CIA releases more than 1,000 pages on RFK assassination — including chilling statement: ‘Kennedy must fall'

WASHINGTON — The CIA released 1,450 additional pages of documents related to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy on Thursday, including 54 previously classified documents.
The files could shed new light on the motivations of Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian-born Jordanian citizen convicted of Kennedy's murder after the June 5, 1968, shooting — and contain a psychological profile of Sirhan as well as his handwritten notes.
One of the handwritten notes includes the lines 'Kennedy must fall' and 'tonight, tonight.'
Advertisement
4 Robert F. Kennedy lies on the floor after being shot on June 5, 1968.
Bettmann Archive
4 Part of the declassified document which reads 'Kennedy must fall.'
CIA
Other records will disclose details about a trip that RFK took with former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas to the Soviet Union in 1955, during which the future US attorney general and senator 'served the Agency as a voluntary informant.'
Advertisement
A CIA official said that the documents about Kennedy's journey 'exemplifies the depth of his patriotism and commitment to serving his country,' knowing that 'the USSR was our top adversary at the time.'
The information on Sirhan covers his family history and international ties but notes that the gunman was never connected to any terrorist groups, the official added.
'Today's release delivers on President Trump's commitment to maximum transparency, enabling the CIA to shine light on information that serves the public interest,' said CIA Director John Ratcliffe in a statement.
4 Sirhan Sirhan in custody with his attorney in June 1968.
AP
Advertisement
4 Robert F. Kennedy seen during an interview before he was shot.
NBC Newswire/NBCUniversal via Getty Images
'I am proud to share our work on this incredibly important topic with the American people.'
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard previously released more than 10,000 pages about the senator's murder at a Los Angeles hotel following his victory in the 1968 California Democratic presidential primary.
'I commend President Trump for his courage and his commitment to transparency,' Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. added in his own statement. 'I'm grateful also to Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe for their dogged efforts to root out and declassify these documents.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

42 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Exclusive: Israel's Herzog Reacts to US Strikes—'Have to Defend Ourselves'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The international community ignored Iran's major underground nuclear facility of Fordow for years, Israeli President Isaac Herzog told Newsweek in an exclusive interview following U.S. strikes against three nuclear sites in central Iran overnight. The Fordow nuclear facility, roughly 60 miles south of Tehran, was secret until 2009. Then-U.S. President Barack Obama said at the time it had jointly told the United Nations' (U.N.) nuclear watchdog that Iran had for years secretly built up a nuclear site near the city of Qom. Referencing the former president's words more than a decade-and-a-half ago, Herzog said Obama "exposed" the existence of Fordow, "but then the world let it happen." "It's ridiculous," Herzog said. "The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] declared that they're non-compliant, and they're lying," the Israeli president added. "And the world says, 'Okay, what? What do we do about it?'" Referring to Israel, he continued: "Well, we have to defend ourselves, and we remove it." The U.S. launched strikes on Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz—three of Iran's most significant nuclear sites—early Sunday local time, dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer." Major U.S. allies expressed support for the American strikes on Sunday while urging Iran not to respond. Tehran had promised retaliation and "irreparable damage" if the U.S. attacked its nuclear facilities prior to the strikes. Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, on Sunday warned of "everlasting consequences" for what he termed "outrageous" U.S. attacks. The U.S. entry into the war came after Israel carried out what it called a "pre-emptive" campaign against Tehran's nuclear sites and personnel, as well as its ballistic missile and other military sites. Israel said Iran was getting close to having a nuclear weapon, which the U.S., and many of America's allies, have said is unacceptable. However, Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. Israeli President Isaac Herzog visits a residential building struck by a missile launched from Iran, in Petah Tikva, Israel, on June 16. Israeli President Isaac Herzog visits a residential building struck by a missile launched from Iran, in Petah Tikva, Israel, on June 16. Associated Press Iran launched waves of drone and missiles at Israel shortly after. Both Israel and Iran continued their attacks following U.S. strikes. President Donald Trump hailed the strikes on Fordow, as well as the facilities at Natanz and Isfahan, as a "spectacular military success." "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated," he added. Israel, while not pursuing Fordow, has for over a week carried out extensive airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites, including Isfahan and Natanz, and killed a litany of senior nuclear scientists and generals. The U.S. military's B-2 Spirit bombers, equipped with "bunker busting" GBU-57/B bombs weighing in at 30,000 pounds, were widely considered the only pairing able to take Fordow, buried deep under a mountain, out of the equation. A U.S. submarine launched more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles against the aboveground facilities at Isfahan around 5 p.m. ET on Saturday, just before U.S. aircraft entered Iranian airspace, General Dan Caine, the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, said on Sunday. Washington used deception tactics and a host of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft traveling ahead of B-2 heavy bombers to sweep for Iranian fighter jets and air defenses, Caine added. At 6:40 p.m. ET, the first B-2 dropped two GBU-57/B bombs at Fordow, followed by another site, the top general said. The rest of the munitions were dropped in the following 25 minutes, and Iran did not fire at U.S. aircraft traveling in or out of Iran, Caine added. Experts and officials said on Sunday it was too early to tell exactly how much damage has been done to Iran's network of nuclear sites. Preliminary assessments indicate all three facilities sustained "extremely severe damage," Caine said. In a Sunday afternoon Truth Social post, Trump pushed back against criticism from Republican lawmaker Thomas Massie of Kentucky, asserting that the U.S. had effectively "taken the 'bomb'" away from Iran by targeting the three nuclear sites. Massie has said that Trump needed congressional approval to launch the aerial attack. During an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting requested by Iran, Secretary-General António Guterres appealed for urgent action to halt the violence and revive negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. "We cannot—and must not—give up on peace," Guterres said, calling for a verifiable agreement with full access for U.N. nuclear inspectors to rebuild trust. Stressing the stakes, he warned that the world faces a clear choice between the path of escalation and that of diplomacy. "We know which path is right," he declared.

Vox

an hour ago

• Vox

Three ways Trump's attack on Iran could spin out of control

is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Vice President JD Vance, President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during an address to the nation in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. Carlos Barria/Reuters/Bloomberg via Getty Images When Vice President JD Vance appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday morning, anchor Kristen Welker asked him a simple question: Is the United States now at war with Iran? In response, Vance said, 'We're not at war with Iran; we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' This is akin to saying that, in attacking Pearl Harbor, Imperial Japan had merely declared war on America's warship construction program. Yet it's notable that Vance felt the need to engage in such contortions — and that President Donald Trump, in his address to the nation last night, went out of his way to emphasize that there were no additional strikes planned. The Trump administration does not want to admit it has begun a war, because wars have a way of escalating beyond anyone's control. What we should be worrying about now is not how the US-Iran fighting began, but how it ends. It is all too easy to see how these initial strikes could escalate into something much bigger — if Iran's nuclear program remains mostly intact, or if Iran retaliates in a way that forces American counter-escalation. It's possible neither occurs, and this stays as limited as currently advertised. Or factors beyond our knowledge — the 'unknown unknowns' of the current conflict — could lead to an even greater escalation than anyone is currently predicting. The worst-case scenario, an outright regime change effort akin to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, cannot be entirely ruled out. I don't know how bad things will get, or even if things are likely to get worse. But when I watched Trump's speech, and heard his obviously premature claims that 'Iran's key nuclear facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' I couldn't help thinking about another speech from over 20 years ago — when, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, George W. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared 'Mission Accomplished.' The mission hadn't been accomplished then, as it almost certainly hasn't been now. We can only hope that the resulting events this time are not a similar kind of catastrophe. Escalation pathway one: 'finishing the job' We do not know, at present, just how much damage American bombs have done to their targets — Iranian enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Satellite imagery shows that there are above-ground buildings still standing, belying Trump's claims of complete destruction, but many of the targets are underground. It's possible these were dealt a severe blow, and it's possible they weren't. Either scenario creates pathways to escalation. If the damage is indeed relatively limited, and one round of American bombs was not able to shatter the heavily reinforced concrete Iran uses to protect its underground assets, the Trump administration will face two bad choices. It can either let a clearly furious Iran retain operational nuclear facilities, raising the risk that they dash for a nuclear weapon, or it can keep bombing until the attacks have done sufficient damage to prevent Iran from getting a weapon in the immediate future. That commits the United States to, at minimum, an indefinite bombing campaign inside Iran. But even if this attack did do real damage, that leaves the question of the program's long-term future. Iran could decide, after being attacked, that the only way to protect itself is to rebuild its nuclear program in a hurry and get a bomb. It has already moved to quit the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), an agreement that gives international inspectors (and, by extension, the world) visibility into its nuclear development. There are, again, two ways to ensure that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei doesn't make such a choice: a diplomatic agreement akin to the 2015 nuclear deal, or else a war of regime change aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government altogether. The first isn't impossible, but it certainly seems unlikely at present. The US and Iran were negotiating on its nuclear program when Israel began bombing Iranian targets, seemingly using the talks as cover to catch Iran off guard. It seems very unlikely that Iran would see the US as a credible negotiating partner now that it has joined Israel's war. That leaves the other form of 'finishing the job': a full-on war of regime change. My colleague Josh Keating has argued, convincingly, that Israel wants such an outcome. And some of Trump's allies, including Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, have openly called for it. 'Wouldn't the world be better off if the ayatollahs went away and were replaced by something better?' Graham asked, rhetorically, in a Fox News interview last Monday. 'It's time to close the chapter on the Ayatollah and his henchmen. Let's close it soon.' Such a dire outcome seems, at present, very distant. But the further Trump continues down a hawkish path on Iran, the more thinkable it will become. Escalation pathway two: a US-Iran cycle of violence There's a military truism that, in war, 'the enemy gets a vote.' It could be that Iran's actions force American escalation even if the Trump administration doesn't want to go any further than it has right now. So far, Iran's military response to both US and Israeli attacks has been underwhelming. Tehran is clearly hobbled by the damage Israel did to its proxy militias, Hezbollah and Hamas, and its ballistic missiles are not capable of threatening the Israeli homeland in the way that many fear. But there are two things Iran hasn't tried that are, after American intervention, more likely to be on the table. The first is an attack on US servicemembers stationed in the Middle East, of which there are somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 at present. Of particular note are the US forces currently stationed in Iraq and Syria. Iraq is home to several Iranian-aligned militias that could potentially be ordered to directly attack American troops in the country or across the border in Syria. The second is an attack on international shipping lanes. The most dangerous scenario involves an attempt to use missiles and naval assets to close the Strait of Hormuz, a Persian Gulf passage used by roughly 20 percent of global oil shipping by volume. If Iran either kills significant numbers of American troops or attempts to do major damage to the global economy, there will surely be American retaliation. In his Saturday speech, Trump promised that if Iran retaliates, 'future [American] attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' An effort to detonate the global oil market would, without a doubt, necessitate such a response: The US cannot allow Iran to hold its economy hostage. We do not, to be clear, know whether Iran is willing to take such risks, or even if it can. Israeli attacks have devastated its military capabilities, including ballistic missile launchers that allow it to hit targets well beyond its borders. But a 'cycle of violence' is a very common way that violence escalates: One side attacks, the other side retaliates, prompting another attack, and on up the chain. Once they start, such cycles can be difficult to prevent from spiraling out of control. Escalation pathway three: the Iraq analogy, or things fall apart I want to be clear that escalation here isn't a given. It is possible that the US and its Israeli partners remain satisfied with one American bombing run, and that the Iranians are too scared or weak to engage in any major response. But those are a whole lot of 'ifs.' And we have no way of knowing, at present, whether we're heading to a best- or worst-case scenario (or one of several possibilities in the middle). Key decision points, like whether Trump orders another round of US raids on Fordow or Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz, will determine which pathways we go down — and it's hard to know which choices the key actors in Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem will make. I keep thinking about the 2003 Iraq war in part for obvious reasons: the US attacking a Middle Eastern dictatorship based on flimsy intelligence claims about weapons of mass destruction. But the other parallel, perhaps a deeper one, is that the architects of the Iraq War had little-to-no understanding of the second-order consequences of their choices. There was so much they didn't know, both about Iraq as a country and the likely consequences of regime change more broadly, that they failed to grasp just how much of a quagmire the war might become until it had already sucked in the United States. It's over 20 years later, and boots are still on the ground — drawn in by events, like the creation of ISIS, that were direct results of the initial decision to invade. Attacking Iran, even with the more 'modest' aim of destroying its nuclear program, carries similar risks. The attack carries so many potential consequences, involving so many different countries and constituencies, that it's hard to even begin to try to account for all the potential risks that might cause further US escalation. There are likely consequences taking shape, at this moment, that we can't even begin to conceive of. The nature of the Trump administration gives me little hope that they've properly gamed this out. The president himself is a compulsive liar and foreign policy ignoramus. The secretary of defense has run his department into the ground. The secretary of state, who is also the national security adviser, has more jobs than anyone could reasonably be expected to perform competently at once. It is, in short, far less competent on paper than the Bush administration was prior to the Iraq invasion — and look how that went. It's possible, despite all of this, that the Trump administration has adequately gamed out their choices here — preparing for all reasonably foreseeable contingencies and capable of acting swiftly in the (inevitable) event that some response catches the world by surprise. But if it didn't, then things could go badly and tragically wrong.

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

US Supreme Court curbs discrimination claims over lost retiree benefits

By Daniel Wiessner (Reuters) -Retirees cannot sue their former employers for disability discrimination after leaving their jobs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday in a ruling against a disabled former Florida firefighter that could make it harder to bring lawsuits seeking to restore lost retiree benefits. The ruling upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by Karyn Stanley, who had worked as a firefighter in Sanford, that accused the city of discriminating against her by ending a health insurance subsidy for retirees. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote that only job applicants and current employees are "qualified individuals" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch was joined by the court's five other conservative justices and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson penned separate dissenting opinions. While Stanley worked for Sanford, located in the suburbs of Orlando, the city changed its policy to limit health insurance coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley retired from her job after two decades because her Parkinson's disease had made it impossible for her to work, according to court filings. She sued the city in 2020, claiming it discriminated against workers who retired early because of a disability by giving them a smaller healthcare subsidy than employees who retired after 25 years of service. The city in court filings has said its policy was lawful and necessary to contain costs related to employee benefits. Sanford covers insurance costs for workers who retire after 25 years of service until they turn 65, and had previously done so for employees who retired due to a disability regardless of how long they worked for the city. While Stanley worked for the city, it changed its policy to limit coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley was 47 when she retired. Friday's decision will help reduce the legal risks that employers face when they change or terminate retirement benefits, according to Caroline Pieper, a Chicago-based lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents employers. "While there are certainly other considerations ... this case should give employers more comfort under the ADA when they modify or reduce post-employment offerings," Pieper said, referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Friday's ruling affirmed decisions by a judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Stanley's lawsuit.