
Things to know about the release of federal documents related to MLK's assassination
Justice Department attorneys later asked a federal judge to end a sealing order for the records nearly two years ahead of its expiration date. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which King led, is opposed to unsealing any of the records for privacy reasons. The organization's lawyers said King's relatives also wanted to keep the files under seal.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Scholars, history buffs and journalists have been preparing to study the documents to find new information about the civil rights leader's assassination on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee.
The King family's statement released after Trump's order in January said they hoped to get an opportunity to review the files as a family prior to its public release. King's family, including his two living children, Martin III and Bernice, was given advance notice of the release and had their own teams reviewing the records ahead of the public disclosure.
Advertisement
In a statement released Monday, King's children called their father's case a 'captivating public curiosity for decades.' But they also emphasized the personal nature of the matter and urged that 'these files must be viewed within their full historical context.'
'We ask those who engage with the release of these files to do so with empathy, restraint, and respect for our family's continuing grief,' the statement said.
Here is what we know about the assassination and what scholars had to say ahead of the release of the documents.
In Memphis, shots ring out
King was standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel, heading to dinner with a few friends, when he was shot and killed.
King had been in Memphis to support a sanitation workers strike protesting poor working conditions and low pay. The night before the assassination, King delivered the famous 'Mountaintop' speech on a stormy night at the Mason Temple in Memphis.
An earlier march on Beale Street had turned violent, and King had returned to Memphis to lead another march as an expression of nonviolent protest. King also had been planning the Poor People's Campaign to speak out against economic injustice.
The FBI's investigation
After a long manhunt, James Earl Ray was captured in London, and he pleaded guilty to assassinating King. He later renounced that plea and maintained his innocence until his death in 1998.
FBI documents released over the years show how the bureau wiretapped King's telephone lines, bugged his hotel rooms and used informants to get information against him.
'He was relentlessly targeted by an invasive, predatory, and deeply disturbing disinformation and surveillance campaign,' the King family statement said.
Advertisement
King family's response to the investigation
Members of King's family, and others, have questioned whether Ray acted alone, or if he was even involved. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, asked for the probe to be reopened, and in 1998, then-Attorney General Janet Reno directed the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department to do so.
The Justice Department said it 'found nothing to disturb the 1969 judicial determination that James Earl Ray murdered Dr. King.'
Dexter King, one of King's children, met with Ray in prison in 1997, saying afterwards that he believed Ray's claims of innocence. Dexter King died in 2024.
With the support of King's family, a civil trial in state court was held in Memphis in 1999 against Loyd Jowers, a man alleged to have known about a conspiracy to assassinate King. Dozens of witnesses testified, and a Memphis jury found Jowers and unnamed others, including government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to assassinate King.
What will the public see in the newly released documents?
It's not clear what the records will actually show.
King scholars, for example, would like to see what information the FBI was discussing and circulating as part of their investigation, said Ryan Jones, director of history, interpretation and curatorial services at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis.
'That's critical given the fact the American public, at that time, was unaware that the FBI that is involved in the investigation, was leading a smear campaign to discredit the same man while he was alive,' Jones said. 'They were the same bureau who was receiving notices of assassination attempts against King and ignored them.'
Academics who have studied King also would like to see information about the FBI's surveillance of King, including the extent they went to get details about his personal life, track him, and try to discredit him as anti-American, said Lerone A. Martin, director of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University.
Advertisement
However, Martin said he does not expect that the documents will have a 'smoking gun that will finally say, 'See, this is 100% evidence that the FBI was involved in this assassination.''
'We have to view these documents with an eye of suspicion because of the extent the FBI was willing to go to, to try to discredit him,' Martin said.
Why now?
Trump's order about the records release said it is in the 'national interest' to release the records.
'Their families and the American people deserve transparency and truth,' the order said.
However, the timing has led to skepticism from some observers.
Jones questioned why the American public had not been able to see these documents much earlier.
'Why were they sealed on the basis of national security, if the assassin was in prison outside of Nashville?' he said.
Jones said there are scholars who think the records release is a 'PR stunt' by a presidential administration that is 'rewriting, omitting the advances of some people that are tied to people of color, or diversity.'
The Pentagon has faced questions from lawmakers and citizens over the removal of military heroes and historic mentions from Defense Department websites and social media pages after it purged online content that promoted women or minorities. In response, the department restored some of those posts.
Martin said Trump's motivation could be part of an effort to shed doubt on government institutions.
Advertisement
'It could be an opportunity for the Trump administration to say, 'See, the FBI is evil, I've been trying to tell you this. This is why I've put (FBI director) Kash Patel in office because he's cleaning out the Deep State,'' Martin said.
Another factor could be the two attempts on Trump's life as he was campaigning for a second presidential term, and a desire to 'expose the broader history of U.S. assassinations,' said Brian Kwoba, an associate history professor at the University of Memphis.
'That said, it is still a little bit confusing because it's not clear why any U.S. president, including Trump, would want to open up files that could be damaging to the United States and its image both in the U.S. and abroad,' he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's new model to support Ukraine is a win-win
From the start, Ukraine's defense against Russia's full-scale invasion has been underpinned by a robust commitment from its Western partners. The Biden administration's pledge to support Ukraine 'as long as it takes' promised a sustained flow of military and financial aid directly from Washington. This 'direct donor' model was key to Ukraine's initial resilience, providing essential weaponry from U.S. stockpiles. Biden's approach primarily involved direct transfers from U.S. weapons inventories, prioritizing speed and ensuring that Ukraine received vital equipment quickly to counter Russian aggression. The American government provided extensive amounts of equipment, from air-defense missiles to artillery rounds and armored vehicles, directly to Kyiv. Now, under President Trump, the paradigm is shifting. The U.S. is transitioning from a direct donor to a 'strategic supplier,' where European allies purchase American weapons for Ukraine at their own expense. While this reorientation marks a significant change, it is far from the worst-case scenario for Ukraine. Instead, it represents a pragmatic and potentially more sustainable evolution of transatlantic burden-sharing, securing critical capabilities for Ukraine while invigorating the U.S. defense industrial base and recalibrating the nature of allied support. Support is still 'as long as it takes' but also 'at the others' expense.' This marks a departure from the traditional post-World War II donor-recipient model, particularly within the NATO alliance, towards a more transactional 'America First' approach. Future U.S. engagement in global security will likely be contingent upon tangible economic benefits and direct cost-sharing from allies. Such a shift could lead to a more predictable, albeit less altruistic, framework for security cooperation, where allies are compelled to demonstrate their commitment through direct financial contributions. This policy reorientation accelerates European strategic autonomy. While the immediate effect is Europe paying for U.S. weapons, the long-term implication is a forced impetus for greater European defense integration and self-sufficiency. European nations have already been increasing their defense spending and proactively planning for a future with less guaranteed U.S. aid. This new model, by making U.S. weapons available for purchase, encourages Europe to develop its own robust procurement mechanisms and potentially expand its own defense industrial base. Ukraine's most pressing and enduring need remains robust air defense against Russia's escalating missile and drone attacks. The U.S.-made Patriot air-defense system is critical, as it is one of the few systems capable of intercepting high-speed ballistic missiles. These systems are vital for protecting civilian infrastructure and population centers, which have been subjected to relentless Russian bombardment. A critical strategic reality for Ukraine is that not all American weapons are equally replaceable by European alternatives. While Europe is ramping up its own artillery production, the Patriot system's unique counter-ballistic missile capability makes it a requirement that only the U.S. can provide at scale. Europe, at the same time, has demonstrated a clear willingness and increasing capacity to shoulder a greater share of the burden. The European Union has already provided €165 billion in financial assistance and has launched an €800 billion Defense Readiness Plan. Frozen Russian sovereign assets may be used to finance what Ukraine needs. The shift to a foreign military sales model is explicitly intended to invigorate the U.S. defense industrial base. By integrating 'exportability features' into defense systems during the design phase, the U.S. seeks to advance its competitiveness abroad and potentially lower unit costs for both America and its allies. While the foreign military sales process has historically been slow and plagued by delivery backlogs, the new model offers a potential solution. Consistent, large-scale orders from European allies could provide the long-term contract certainty that the U.S. defense industry requires to invest significantly in surge capacity and overcome challenges. This transforms what was previously a 'drain' on American stockpiles, requiring replenishment at taxpayer expense, into a sustained stimulus for U.S. manufacturing, aligning with 'America First' economic principles. This shift is not merely about burden-sharing; it is about recapitalizing and modernizing the U.S. defense industrial base. While immediate fixes for current shortages remain challenging, this strategic reorientation creates a more sustainable industrial ecosystem. Trump's recent rhetoric marks a notable change from his earlier stance, which often appeared conciliatory toward Vladimir Putin. He has recognized that Russia, not Ukraine, is the core problem in negotiations, even threatening tariffs and sanctions on Russia and its trading partners if a peace deal is not reached within 50 days. The reality that Putin is not amenable to a quick 'deal' is now clear. There is now a crucial political opening for continued support to Ukraine, even if the funding mechanism changes. The narrative that Trump desires Ukraine's fall has been refuted. Instead, Trump is committed to ending the war on terms that align with his administration's interests. This represents a significant psychological advantage for Ukraine, as it lessens the fear of a complete U.S. abandonment.


The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Columbia to pay $221M to restore funding cut by Trump administration
Columbia University said Wednesday it has agreed to pay the Trump administration $221 million to restore federal funding that was stripped following a probe into antisemitism on the campus. The school, according to the settlement, will pay a $200 million settlement to the federal government over a three-year period and $21 million to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 'This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty,' Acting University President Claire Shipman said in a statement. 'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,' she added. The interim president said the Trump administration deal will allow the school to maintain its academic independence after losing $400 million in grant funding earlier this year. In June, a judge dismissed a lawsuit led by Columbia's faculty, ruling that only the school had grounds to sue the government for revoking its funds. 'Columbia's longstanding research partnership with the federal government is vital to advancing our nation's progress in key areas of science, technology, and medicine,' Board of Trustees Co-Chairs David Greenwald and Jeh Johnson said in a statement on the matter. 'We are proud of the role we play in advancing this public service and preparing the next generations of students to meet complex challenges around the world,' they added. President Trump announced the agreement on Tuesday night in a Truth Social post celebrating the win for his administration. 'It's a great honor to have been involved, and I want to thank and congratulate Secretary Linda McMahon, and all those who worked with us on this important deal,' he wrote. 'I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right. I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!' He warned earlier in the post that other schools could face similar measures to motivate the erasure of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which the administration has deemed discriminatory. 'Columbia has also committed to ending their ridiculous DEI policies, admitting students based ONLY on MERIT, and protecting the Civil Liberties of their students on campus,' he wrote in the post. 'Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming,' the president added.


Politico
23 minutes ago
- Politico
South Park skewers Trump over Epstein files, depicts him in bed with Satan
The hit Paramount show aired the incendiary new episode as the first of its new season. President Donald Trump calls on a reporter during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Oval Office at the White House on July 22, 2025, in Washington. |By Paul Dallison 07/24/2025 08:04 AM EDT After a two-year break, 'South Park' returned to TV on Wednesday night with an explosive episode aimed squarely at Donald Trump that depicted the president in bed with Satan and referenced Jeffrey Epstein. The start of the new season of 'South Park' was delayed by several weeks while the Paramount network secured a deal worth $1.5 billion with the show's creators for the streaming rights. Paramount is the owner of CBS, which has been firmly in Trump's crosshairs. The episode features Trump arguing with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who complains about tariffs on Canada and says: 'What are you, some kind of dictator from the Middle East?' After confusing Iran and Iraq, the 'South Park' version of Trump tells Carney to 'relax.'