intelligence community's willingness to resist oversight and transparency, even under an administration that has made declassification a stated priority. The discovery of FBI "burn bags" in a hidden room tied to the Trump-Russia probe offered an earlier glimpse of how federal agencies handle documents they would rather not see the light of day.
MKUltra, the CIA's Cold War-era mind-control program, has been a source of institutional embarrassment for decades. Rep. Tim Burchett, as reported by the Washington Examiner, put it bluntly: "The CIA lied about MK Ultra existing. They were sued and were forced to admit it but say they aren't doing it now. Which lie do you believe? Subpoena and preserve these documents now."
The JFK assassination files carry their own decades-long history of delayed release, broken promises, and bureaucratic obstruction. Congress mandated full disclosure years ago. The intelligence community has fought that mandate at every turn, citing national security concerns that grow less persuasive with each passing decade.
Luna and House Oversight Chairman James Comer sent a letter to CIA Director John Ratcliffe requesting preservation of all documents related to the JFK assassination and MKUltra, a step that suggests lawmakers believe the agency may not voluntarily safeguard the materials.
The CIA, for its part, dismissed the proceedings. CIA spokeswoman Liz Lyons called the hearing "nothing more than dishonest political theater masquerading as a congressional hearing." That response will do little to reassure Americans who have watched the intelligence community stonewall transparency efforts for generations.
Several questions remain unanswered. Who within the CIA authorized the removal of 40 boxes of documents from a facility where they were being processed for declassification? What legal or administrative basis, if any, justified the action? And why were the files taken during a government shutdown, in the middle of the night, when oversight was at its weakest?
The administration has shown a willingness to confront entrenched bureaucracies. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's warnings about subpoenas over classified leak investigations reflect a broader posture of accountability across federal agencies.
But accountability requires follow-through. Luna's 24-hour deadline has a shelf life. If the documents are not returned and the subpoena motion does not materialize, the threat becomes theater, exactly the kind the CIA spokeswoman accused Congress of staging.
Boebert's demand for names, who ordered the removal, who signed off, is the right question. Bureaucracies act through individuals. Individuals can be held accountable. Anonymous institutional action cannot.
The recent Cabinet shake-ups have shown that this administration is willing to make personnel changes when officials fall short. The question now is whether the same standard applies to an intelligence agency that appears to have moved sensitive historical documents beyond the reach of the very office tasked with deciding whether the public gets to see them.
The dispute over terminology, "raid" versus "retrieval," "today" versus "last year", has consumed much of the oxygen around this story. That is convenient for the CIA. Every hour spent debating whether Jesse Watters used the right word is an hour not spent asking why 40 boxes of JFK and MKUltra files were spirited away from a declassification review.
Gabbard's office denied the raid. It did not deny that documents were taken. Luna confirmed the taking happened. Pavlich's intelligence source confirmed it happened. Two officials confirmed it to the Daily Caller. The CIA's own spokeswoman did not deny the removal, she attacked the hearing where it was disclosed.
The deeper concern extends beyond any single batch of files. If the CIA can reclaim documents under active declassification review simply by waiting for a shutdown and sending people over at night, then no declassification order carries real weight. The agency that classifies the information retains effective veto power over its release, regardless of what the DNI, the president, or Congress says.
That is not transparency. It is the appearance of transparency, managed by the people with the strongest incentive to prevent it.
Americans have waited more than sixty years for the full truth about the Kennedy assassination. They should not have to wait for the CIA to decide it is ready to let them have it.