jfk pic essay

Things you buy through our links may earn Vox Media a commission.

The Secrets of the JFK Assassination Archive

How a dogged journalist proved that the cia lied about oswald and cuba — and spent decades covering it up..

This article was featured in One Great Story , New York ’s reading recommendation newsletter. Sign up here to get it nightly.

In 1988, in an elevator at a film festival in Havana, the director Oliver Stone was handed a copy of On the Trail of the Assassins , a newly published account of the murder of President John F. Kennedy . Stone admired Kennedy with an almost spiritual intensity and viewed his death on November 22, 1963 — 60 years ago this month — as a hard line in American history: the “before” hopeful and good; the “after” catastrophic. Yet he had never given much thought to the particulars of the assassination. “I believed that Lee Oswald shot the president,” he said. “I had no problem with that.” On the Trail of the Assassins , written by the Louisiana appellate judge Jim Garrison, proposed something darker. In 1963, Garrison had been district attorney of New Orleans, Oswald’s home in the months before the killing. He began an investigation and had soon traced the contours of a vast government conspiracy orchestrated by the CIA; Oswald was the “patsy” he famously claimed to be. Stone read Garrison’s book three times, bought the film rights, and took them to Warner Bros. “I was hot at the time,” Stone told me. “I could write my own ticket, within reason.” The studio gave him $40 million to make a movie.

The resulting film, JFK , was a scandal well before it came anywhere near a theater. “Some insults to intelligence and decency rise (sink?) far enough to warrant objection,” the Chicago Tribune columnist Jon Margolis wrote just as shooting began. “Such an insult now looms. It is JFK .” Newsweek called the film “a work of propaganda,” as did Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America, who specifically likened Stone to the Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. “It could spoil a generation of American politics,” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in the Washington Post .

Critics objected in particular to Stone’s ennoblement of Garrison, whose investigation was widely viewed, including by many conspiracy theorists, as a farce. And yet some of the response to the film looked an awful lot like a form of repression, a slightly desperate refusal to acknowledge that the official version of the Kennedy assassination had never been especially convincing. One week after the assassination and five days after Oswald himself was killed by nightclub owner Jack Ruby, President Lyndon Johnson convened a panel of seven “very distinguished citizens,” led by Chief Justice Earl Warren of the Supreme Court, to investigate. Ten months later, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald, firing three shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, had killed Kennedy entirely on his own for reasons impossible to state. Notwithstanding JFK ’s distortions — “It’s a Hollywood movie,” Stone pointed out — the film noted quite accurately that the Warren Commission seemed to be contradicted by its own evidence.

In a famous courtroom scene, Garrison, played by Kevin Costner, showed the Zapruder film, the long-suppressed footage of the shooting, rewinding it for the jury as he narrated the movement of Kennedy’s exploding cranium — “Back, and to the left; back, and to the left” — which suggested a shot not from behind, where Oswald was, but from the front right, in the direction of the so-called Grassy Knoll, where numerous witnesses testified to having seen, heard, and even smelled gunshots. (Stone had offered the role of Garrison to Harrison Ford and Mel Gibson, who both passed, but Costner, the very symbol of wholesome Americana, was actually the more subversive choice.) In another courtroom scene, Garrison appeared to dismantle the “single-bullet theory,” according to which the same round had been responsible for seven entry and exit wounds in Kennedy and Texas governor John Connally — an improbable scenario made all the more so by the alleged bullet itself, which was recovered in near-pristine condition. The simplest explanation would have been that all those wounds were caused by more than one bullet, but this would have meant either that Oswald had fired, reloaded, and again fired his bolt-action rifle in less than the 2.3 seconds required to do so or, more realistically, that there was a second shooter.

Three of the seven members of the Warren Commission eventually disavowed its findings, as did President Johnson. In 1979, after a thoroughgoing reinvestigation, the House Select Committee on Assassinations officially concluded that Kennedy “was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” But such findings seemed not to penetrate. “In view of the overwhelming evidence that Oswald could not have acted alone (if he acted at all), the most remarkable feature of the assassination is not the abundance of conspiracy theories,” Christopher Lasch, the historian and social critic, remarked in Harper’s , “but the rejection of a conspiracy theory by the ‘best and brightest.’” For complex reasons of history, psychology, and politics, within the American Establishment it remained inadvisable to speak of conspiracy unless you did not mind being labeled a kook.

Stone ended his film in the style of a documentary, with a written text scrolling beneath John Williams’s high-patriotic arrangement for string and horns, that deplored the official secrecy that still surrounded the assassination. Large portions of the Warren Report, Kennedy’s full autopsy records, and much of the evidence collected by the HSCA had never been cleared for public release. When JFK came out in December 1991, this ongoing secrecy quickly supplanted the movie itself as a subject of public scandal. Within a month, the New York Times was editorializing, if begrudgingly, in Stone’s defense. (“The public’s right to information does not depend on the integrity or good faith of those who seek it.”) By May 1992, congressional hearings about a declassification bill were underway. Stone, invited to testify before the House, declared, “The stone wall must come down.” CIA director Robert Gates pledged to disclose, or at least submit for review, “every relevant scrap of paper in CIA’s possession.” “The only thing more horrifying to me than the assassination itself,” Gates said, “is the insidious, perverse notion that elements of the American government, that my own agency had some part in it.”

The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 mandated that “all Government records related to the assassination” be provided to the National Archives and made available to the public. The historian Steven M. Gillon has called it the “most ambitious declassification effort in American history.” It has done little to refute Gates’s “insidious, perverse notion.” On the contrary, for those with the inclination to look and the expertise to interpret what they find, the records now in the public realm are terrifically damning to the Warren Commission and to the CIA.

Among the first visitors to the JFK Assassination Records Collection was Jefferson Morley, then a 34-year-old editor from the Washington Post . Morley had made a name for himself in magazines in the 1980s. He helped break the Iran-Contra scandal for The New Republic and wrote a much-discussed gonzo essay about the War on Drugs for which he’d spent an evening smoking crack cocaine. By that time, he’d become Washington editor of The Nation . He drank with Christopher Hitchens, with whom he was once deported, after a gathering with some Czech dissidents, by that country’s secret police. “He was a little out there,” a colleague at the Post recalled. “But you want some people like that in the newsroom.” Morley had read about the Kennedy assassination for years as a hobby, but it never occurred to him that he might report on it himself. “I never thought I had anything to add,” he told me. “Until 1992.”

I visited Morley in Washington in September. He is now 65 and somewhat more demure than his younger self, if still combative, with a sweep of gray hair, a high brow, and a sharp nose that together lend him a vaguely avian aspect, an impression heightened by his tendency to cock his head quizzically, like an owl, and speak into the middle distance. We met at the brick rowhouse that he still shares with his second wife, with whom he is in the midst of a divorce. She will keep the house, and Morley was not yet certain where he would go, but they agreed that he could stay through “the coming JFK season,” as he put it. His small office is there, as is his personal file collection, three decades of once-classified records culled from the National Archives and stored in worn banker’s boxes, tens of thousands of photocopy sheets arranged chronologically and, in duplicate form, by subject matter. “If you use what we’ve learned since the ’90s to evaluate the government’s case,” he told me, “the government’s case disintegrates.”

Morley, the author of three books on the CIA and the editor of a Substack blog of modest but impassioned following called JFK Facts, has made a name for himself among assassination researchers by attempting to approach Kennedy’s murder as if it were any other subject. “Journalists never report the JFK story journalistically,” he said. Early on, when Morley was still at the Post , editors would frequently ask, “What does this tell us about who shot JFK?” “I have no idea!” he responded. “I have to have a fucking conspiracy theory?”

He did not set out to make a career of the JFK Act, but the declassification process has taken longer than expected. At the urging of the CIA and other agencies, President Donald Trump twice extended the original 2017 deadline. In 2021, President Joe Biden pushed it to 2022 before extending it once again. At least 320,000 “assassination-related” documents have been released; by one estimate, some 4,000 remain withheld or redacted, the majority belonging to the CIA.

Morley’s serious interest in the assassination had begun in the early 1980s, prompted by Christopher Lasch’s attack on the conspiracy taboo in Harper’s . (He’d helped edit the essay.) He began to read the available literature. Some of the “conspiracy” books were highly suppositious, in his view, but some he found to be impressively thoughtful, documented, even restrained. Sylvia Meagher’s 1967 critique of the Warren Commission, Accessories After the Fact, based on a close reading of the commission’s report and its appendices, was particularly influential. The report “didn’t hang together,” Morley said, “didn’t make sense on its own terms.”

In 1992, during passage of the JFK Act, he was hired by the Washington Post to work for “Outlook,” the paper’s Sunday opinion section, an outpost of impertinence and boundary-testing in an otherwise buttoned-down newsroom. By Morley’s recollection, he pitched a piece about the JFK archive during his job interview. “They didn’t realize all these records were coming out, they weren’t really paying attention, and I was on the ball,” Morley said.

Morley visited the new archive after work, prospecting for stories, and began contacting researchers of the assassination to ask for guidance. Among them was John Newman, a U.S. Army major who had spent 20 years in Army intelligence and written a widely praised history of Kennedy and Vietnam. Newman, who also served as a consultant on JFK , was then at work on a book about Oswald and his connections to the CIA.

The possibility of such a tie had been floated since almost the moment Kennedy was shot. The mutual detestation between Kennedy and the Agency, especially after the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, was widely known in Washington. It is a measure of the paranoia of the era, and also of the Agency’s reputation for lawlessness, that on the afternoon of his brother’s murder, Robert Kennedy summoned the director of the CIA to his home to ask “if they” — the CIA — “had killed my brother,” Kennedy later recalled. (The director, John McCone, said they had not.) The Agency assured the Warren Commission that, prior to the assassination, it had had no particular interest in Oswald and almost no information on him whatsoever. This had always seemed implausible. Oswald was only 24 when he died, but his life had been eventful. He had served as a radar operator in the Marine Corps, stationed at an air base in Japan from which the CIA flew U-2 spy missions over Russia; had then defected to Moscow, where he told American diplomats that he planned to tell the Soviets everything he knew; had been closely watched, if not recruited, by Soviet intelligence services; and had then, in 1962, after more than two and a half years in the USSR, returned, Russian wife in tow, to the United States. One would think the CIA might have taken somewhat more than a passing interest.

Early on, Newman had photocopied the entirety of Oswald’s pre-assassination CIA file at the archive and brought it home. Morley came often to study it. “I had read something that said, you know, they only had five documents on him,” Morley said. “And it was like, ‘No, there were 42. ’”

Whatever mystique may attach to it, the CIA is also a highly articulated bureaucracy. Newman encouraged Morley to focus less on the documents themselves than on the attached routing slips. “When you start getting into spy services, everybody lies,” Newman told me. “And so how do you know anything?” The answer was “traffic analysis.” Even if the information contained in an intelligence file was false, Newman believed an account of how that information flowed — who received it, in what form, from whom, when — could be a reliable source of insight.

Via cryptic acronyms, the Agency’s routing slips recorded precisely who had been receiving information on Oswald in the period leading up to the assassination. “It was, when you saw it, a lot of people,” Morley recalled. “I just remember being in John’s basement and thinking, Oh my God .” A large number of senior CIA officers at the Agency’s headquarters had evidently been tracking Oswald, and tracking him closely, since well before November 22, 1963. “The idea that this guy came out of nowhere was self-evidently not true,” Morley said. “That was a door swinging open for me.”

Oswald’s file contained press clippings, State Department archives, and FBI reports detailing his activities in Fort Worth, Dallas, and New Orleans, where he’d been arrested in the summer of 1963 and interviewed at length, in jail, by an agent of the bureau . Of particular interest to Morley, however, was a series of CIA cables from October 1963, the month before the assassination, pertaining to a trip Oswald took to Mexico City.

By the Warren Commission’s determination, Oswald arrived in Mexico City on September 27. Before his return to the U.S. six days later, he seemed to have made several visits to the embassies of both the Soviet Union and Cuba. But there were problems with the evidence. The Warren Commission could not definitively establish that the man who presented himself at the embassies as Oswald was, in all instances, Oswald. A surveillance photograph of a man outside the Soviet Embassy, purportedly of Oswald, was clearly not. This “Mexico Mystery Man” has never been positively identified; no photographs of Oswald in Mexico City have ever surfaced. A CIA wiretap had also picked up someone presenting himself to the Soviets as “Lee Oswald,” but those who later heard the recording, including FBI agents and staff lawyers for the Warren Commission, reported that the caller was not him.

In the file, Morley found a cable from the CIA’s Mexico City station to headquarters in Langley reporting the phone call. “AMERICAN MALE WHO SPOKE BROKEN RUSSIAN SAID HIS NAME LEE OSWALD,” it read. Headquarters responded in a cable dated October 10, recounting Oswald’s defection and his time as a factory worker in Minsk. But it seemed to indicate that the CIA had lost track of him. “LATEST HDQS INFO” was a State Department report from May 1962 before Oswald had returned to the U.S. from the Soviet Union, the cable said. Having seen the CIA file, Morley knew this was not true: The CIA held extensive information on Oswald’s activities in the U.S. from as recently as just a few weeks earlier, including his arrest in New Orleans. Had CIA headquarters acted intentionally, Morley wondered, when it misled the Agency’s people in Mexico City about the man who six weeks later would be accused of killing the president?

He and Newman checked the routing slips. The October 10 cable had received the sign-off of several notably senior officials, including the No. 2 in the Agency’s covert-operations branch. But of particular note was a lesser-known signatory, Jane Roman, a top aide to James Jesus Angleton, the Agency’s famous counterintelligence chief. Just days before approving the October 10 cable, Roman had, in her own hand, signed for FBI reports that placed Oswald unequivocally in the U.S.

Morley and Newman found Roman’s address and visited her at her ivied bungalow in Cleveland Park, a tony D.C. neighborhood favored by CIA officials. Roman, then 78, was reserved but cordial, “a correct, smart, Wasp woman,” Morley said. She seated her visitors at a dining table beneath the dour portrait of a forebear.

Newman asked most of the questions. (Newman and Morley are still friendly, but each has a tendency to present himself as the central protagonist in the story of Jane Roman. Roman died in 2007.) He spread documents on the table and walked Roman through them, beginning with a routing slip from shortly after Oswald’s return from the USSR. It had been signed by officials of the Soviet Realities branch, of counterintelligence, of covert operations, and elsewhere. Newman asked, “Is this the mark of a person’s file who’s dull and uninteresting?” “No, we’re really trying to zero in on somebody here,” Roman said. Newman showed her the FBI report on Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans, for which Roman had signed on October 4, 1963. Newman then produced the October 10 cable, according to which the Agency had received no information on Oswald in over a year.

“Jane,” Newman said, “you read this file just a couple of days before you released this message. So you knew that’s not true.”

Roman protested that she had “a thousand of these things” to handle. But she soon conceded, “Yeah, I mean, I’m signing off on something that I know isn’t true.” Newman asked if this suggested “some sort of operational interest in Oswald’s file.”

“Well, to me, it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on the need-to-know basis,” Roman said. She speculated that there had been an “operational reason” to withhold information about him from Mexico City, though she herself had not been read into whatever “hanky-panky” may have been taking place.

After the interview, Morley and Newman stopped their recorders, thanked Roman, and stepped outside. “John and I looked at each other and said, ‘Oh my fucking God,’” Morley told me. They had coaxed from a highly placed former CIA official, on tape and on the record, an acknowledgment that top CIA officers in Washington had been keenly interested in Oswald before the assassination, so much so that they had intentionally misled their colleagues in Mexico about him for reasons apparently related to an operation of some kind.

Later, Morley spoke with Edward Lopez, a former researcher for the HSCA, where he had been tasked with investigating the CIA. Lopez said, “What this tells people is that somehow the Agency had a relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination and that they are covering it up.” At the Post , Morley brought the story not to “Outlook” but to the more prestigious “National” section. “And naïve as I was, I thought, This is a great fucking story, and they’re going to love it! ” Morley told me.

“National” editors did spend several months working with him, but it was decided that the story could not run in the paper’s news section. There was no explicit prohibition on Kennedy-assassination stories, an editor told me, but if ‘National” was going to publish something “on such an explosive topic,” the paper’s leadership “would’ve wanted it nailed down real tight.”

Morley took the piece to “Outlook,” “an implicit downgrading” in his view. It ran in the spring of 1995. A senior editor took him aside afterward to say, “Jeff, this isn’t good for your career.” “And to me,” Morley recalled, “that was like, ‘Wow, this really is a good story!’”

One of the more damning revelations of the past few decades is that the Warren Commission very likely reached its lone-gunman verdict, or rather received it from on high, before it had begun its investigation. This conclusion emerged from later statements by the commissioners; from recordings of the phone calls of President Johnson, in which he made clear that it was of paramount importance to show that Oswald had no ties to either the Soviets or their Cuban allies, so as to avoid “a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour”; and, most famously, from a declassified memo prepared for the White House by Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach on November 25, one day after Oswald’s death.

“The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he had no confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial,” Katzenbach wrote. “Speculation about Oswald’s motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists.” This evidence certainly does not prove that the Warren Commission was a fraud, or that its conclusions were necessarily wrong, but it does suggest quite strongly that, at its highest levels, the commission was not interested in discovering anything other than Oswald’s sole and apolitical responsibility for the assassination.

Likewise, the Senate’s Church Committee, convened in 1975 to study abuses by the intelligence services, found that the Warren Commission had not received the honest cooperation of the FBI or CIA, which withheld “facts which might have substantially affected the course of the investigation.” The CIA in particular avoided mention of its various plots to assassinate Fidel Castro, one of which had involved a Cuban high official who had, in a meeting in Paris on the very day of Kennedy’s killing, received from a CIA handler the poison pen with which he was supposed to carry out his task. These activities were, in addition to being closely held secrets, patently illegal, and it is understandable that the CIA would not want to disclose them. But it is just as obvious that a thorough investigation of the assassination would have required their disclosure. Castro had stated publicly, for instance, that he would retaliate if he ever discovered that the U.S. was trying to have him killed; the fact that the Agency had been doing precisely this at the time of the assassination would have been a clear investigative lead.

Allen Dulles, a former director of the CIA who sat on the Warren Commission, could have informed his fellow commissioners of the plots. He elected not to. Dulles hated Kennedy, whom he considered a pinko and an interloper and who had unceremoniously fired him as CIA director after the Bay of Pigs. Arlen Specter, who became a senator 15 years after serving on the Warren Commission, used to tell a story about Dulles, which was recounted to me by Carl Feldbaum, Specter’s Senate chief of staff. The commissioners were at one point solemnly passing round Kennedy’s bloodied necktie from November 22; a bullet hole was clearly visible. When the garment came to him, Dulles, puffing on his pipe, examined it for a moment and then, passing it along, remarked, “I didn’t know Jack wore store-bought ties.”

In addition to the Castro plots, the Church Committee was particularly severe with the CIA for its lack of curiosity over “the significance of Oswald’s contacts with pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups for the many months before the assassination.” Oswald’s behavior in the summer of 1963 looked to many critics like that of some sort of spy or agent provocateur. Senator Richard Schweiker, who chaired the Church subcommittee on the Kennedy assassination, said of Oswald, “Everywhere you look with him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence.”

The HSCA investigation, begun in 1977, took a special interest in Oswald’s Cuban contacts, and in particular his interactions with an anti-Castro group known as the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, or DRE. The Warren Commission had reported on the DRE but had never been informed that the group was founded, funded, and closely managed by the CIA.

Prior to the investigation, the HSCA’s lead counsel, G. Robert Blakey, obtained a formal agreement for extensive access to the Agency’s files. “They agreed to give us everything,” Blakey, who is now professor emeritus at Notre Dame, recalled recently. “At some stage, they decided that that was not a good idea.” In 1978, after the HSCA had begun seeking information about the DRE, the CIA named a new liaison to the committee, a notably severe, sharp-dressing senior officer named George Joannides. “He kind of gave the impression of brooking no lightheartedness,” Dan Hardway, a lawyer who dealt extensively with Joannides as an HSCA researcher, told me. Hardway recalled seeing Joannides smile only once, when he brought out a record that was almost entirely redacted. Hardway was furious. “And George was just bouncing,” he said, “just bouncing on his toes.”

Joannides was presented as a “facilitator,” but his actual function seemed to be to “give as little as possible, as slow as possible, and basically wait us out,” Blakey said; the committee’s investigation into the DRE in particular was “frustrated.” “Not ‘frustrated’ because we didn’t get what we wanted,” Blakey said. “We didn’t get anything .” “Joannides screwed us,” Hardway told me.

Joannides’s stonewalling has never been explained by the CIA. It may be instructive to note, however, that not long ago the Agency admitted, albeit not publicly, that it intentionally misled the Warren Commission. A report prepared in 2005 by CIA chief historian David Robarge and declassified in 2014 claimed that Agency officials engaged in a “benign cover-up” in order to prevent the discovery of the Castro plots. It is entirely possible that the CIA’s apparent efforts to keep the HSCA away from the DRE were similarly “benign.” But the purpose would not have been to cover up the Castro plots: The Castro plots had by then been publicly acknowledged. If the CIA was using Joannides to prevent the discovery of some damaging secret, it was evidently something else.

Before meeting Jane Roman, Morley was “still kind of in lone-gunman-land,” he told me. But the story of the October 10 cable convinced him that the Agency had perhaps been using Oswald in some way and that it might bear some responsibility for the assassination, though whether by design or mistake — “complicity” or “incompetence,” in Morley’s words — he could not say. He began to look into Oswald’s connections to the DRE.

In the early 1960s, the CIA supported a number of Cuban exile groups, helping them to conduct psychological warfare, gather intelligence, and run paramilitary operations in Cuba. The DRE, based in Miami, was among the largest and most influential; at one point, it was receiving $51,000 from the Agency every month, the equivalent of about half a million dollars today. Its leaders were profiled in Life .

In 1962, the CIA’s deputy director for operations, Richard Helms, summoned the DRE’s young secretary-general, Luis Fernandez-Rocha, to his office in Langley. “You, Mr. Rocha, are a responsible man,” Helms said, according to a memo released under the JFK Act. “I am a responsible man. Let’s do business in a mature manner.” Helms assured Fernandez-Rocha of his “personal interest in this relationship” and said he would be appointing a new case officer for the DRE, a capable man who would report directly to him.

Oswald encountered the DRE the following year in New Orleans. His behavior during that period was, as the Church Committee noted, perplexing. He presented himself publicly as a member of the New Orleans branch of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a controversial pro-Castro group, carrying a membership card signed by the branch president, A.J. Hidell. And yet no such branch existed, nor any such person. (When he was arrested in Dallas, Oswald carried a forged identification card bearing his picture and the name of “Alek James Hidell.”) At the same time, he seemed to be in contact with various opponents of the Castro regime. In August, Oswald approached a man named Carlos Bringuier, presenting himself as a fellow anti-Communist and offering his military expertise to help train rebel Cuban fighters. Bringuier was the DRE’s delegate in New Orleans.

A few days later, a friend told Bringuier that Oswald was nearby, on Canal Street, handing out pro-Castro leaflets (“HANDS OFF CUBA!”). Bringuier went to confront Oswald; the men were arrested for fighting. Before his release from jail, Oswald asked to speak with an FBI agent, to whom he took pains to explain that he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. In a radio appearance shortly thereafter, Oswald debated Bringuier on the topic of Kennedy’s Cuba policy. Following the debate, a coalition of anti-Castro groups issued an “open letter to the people of New Orleans” warning that Oswald was a dangerous subversive.

Three months later, the DRE distinguished itself as the source of the Kennedy assassination’s very first conspiracy theory. On November 22, DRE operatives called their contacts in the media to report that they knew the alleged assassin and that he was quite obviously an agent of the Cuban regime. Bringuier made the front page of the next morning’s Washington Post .

At the archive, Morley found monthly progress reports on the DRE that spanned the full era of CIA backing, from 1960 until 1966, except for a conspicuous 17-month gap around the assassination. Morley did find a DRE memo from the missing period, however. It was addressed simply “To Howard.” He assumed this referred to the DRE’s case officer. “So I thought, Well, this guy Howard, if he’s around like Jane Roman was around, that would be a really good story, ” Morley said. Morley was able to convince the Post ’s investigations editor, Rick Atkinson, to send him to Miami, where he hoped to ask the former leaders of the DRE who Howard was. He flew down from Washington in the fall of 1997.

The DRE men remembered Howard distinctly. He dressed in tailored suits, wore a pinkie ring, and was memorably uncongenial. Fernandez-Rocha, the DRE’s former secretary-general, recalled meeting him as frequently as a few times a week for coffee at a Howard Johnson’s. The group’s previous case officer had been a lovely man, “but he was a sergeant,” Rocha told Morley. “When I was dealing with this guy Howard, I was talking to a colonel.”

When Morley returned to Washington, he brought the question of Howard to the Assassination Records Review Board. The JFK Act had created the ARRB, an independent commission with a staff of about 30 lawyers and researchers, to oversee the initial phase of declassification. The board’s primary task was to identify all assassination-related records in the possession of the CIA, FBI, and other government entities. To the displeasure of some of those bodies, its interpretation of “assassination-related” proved to be sweeping. “We didn’t just dabble in records,” John Tunheim, who chaired the review board until its conclusion in 1998, told me. “We tried to answer as many questions as we could.” The ARRB had in fact already been pressing the CIA for information about the DRE for a year; it added Howard to its request in 1997, asking that the CIA identify him.

In a memo, the Agency responded that the “missing” reports had likely never existed, and that “Howard” was neither a known pseudonym, nor a “registered alias,” nor the true name of any DRE case officer. “The use of ‘To Howard’ might have been nothing more than a routing indicator,” the Agency suggested.

Morley found this explanation wanting. (“A routing indicator with a pinkie ring!” he joked to me.) The ARRB soon issued its final report and disbanded. Shortly thereafter, however, Morley got a call from T. Jeremy Gunn, the board’s lead investigator and chief counsel. An ARRB analyst had apparently managed to identify Howard by reviewing the personnel file of an operations officer known by the pseudonym Walter D. Newby. Newby had become the DRE’s handler in December 1962 and served for 17 months — precisely the period of the missing records. Five of Newby’s job evaluations, or “fitness reports,” had been declassified. The National Archives faxed them to Morley.

The man in the reports certainly seemed to correspond with the “Howard” described by Fernandez-Rocha and the other DRE men. One evaluation from 1963 made note of his “firmness” and his ability “to render a decision without waste of motion.” A later report commended Newby’s “distinct flair for political action operations” — he was by then chief of the covert-action branch at the CIA’s Miami station — but acknowledged a “tendency to be abrupt with subordinates.” Of most interest to Morley, however, was an evaluation from many years after the Kennedy assassination when Newby had been called out of retirement for an assignment of a different sort under his real name. In 1978 and 1979, this report indicated, Newby had served as liaison to the HSCA, where he was lauded for “the cool efficacy with which he handled an unusual special assignment.” His true name was George Joannides.

At the HSCA, Joannides had been specifically assigned to handle queries about the DRE and its relations with the CIA. The Agency had assured the committee that he had no connection whatsoever to the matters under investigation; that, in fact, he was merely an Agency lawyer and had not been “operational” in 1963. These assurances were self-evidently false. At one point, Joannides informed the committee that the identity of the DRE’s case officer at the time of the Kennedy assassination — Joannides himself — could not be determined.

Morley called Blakey, the committee’s chief counsel and lead investigator. “He went ballistic,” Morley recalled. “They flat-out lied to me about who he was and what he was up to,” Blakey told me. “I would have put him under subpoena and put him in a hearing and talked to him under oath.” Blakey released a written statement arguing that Joannides and his superiors were guilty of obstruction of justice. “I no longer believe,” it said, “that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald.”

Twenty years after the CIA lied about Joannides to the HSCA, the Agency seemed to have done the same to the ARRB. I asked Tunheim, the board’s chair, if he believed that the Historical Review Group, the CIA office assigned to work with the ARRB, had taken part in the deception. “I think they were very truthful with us on what they knew,” he said. “But whether they knew the whole story or were told the whole story, or were even misled by people within the Agency, I can’t answer that.”

Morley brought the Joannides story to the Post but had no luck. I asked Rick Atkinson, the editor who paid for his trip to Miami, if he remembered anything about it. “I vaguely recall Jeff having an interest in the assassination,” Atkinson, a three-time Pulitzer winner, wrote in an email. “Frankly it bored me.” Morley’s career at the Post had begun to stagnate. He became a metro reporter and then a web editor at a time when newspaper websites were widely viewed by newspaper employees as hopeless backwaters. He eventually managed to publish a piece on Joannides in the Miami New Times , a South Florida alt-weekly.

In his spare time, Morley continued his reporting. Joannides had died in 1990. (His obituary in the Post claimed he was a “retired lawyer at the Defense Department.”) But Morley was able to reach several of his aging former colleagues. They recalled a self-possessed and cultivated gentleman operator, with connections at the highest levels of the Agency, “not one of the wild men,” in the words of Warren Frank, who knew Joannides in Miami. There, Joannides managed an annual budget of $2.4 million, the equivalent of ten times that today.

In July 2003, Morley sent the CIA a request, under the Freedom of Information Act, for all records pertaining to Joannides. “The public has the right to know what he knew,” he wrote. The CIA responded with a letter encouraging him to contact the National Archives. With the help of the FOIA lawyer James Lesar, Morley sued.

The 500 pages of documents that ultimately emerged from Morley v. CIA went well beyond the scope of the five fitness reports released under the JFK Act. Morley was given the Agency’s personnel photograph of Joannides — a menacingly well-kempt man of middle age, dark eyes recessed in shadow, jaw set in an ambiguous glower — as well as documents suggesting that he had spent time in New Orleans and that he had been granted access to a particularly sensitive intelligence stream in June 1963. Many of the documents were heavily redacted; the Agency also acknowledged the existence of 44 documents on Joannides from the years 1963, 1978, and 1979 that it refused to release in any form. “The CIA is saying very clearly, ‘This is top secret, please go away,’” Morley told me. “So that’s where the story is, right? I mean, they’re telling me what’s important, and I believe them.”

Until recently, if asked what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963 — the “cosmic question,” as he once put it — Morley deflected. In his writing, he tended to address it only obliquely and declined to articulate an overarching theory, except to say the Warren Commission got it wrong. Over the years, he had made all manner of damning discoveries; what they added up to, beyond a cover-up, Morley professed not to know.

Increasingly, though, he has been willing to theorize. Last year, he published an article on JFK Facts under the headline, “Yes, There Is a JFK Smoking Gun.” “Now, after 28 years of reporting and reflection, I am ready to advance the story,” he wrote. “Jane Roman was correct. A small group of CIA officers was keenly interested in Oswald in the fall of 1963. They were running a psychological warfare operation, authorized in June 1963, that followed Oswald from New Orleans to Mexico City later that year. One of the officers supporting this operation was George Joannides.”

Morley believes Oswald was an “agent of influence,” he told me, or, as at least one CIA officer put it at the time, a “useful idiot” of the Agency. In New Orleans, perhaps he’d been encouraged to prove his leftist bona fides by claiming to be a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. The trip to Mexico seems to have been part of “some kind of probing intelligence operation,” Morley said. But why go to all this trouble? Why hide the operation for so long? Why Oswald?

The parsimonious explanation, Morley believes, is that a “public legend” was being constructed: Someone in the Agency was setting Oswald up to take the fall for the coming assassination. Morley’s suspicion falls most heavily on Angleton, whose office controlled Oswald’s file from the moment it was opened. “Was Angleton running Oswald as an agent as part of a plot to assassinate President Kennedy?” Morley wondered in The Ghost , his 2018 biography of Angleton. “He certainly abetted those who did. Whoever killed JFK, Angleton protected them.” Morley told me he wonders about Bill Harvey, the Agency’s assassinations chief, as well as David Atlee Phillips, who helped found the DRE and was allegedly once seen in Dallas with Oswald. Joannides would have been an “unwitting co-conspirator,” Morley believes, oblivious to what his superiors were doing with him until the moment Kennedy was shot, and then brought in as the cleanup man.

This is all possible but also extremely speculative. Why risk speaking it aloud? Certainly he has been criticized for it. In a review of The Ghost , the author and intelligence historian Thomas Powers submitted that Morley had “suffered a kind of mid-life onset of intellectual hubris,” convincing himself that he knew the truth of the assassination even if the evidence had yet to materialize. A number of Morley’s friends and fellow researchers expressed some version of this concern to me as well. “Sometimes I worry for Jeff,” said the journalist Anthony Summers, the author of a respected assassination book called Not in Your Lifetime . “Commitment to a story is a virtue. But sometimes, I think, his writing goes beyond what the facts justify. He surprises me with his certainties.” The assassination has been known to drive people to unreason. “They tend to be smart people who are wide readers and trust their ability to figure things out,” Powers, the intelligence historian, told me. “It’s a subject that people get lost in. And sometimes they’re seen again, and sometimes not.”

Morley’s rigor has unquestionably eroded a bit in recent years. In August, he published a short post on JFK Facts about a Kennedy-administration memo proposing a “drastic” reorganization of the CIA. He’d just discovered the document; 60 years after the fact, it was still partially redacted. Why? “To protect the CIA’s impunity,” Morley declared. Fred Litwin, an anti-conspiracist assassination buff and blogger, pointed out that Morley’s new document was merely an alternate copy of a famous memo by Kennedy adviser Arthur Schlesinger Jr. “Will Jefferson Morley correct this error?” Litwin wondered. He never did.

A few weeks earlier, Morley had convinced Peter Baker, the prolific New York Times White House correspondent, to write about Ruben Efron, a CIA officer who had once been tasked, as part of an illegal program run by Angleton, with reading Oswald’s mail. Efron’s name seemed to have been the sole remaining redaction in Oswald’s pre-assassination CIA file, but it had just been released. “People say there’s nothing significant in these files?” Morley told Baker. “Bingo! Here’s the guy who was reading Oswald’s mail, a detail they failed to share until now. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to think it’s suspicious.” (“I keep a very open mind,” Baker told me.) But Efron’s name had in fact been released a few times over the years in documents elsewhere. Paul Hoch, who is widely viewed as the doyen of serious assassination research, saw no meaning in the new release. “Knowing his name doesn’t add anything,” Hoch told me. Certain colleagues have begun referring to “good Jeff” from the first 25-odd years and “bad Jeff” from more recently.

On the one hand, Morley’s new willingness to speculate strikes me as a natural and reasonable evolution. Like all investigations, his has always been driven by hypothesis, and he has now been improving and refining his theory of CIA involvement for three decades. On the other, advancing a theory of the Kennedy assassination is what the nuts do. When I asked him what had caused the change in approach, he grew testy. “The evidence,” he said.

We were drinking coffee on the back porch of the house he would soon have to leave. “Do my critics have another explanation for what Joannides was doing and who he was working for?” he asked. “People bitch about my interpretation. I brought new facts to the table which they can’t explain, or have not explained, and those facts are indisputable.” The twinkly music of an ice-cream truck floated up from somewhere. “People will wonder, ‘Why did you devote all this time and effort to it?’” Morley said. “I was very careful because I’ve seen it drive so many people crazy. This is not going to drive me crazy.”

Despite his best efforts, since 2008 he has not extracted any further documentation on Joannides from the CIA. His FOIA lawsuit came to an end in 2018, when then–Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh and a colleague ruled that his attorney, Lesar, would not have his fees paid by the CIA. The Agency and a lower court deserved “deference piled on deference,” the judges held. (On the same day, Trump nominated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.) There are scarcely any CIA officers from Joannides’s time left to talk to. The DRE men have begun to die.

This summer, President Biden endorsed “Transparency Plans” proposed by the CIA and a handful of other agencies, effectively delegating oversight of any additional declassification to the agencies themselves. “He’s washing his hands of it,” Tunheim, the ARRB chair, told me. No clear mechanism exists to compel the release of any further documents, ever.

In its executive session of January 27, 1964, the Warren Commission took up a rumor, passed on by the attorney general of Texas, that Lee Harvey Oswald had been working undercover for the FBI or perhaps the CIA. The commissioners did not seem to take the claim very seriously, but they did wonder how one might verify such a thing. Having on hand a former director of the CIA, the group naturally sought his insights. Allen Dulles told his fellow commissioners, to their apparent disbelief, that one could not expect an intelligence service to be knowledgeable in such matters or truthful if it were.

The recruiting officer would of course know of an agent’s recruitment, Dulles said, but he might be the only one, and “he wouldn’t tell.”

“Wouldn’t tell it under oath?” asked Justice Warren.

“I wouldn’t think he would tell it under oath, no,” Dulles responded. “He ought not tell it under oath.” Nor could one expect to find any written record of such an agent. “The record might not be on paper,” Dulles said, or might consist of “hieroglyphics that only two people knew what they meant.” He clarified later, “You can’t prove what the facts are.”

The impulse to try may be stronger than reason. I asked the CIA if Oswald had ever been “an agent, asset, source, or contact” of the Agency. A spokesperson replied, in writing: “CIA believes all of its information known to be directly related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 has already been released. Likewise, we are not aware of any documents known to be directly related to Oswald that have not already been made part of the Collection.” I confess to finding it striking that the Agency did not say, “To the best of our knowledge, no.” Morley would call this, to use the Post ’s famous Watergate phrase, a “non-denial denial.” He would no doubt apply the same term to the Agency’s “decline to comment”s on my questions about why Joannides had concealed his role in 1963 from Congress and about whether the CIA had “cooperated fully and faithfully” with the Warren Commission, with the HSCA, or with the ARRB. But then, why take the Agency at its word, whatever it may be?

Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the CIA did generate a record of Agency activity around Oswald, and that this record was faithful, would it be reasonable to hope to one day find it? Though he has spent most of his adult life in precisely this pursuit, Morley told me he does not believe it would. During the 17-month gap in reporting on the DRE, for instance, he suspects Joannides produced regular reports and that those reports mentioned Oswald; he suspects the reports were sent directly to Helms at headquarters; and he suspects Helms destroyed them in 1973, when he left the Agency. There are in fact numerous instances of ostensibly “assassination-related” documents being irregularly destroyed. I find this devastating myself. Burning records is not an especially subtle method of concealing the past, but the bluntness is what is so distressing. If this is the way the CIA has been playing, the game has been all but hopeless from the start.

And yet the archive pulls at you, irresistible, irrational, a form of gravity upon the mind. I visited the National Archives in September. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection is held in a glassy modern building in the woods beyond the University of Maryland in College Park. The collection now holds about 6 million pages, kept in gray, five-inch, acid-free paperboard Hollinger boxes, maintained at constant temperature and humidity in stacks accessible only to archivists with the requisite security clearance. I sat in the airy reading room, afternoon sun streaming in over the treetops, and leafed through the CIA’s pre-assassination file on Oswald.

I found the October 10 cable, bearing Jane Roman’s name and reporting, falsely, that “LATEST HDQS INFO” was from May 1962. I found a small photograph of the Mexico Mystery Man. I found a typewritten letter addressed to Allen Dulles, dated November 11, 1963, from a man who wished to infiltrate the American Communist Party for the CIA; it was accompanied by a slip marked “FOR MR. ANGLETON” with a handwritten note reading, “Some useful ideas here — you will have many more,” and signed, “Allen.” I found, on paper gone gauzy and translucent with time, a memorandum to the Warren Commission from the CIA about redactions. There were things in the files sent over by the Agency that, in the Agency’s estimation, the commission did not need to know. “We have taken the liberty,” Richard Helms advised, “of blocking out these items.”

Earl Warren, born in the 19th century, died trusting in the good faith of men such as Helms, Angleton, and Dulles and of institutions such as theirs. “To say now that these people, as well as the Commission, suppressed, neglected to unearth, or overlooked evidence of a conspiracy would be an indictment of the entire government of the United States,” he wrote in his memoirs. “It would mean the whole structure was absolutely corrupt from top to bottom.” Warren evidently found the idea of a plot of any sort too monstrous to contemplate. Dulles, of all people, had once tried to make him understand that the world wasn’t quite as honest as he thought. The proof was there, if only one could see it.

Correction: Brett Kavanaugh was a circuit judge in 2018. A previous version of this story misstated his role.

• remove interruptions
• newsletter pick
• conspiracy theories
• lee harvey oswald
• unsolved mysteries
• john f. kennedy
• one great story
• audio article

Most Viewed Stories

• King Charles’s Birthday Gift to Prince Harry: More Royal Photo Drama
• The Real Goal of Israel’s Exploding-Pager Attack on Hezbollah
• How Jerome Powell Got The Fed To A Big Half-Point Cut
• Be Worried About the Mets Fan in Your Life
• A Former SDNY Prosecutor’s Read on the Diddy Indictment
• Is That AI? Or Does It Just Suck?

Editor’s Picks

Most Popular

• King Charles’s Birthday Gift to Prince Harry: More Royal Photo Drama By Margaret Hartmann
• The Real Goal of Israel’s Exploding-Pager Attack on Hezbollah By Jeff Wise
• How Jerome Powell Got The Fed To A Big Half-Point Cut By Kevin T. Dugan
• Be Worried About the Mets Fan in Your Life By Will Leitch
• A Former SDNY Prosecutor’s Read on the Diddy Indictment By Elie Honig
• Is That AI? Or Does It Just Suck? By John Herrman

What is your email?

This email will be used to sign into all New York sites. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive email correspondence from us.

Sign In To Continue Reading

Create your free account.

Password must be at least 8 characters and contain:

• Lower case letters (a-z)
• Upper case letters (A-Z)
• Numbers (0-9)
• Special Characters (!@#$%^&*)

As part of your account, you’ll receive occasional updates and offers from New York , which you can opt out of anytime.

Revisit the Harrowing Pictures From the JFK Assassination

It has been more than 50 years since the public and horrific assassination of President John F. Kennedy . That day in Dallas, Texas is still one of the most talked about and most scrutinized events in history. There have been hundreds of conspiracy theories since the event. People speculate that there were multiple shooters, or even evidence tampering. In September 1964, almost a year after his death, the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole person responsible for the assassination. Yet people still remain focused on the conspiracy theories.

The National Archives has released documents throughout the years that pertain to the assassination. There have been numerous documentaries, books, and other forms of media that discuss this topic at great lengths.

Yet in 1992, Congress set a deadline for Oct. 26, 2017 to release the remaining documents that have been withheld from the public. President Donald Trump tweeted on Saturday that he will allow the JFK files to be opened, subject to receipt of further information. He also teased on Twitter Wednesday that “The long anticipated release of the # JFKFiles will take place tomorrow. So interesting!”

While not a lot is known about what are in these documents, Kennedy assassination experts do not expect a major bombshell to come from these papers.

Click through the gallery above for pictures of the day of the assassination to his funeral three days later.

Most Popular

Every single member of the board just resigned from DNA tester 23andMe

Could there be a Kamala Harris landslide in November? The data scientist who correctly called the last election is betting yes

No one cares if you roll in on time anymore, but here are the behaviors co-workers do mind

The stock market dipped after a historic Fed rate cut. Here’s what the experts think

Here’s where to get a free burger on National Cheeseburger Day

Michael Kors admits defeat by influencers and celebrities, claiming ‘brand fatigue’ in $8.5 billion federal antitrust trial

JFK's Very Revealing Harvard Application Essay

At 17 years old, the future president seemed to understand that the value of an elite education is in the status it offers.

John F. Kennedy is one of the most mythologized figures in contemporary American history. At age 17, though, he was just a kid trying to get into college (a kid with a wealthy, famous father, of course).

The Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum has a digitized version of Kennedy's 1935 Harvard application, which includes his grades and his response to the essay prompt, "Why do you wish to come to Harvard?" Here's how the future president answered:

The reasons that I have for wishing to go to Harvard are several. I feel that Harvard can give me a better background and a better liberal education than any other university. I have always wanted to go there, as I have felt that it is not just another college , but is a university with something definite to offer. Then too, I would like to go to the same college as my father. To be a "Harvard man" is an enviable distinction, and one that I sincerely hope I shall attain. April 23, 1935 John F. Kennedy

Business Insider dismisses the essay for being five sentences long (I'm not sure how much more he could have written given the space) and implies that his answer wasn't carefully considered. That's probably true—Kennedy's grades show that he wasn't an especially good student in high school, and there's not much evidence that he took his education seriously at this point in his life. Plus, as Gawker points out , Kennedy wrote nearly exactly the same essay for his Princeton application.

Still, Kennedy's essay shows a profound, if implicit, understanding of the primary value of attending an elite school: status and personal connections, rather than mastery of academic skills and knowledge. Notice that he only makes one mention of the education he'd receive at Harvard—a passing reference to the school's superior "liberal education." The rest of the paragraph focuses on the the non-academic benefits: having a "better background," sharing the same alma mater with his dad, and enjoying the "enviable distinction" of being a Harvard Man.

And it is, indeed, an enviable distinction. Harvard has produced eight United States presidents, more than any other school. The school's website has a whole section devoted to all the alumni who've won Nobel prizes. Two of its dropouts are among the richest people in America. Whether these glories are due to the school's excellent education or its impressive alumni network and name recognition, who knows? But Kennedy clearly thought he knew the answer.

About the Author

More Stories

Study: Babies Can't Learn to Read

What Americans Don't Know About Science

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

The Health Problems JFK Hid From the Public

By: Patrick J. Kiger

Published: May 2, 2023

John F. Kennedy, who was just 43 when elected president in 1960, was the youngest person ever elected to the Oval Office. Outwardly, he seemed like the picture of youthful vitality and health, but the American public didn’t know that beneath the young president’s robust image, he was someone who struggled with numerous health issues.

Despite JFK’s slim, athletic-looking physique and skill at pastimes such as golf and sailing, he contended with spinal problems and osteoporosis that left him in chronic pain. He was also afflicted with Addison’s disease , a condition in which damaged adrenal glands don’t produce enough hormones, causing fatigue, digestive difficulties and low blood pressure. And he experienced severe allergies and urinary tract infections. 

As historian Robert Dallek discovered when studying his medical records years later, Kennedy took as many as 12 different medications at once . He used demerol and methadone for pain, barbiturates to help him sleep, an amphetamine, thyroid hormone, and an anti-anxiety medication, and injections of gamma globulins to fight infections, among other prescriptions. 

“In actuality, he had the most complex medical history of anyone to occupy the White House,” Dr. Lee R. Mandel wrote in 2009 in Annals of Internal Medicine . 

JFK Projected an Image of Robust Health

But hardly anyone found out, because Kennedy kept the extent of his health problems a carefully guarded secret, and instead worked to craft an image of good health—and he encouraged Americans to prioritize their health as well. He wrote an article for Sports Illustrated warning that Americans were too soft, and created the President’s Council on Physical Fitness to encourage both children and adults to exercise more. 

“He was always careful to get a suntan, either with a sunlamp or sunshine,” notes Historian Barbara A. Perry , director of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, and an author of numerous books, including a biography of JFK’s mother Rose Kennedy . 

One reason that Kennedy was able to conceal his health problems was that he didn’t let them keep him from doing the job. 

“Although Kennedy took a generous amount of drugs, it is not clear that it negatively affected his performance in office, even during the Cuban Missile Crisis,” says John R. Vile , a political science professor and dean of the University Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University.

Serious Bout of Scarlet Fever During Childhood

Kennedy’s health problems began early in life. A few months before his third birthday, he developed a serious case of scarlet fever , an infectious bacterial disease that in the days before antibiotics was potentially life-threatening, and spent a month in the hospital with his father Joseph Kennedy Sr., at his side. “Joe senior prayed that if God would save his little son, he would make donations around the town, and he did,” Perry says. 

Though he survived, JFK’s health after that was always fragile. The future president was plagued throughout childhood and adolescence by nausea, joint pain, headaches, diarrhea and other woes, and was hospitalized several times. At one point, his family sent him to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, where he was diagnosed with colitis, an inflammation of the colon. In reality, Kennedy may have been showing early signs of a malfunctioning immune system that was attacking his own body, and eventually led to his developing Addison’s disease.

“The family joke was that if a mosquito bit Jack Kennedy, the mosquito would die, because apparently there was something in poor Jack Kennedy’s bloodstream,” Perry says.

After graduating from prep school, he had to drop out of both the London School of Economics and Princeton University due to illness before recovering enough to enroll at Harvard . Remarkably, despite frequent bouts of ill health that landed him in the infirmary, he played on the freshman football team and competed for two seasons on the varsity swimming squad.

Service in WWII Worsens Back Problems

Kennedy already had problems with his spine when he enlisted in the U.S. Navy, where he got in despite failing the physical, thanks to his father’s political connections, according to a 2017 article in the journal JNS Spine . In 1943, the patrol boat that JFK commanded in the South Pacific was struck by a Japanese destroyer in August 1943. Kennedy survived the disaster and led most of his crew to eventual safety, a record of heroism that later helped his political career, but his back worsened as a result. The following year, he had back surgery for the first time.

After the war, Kennedy’s ill health continued. During his successful run for a Massachusetts seat in the U.S. House, his back was so bad that he began wearing a brace, and followed a regimen of daily hot baths and massage to manage the pain. Once elected, Kennedy had a valet who helped him up the stairs in his Georgetown home, according to Perry. The servant “would help him get his shoes on and tie them, because he couldn’t bend over,” she says.

After the Congressman collapsed while on a visit to England in 1947, a doctor there diagnosed Addison's disease, and told one of JFK’s friends that he might be dead in a year. Kennedy passed off the illness as a recurrence of his wartime malaria, but when he got back to Boston, an endocrinologist began treating him for Addison’s by implanting pellets of synthetic adrenal hormone under his skin, according to Mandel’s article. By 1950, when cortisone was available in oral form, he began taking 25 milligrams each day as well.

The Navy Disaster That Earned JFK Two Medals for Heroism

In a harrowing ordeal, JFK helped ensure the survival of his men, taking actions that would earn him a Navy and Marine Corps Medal and a Purple Heart in World War II.

At the First Kennedy‑Nixon Debate, Presidential Politics Entered a New Era

When John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon squared off in America's first televised presidential debate in 1960, image suddenly mattered—more than ever.

JFK Was Completely Unprepared For His Summit with Khrushchev

'He just beat the hell out of me,' Kennedy said.

Multiple Back Surgeries

By the time that Kennedy ran for the U.S. Senate in 1952, he had so much trouble with his back that when he attended afternoon teas in Massachusetts towns and cities to connect with women voters, “he’d be standing on crutches, because he literally couldn’t stand up without leaning on them,” Perry says. His pain and difficulties with mobility grew so severe that he had to endure three more back surgeries during the 1950s. After one operation, he developed an infection that nearly killed him, according to Perry.  

Afterward, “I’m sure he was depressed, just lying in bed and not being able to move, and being in constant pain,” Perry says. But Kennedy didn’t succumb to despair. Instead, during his long recovery, he wrote the nonfiction bestseller Profiles in Courage .

Meanwhile, Kennedy continued to struggle with Addison’s disease. When Dr. Janet G. Travell , who would become JFK’s White House physician, first met him at her office in New York City in May 1955, she later recalled that he had difficulty climbing a couple of steps to her door. “He could walk on the level, putting his weight on his right leg, but he couldn’t step up or down a step with his right foot,” she told presidential historian Theodore C. Sorensen years later. 

Despite his health struggles, Kennedy was determined to keep rising in politics—but he knew that his problems were likely to end his career if they ever became public. According to Dallek’s biography An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917 – 1963 , JFK kept his health problems secret from everyone except for his doctors, his wife Jackie, and his brother Bobby. Even his secretary Evelyn Lincoln, who was responsible for making sure that he took his medication, may not have known what it was for, Dallek writes. 

Nevertheless, word did leak out. When Kennedy ran for president in 1960, his Democratic rival Senator Lyndon Johnson of Texas began raising questions about JFK’s health, leading the Kennedy campaign to release a statement denying that he had Addison’s disease and describing his health as “excellent.” In the age before social media and 24-7 cable news channels, the rumors about Kennedy’s health didn’t resonate widely among the public. 

“It wasn’t enough to prevent him from getting the nomination,” Perry notes. He went on to defeat GOP candidate Richard Nixon, helped by a historic  TV debate in which Kennedy  appeared healthier than his rival, who had been sick from a knee infection and a case of the flu that left him looking pale.

Kennedy’s health remained secret in the White House. During a tree-planting ceremony in Canada in May 1961 , he aggravated his back. Perry believes the pain—and JFK’s use of amphetamines—may have been a factor in his performance in a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev the following month. (Kennedy later told a New York Times reporter “He just beat the hell out of me” about his meeting with Krushchev.)

Swimming Helped JFK Manage Back Pain

After returning from that disastrous experience, he began to exercise diligently to manage his back pain, as Travell recalled in her interview with Sorensen. He swam each day in the White House pool just before lunch, and returned for a second swim in the evening, when he also did a regimen of exercises for his legs and back, designed for him by Dr. Hans Kraus , founder of the specialty of sports medicine. The workout “did him a great deal of good,” Travell said. 

By the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy was able to power through his daily discomfort and the effects of the drug regimen, and successfully resolve a crisis that could have led to war. “It clearly didn’t block his rational judgment powers,” Perry says. “That’s important, I think, to know.” 

“One of the factors that gave Kennedy the appearance of health was his youthful appearance and his witty repartee with reporters at press conferences,” Vile notes. Nevertheless, some reporters apparently did hear rumors about the President’s health. But when they approached White House Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, “he said, well, let me ask you a question. Do you think he is not performing in the Presidency, and isn’t up to the task of doing what he needs?” Perry explains. 

But Kennedy’s back problems may have played a role in making him more vulnerable to assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in November 1963, according to one of the physicians who treated Kennedy in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital that day. In 2013, Dr. Kenneth Salyer told CBS News that the stiff back brace that Kennedy wore kept him erect, even after he was hit in the shoulder and neck. Sayler argues that gave Oswald a chance to fire another shot, which struck Kennedy in the head and inflicted a fatal injury .

HISTORY Vault: JFK Declassified: The New Files

In 2017 the federal government released thousands of highly classified documents related to the Kennedy assassination, which could answer one of the most riveting mysteries of our time.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• Subscriptions

By clicking Sign In, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Sign In Up with your social account

We won't post to any of your accounts

Your password must include:

• Min 8 characters
• Min 1 lowercase character
• Min 1 uppercase character
• Min 1 number

‘American Love Story’ to Follow John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette’s Tragic Romance

Ryan Murphy ’s American Story franchise is gearing up for its next installment. American Love Story , which will tell the story of John F. Kennedy Jr. and his wife, Carolyn Bessette , is coming to FX, executive producers Nina Jacobson and Brad Simpson announced on Tuesday.

Kennedy and Bessette met in the early 1990s and married in 1996. They died three years later in 1999 when their plane, piloted by Kennedy, crashed in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. The series will follow their relationship, digging into their lives and the tensions brought on by the media and individual careers.

“We have great scripts on that. We’re trying to figure out when it’ll land,” Simpson said in an interview with Variety . “It is a story that really resonates right now. It’s amazing. A lot of younger women are looking to her as sort of a representational icon of a certain period of time that’s really fascinating, and hopefully, we’ll be able to bring that to the screen soon.”

“We’re very much intending to [tell that story],” Jacobson added.

Related: JFK Jr. and Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy’s Relationship Timeline

Murphy and Brad Falchuk will join Jacobson and Simpson as executive producers.

FX initially ordered the series in 2021, at the same time it ordered American Sports Story and Studio 54: An American Crime Story . American Sports Story premiered on Tuesday and follows the Aaron Hernandez murder case .

While a fourth season of American Crime Story is in the works, Studio 54 may no longer be the focus. FX chairman John Landgraf said in 2023 that they had not “ landed on ” a topic for the season.

Related: John F. Kennedy Jr.’s Life in Photos

“When Ryan Murphy came to us with these two spinoffs and the stories for American Sports Story and American Love Story , we immediately jumped at the opportunity,” Landgraf said in a 2021 statement . “What began with American Horror Story has spawned some of the best and most indelible programs of our generation.”

You have successfully subscribed.

Subscribe to newsletters

By signing up, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive emails from Us Weekly

Deal of the Day

Check our latest news in Google News

Check our latest news in Apple News

American Horror Story premiered in 2011 as a fictional anthology series with 12 seasons released to date. The series has since spawned installments based on true stories, American Crime Story and American Sports Story . American Horror Stories , a companion series to American Horror Story , premiered in 2021.

“More than a decade ago, Ryan Murphy expressed interest in expanding the American Horror Story model to be able to tell different American  stories, which have long captivated so many of us,” Walt Disney chairman of entertainment D ana Walden said in 2021. “It was a brilliant idea. Adding these new installments to the franchise will enable Ryan, Brad, Nina and Brad and their talented teams to tackle riveting stories outside of the horror and crime genres.”

FX has not yet announced when production will begin or cast details related to American Love Story .

In this article

John F. Kennedy Jr.

More stories.

Picture Book Biographies of John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline B. Kennedy

About this resource.

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy took the oath of office to become the 35th president of the United States. He was 43 years old at the time and his wife, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, was only 31. What happened in their lives before that historic day? What was life like for them as children and young adults? How did their lives change once they moved to the White House? What did they accomplish as president and first lady?

Explore the links below to learn about the lives of John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Jacqueline B. Kennedy (JBK). You can download and print the Picture Book Biographies, or view them in a slideshow. Access glossaries, answer keys, and activity worksheets by clicking on the links below.

John F. Kennedy

View the Picture Book Biography below, or download and print as a pdf .

After you read about JFK's life, you can:

• Learn the definition of any words you don't know in the  Glossary .
• Check your answers about JFK in the  Answer Key .
• Download and print  Activity Worksheets  (pdf).

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, or "Jack" as his family called him, was a young boy when he first visited Washington, DC. Did he have any idea that thirty-one years later he would stand on the steps of this very building to take the  oath of office ? What happened in his life that brought him to that moment? How did he become the 35th president of the United States?

Jack sent this postcard of the Capitol to his mother, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy, on his first trip to Washington, DC. If he was born on May 29, 1917, how old was he when the card was sent? (Hint: look at the postmark to help you find the answer. Check your work in the Answer Key .) [ JFKPP-001-010-p0036 ; JFKPP-001-010-p0037 ]

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born on May 29, 1917 in Brookline, Massachusetts, a few miles outside of Boston, Massachusetts. His father, Joseph Patrick Kennedy, was a successful businessman. All eight of his great-grandparents were immigrants . They left Ireland during the potato famine and traveled by ship to Boston, hoping for a better life. When they came to the United States, it was hard for them to find jobs. They discovered that people from Ireland were not always treated fairly or with respect. But Jack’s grandparents were determined and talented. They worked hard and his grandfathers became well-known politicians in Boston. By the time Jack was born, his parents expected him to be successful, too.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was named in honor of his grandfather, John Francis Fitzgerald. Known as “Honey Fitz”, his grandfather was mayor of Boston and also served as a US Representative for Massachusetts. Jack followed in his grandfather’s footsteps when he was elected US Representative to Congress from the same district as his grandfather in 1946.

Left to right: Mary Fitzgerald (wife of “Honey Fitz”), “Honey Fitz”, Eunice, Jack, Kathleen, Rosemary, Joe Jr. [ KFC235N ]

Growing up, Jack was often sick. He even had scarlet fever, a dangerous disease which could have ended his life. Reading helped him pass the hours he spent in bed, trying to recover from his many illnesses. He became an excellent reader as he learned about history through books. He also discovered many things about people and places around the world.

John F. Kennedy’s mother, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy, was very organized. She kept note cards for each of her nine children in a small wooden box. Here is the card for Jack. When is his birthday? Where was he born? What illnesses did he have as a young boy?

Jack had many brothers and sisters to keep him company. He had one older brother (Joe), five younger sisters (Rosemary, Kathleen, Eunice, Patricia, and Jean), and two younger brothers (Robert and Edward). The family loved to play sports and spent many summers at the beach swimming, sailing and playing football. Their father taught them to compete and to play hard to win. Joe was older and stronger and usually won, but Jack played clever tricks to get the better of Joe. One time, Joe carefully scraped the chocolate icing off his cake, saving the best part to eat last. In a flash, Jack grabbed the plate and wolfed down the frosting in front of his brother. Joe was furious and smacked him. Jack hit him back and then both boys were sent off to bed.

This photograph was taken on September 4, 1931 at the Kennedy’s house in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts on Cape Cod. How old was Jack? There are only eight children pictured since Edward (or Ted) was not born until 1932. [PC8]

From kindergarten to the beginning of third grade, Jack went to the Devotion School, the public school near his house. He then attended private schools: first Dexter, then Riverdale, and for eighth grade, the Canterbury School. Jack then went to the Choate School, as did his brother Joe. Jack was very smart and well informed. He read the newspaper every day as a high school student. But he wasn’t always the best student. At Choate, Jack and his friends did not always follow the school rules. They liked to have fun. They would sneak out for milkshakes and play their radios very loudly.

Jack let his parents know about his low grade in Latin before they saw this report card. Do you think he could have earned a higher grade?

Explore the folder in our digital archives that includes this document along with other report cards and letters from John F. Kennedy's early years. [ JFKPP-001-010-p0004 ]

After high school, Jack went to Princeton University first, then to Harvard College. He studied government and history and earned a B average by his senior year. While Jack was in college, his father became  ambassador  to England. Jack spent part of his college years with his family in England. He traveled to many places in Europe and Asia, and saw for himself how people lived in other countries. It was a tense time because World War II, a war between many different countries all over the world, was about to begin. Jack wrote a book about the start of the war called  Why England Slept .

While he was studying in England, Jack became very interested in why England was not ready to fight in World War II. He wrote an important research paper, called a thesis, on the information he gathered in England. His father encouraged him to edit his paper and try to publish it as a book.

World War II began in 1939 and the United States entered the war in 1941. Jack and his brother Joe joined the Navy. Joe flew airplanes and Jack served on a patrol torpedo boat. In August 1943, Jack’s boat—the PT-109—was hit by a Japanese ship. Jack hurt his back in the crash but still helped other men swim to a nearby island. They were stranded there for seven days. Luckily, two men from the islands, Eroni Kumana and Biuku Gasa, found them. Jack carved a message onto the husk of a coconut and gave it to the islanders. They took it in their canoe to a nearby Navy base. The crew was rescued and Jack was given a special medal for his leadership and a purple heart for his injuries.

This painting hung in the White House when John F. Kennedy was president. It shows the Amagiri, a Japanese destroyer, ramming into the PT-109, the boat JFK commanded during World War II. Gerard Richardson, an official artist for the U.S. Navy, painted it in 1961. How many years after the crash was the painting made? Why might it have been painted then? [MO 81.203]

World War II changed Jack in many ways. He never forgot his war experience and the bravery of his crew. His brother Joe also died during the war. Jack wanted to make a difference. He decided to be a  politician . In 1946 he won his first election. He became a Democratic congressman for Massachusetts and served for six years. Then he was elected to the United States Senate.

John F. Kennedy had severe back trouble as a teenager and as an adult. He sometimes used crutches to help him walk and stand. His mother, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy, who often gave speeches on his behalf, is pictured here cheering him on during this campaign speech for the U.S. Senate. [PC2225]

As a congressman and senator, John F. Kennedy worked to pass laws that would help people in the United States. At this time, he was also focused on his family. In 1953, he married Jacqueline Bouvier. Their daughter Caroline was born in 1957 and their son John Jr. was born in 1960.

John F. Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, and their two children, John Jr. and Caroline, had fun family time on Cape Cod at the Kennedy house in Hyannis Port. During what time of year was the photograph taken? How do you know? [ JFKWHP-ST-C22-1-62 ]

In 1960, John F. Kennedy ran for president of the United States. He traveled around the country, meeting people, and giving speeches about what he would do as president. The Democratic Party chose him as their  candidate  for president. The election was very close. Just over 100,000 more people voted for him than his opponent, Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon. At 43 years old, he became the youngest man elected president of the United States.

Kennedy asked Lyndon B. Johnson, a powerful US senator from Texas, to be his running mate. Some historians believe that by having Johnson run for vice president, Kennedy gained more votes from southern states. [MO 94.1906.3]

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy became the 35th president of the United States. In his first speech – his  Inaugural Address   – President Kennedy asked Americans to help their country. He said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Thousands of people wrote letters to the President, congratulating him on his speech and asking what they could do for the country.

From the steps of the Capitol, John F. Kennedy delivered his inaugural address to twenty thousand people and through television to millions more around the world. Can you find Jacqueline Kennedy in the photograph? Can you find Vice President Johnson? Dwight D. Eisenhower, the departing president, is sitting to the right of Jacqueline Kennedy. He was 70 at the time. John F. Kennedy was 43. [USASCPC-PX-65-108-CC18209]

Many of the letters to the new President were from people who wanted  to join the Peace Corps, a program started by President Kennedy. Peace Corps  volunteers  leave the United States for two years to live and work with people in a different country. They work as teachers, farmers, nurses, doctors, and builders. The Peace Corps has helped many people and still exists today.

Willie Douglas (far right) left the United States for two years and served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Pakistan. What work did he do there? What might he have learned as a Peace Corps volunteer in Pakistan? [USPCPC-PX-65-2-55]

Creating the Peace Corps was only one of President Kennedy’s important accomplishments. Every day he made important decisions, and met with powerful people. In 1963, he welcomed 82 leaders of other countries to the White House!

President Kennedy had certain things he did almost every day. He ate a big breakfast, read at least four newspapers, and swam in the White House pool. Swimming helped his back feel better and kept him in good shape. Caroline and John Jr. sometimes joined him in the pool! Even though he was very busy, it was very important to him to spend time with his family.

President Kennedy would clap his hands three times to let Caroline and John Jr. know that he had time to visit with them in the Oval Office. What might have happened if he didn’t have a signal? Click below to view the full-sized image to examine the special objects and furniture JFK chose to have in his office. [ JFKWHP-ST-441-10-62 ] 

While Kennedy was president, the United States was in the middle of the  Cold War  with the  Soviet Union . Both countries were making and testing nuclear bombs and missiles. Each country feared the other would be more powerful. It was a scary time because one nuclear bomb could destroy an entire city. People were most worried in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons on the island of Cuba, near the United States. President Kennedy convinced the Soviet Union to remove the missiles. He began to work with the Soviet Union so that both countries would agree to stop testing nuclear weapons.

This map, which was top secret at the time, was shown to President Kennedy after Soviet missiles were discovered in Cuba. Can you find Cuba?  Historians have pointed out that the target range shown here is much larger than the actual reach of the type of missiles sighted in Cuba. On this map, how much of the United States could be hit by the missiles?

President Kennedy wanted the United States to lead the world in exploring outer space. He challenged the US to be the first country to send a man to the moon by the end of the 1960s. The government put time, effort, and money into building better rockets, training astronauts, and sending them closer and closer to the moon. The United States reached President Kennedy’s goal on July 20, 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin set foot on the moon while fellow astronaut Michael Collins orbited nearby.

On February 20, 1962, John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth. His successful mission encouraged the US to reach President Kennedy’s goal of landing an astronaut on the moon. Traveling 160 miles above the earth’s surface, Glenn sped around the planet at 17,500 mph in his space capsule, the  Friendship 7 . Courtesy of NASA [GPN-2002-000075]

President Kennedy was a leader who believed in fairness. He thought it was wrong that in some cities and towns, black people were not allowed to attend the same schools as white people. They had to sit in a different part of the movie theater and use separate restrooms. Many people, black and white, young and old, worked together to try to end this unfair separation, called  segregation . President Kennedy wanted to end segregation, too. In June 1963, he asked Congress to make a new law for civil rights. He gave a speech on television and said that the United States stood for equality. He believed everyone deserved to be treated fairly and with respect.

After Martin Luther King Jr. told the world, “I have a dream” at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, he and other civil rights leaders went to the White House. They met with President Kennedy to discuss the newly-proposed law for equal rights. [ JFKWHP-ST-C277-1-63 ]

On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy traveled to Dallas, Texas. He was beginning his campaign for the 1964 presidential election. As he was riding through the city, shots were fired at him. Seriously wounded by the shooting, he was rushed to the hospital, but he did not survive. Soon after, people around the world gathered together for comfort as they listened to radio and television reports announcing the sad news. Vice President Johnson was in Dallas, too. He took the oath of office and became the new president. He flew back to Washington, DC that day to keep everyone calm and safe.

To honor President Kennedy, there is an eternal flame at his grave in Arlington National Cemetery. [PX74-19]

People remember John F. Kennedy as a president who was young and energetic. But he is also remembered as a leader who made a difference. His words and actions made people want to help others and serve their country. His efforts to promote equal rights gave people hope and helped end segregation. He got people excited about exploring space and encouraged them to meet difficult challenges. He helped keep the United States safe and led the country to work towards peace with other nations. President Kennedy believed that if we all join together, we can make the world a better place.

Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy

View the Picture Book Biography below, or download and print as a pdf .

After you read about JBK's life, you can:

• Check your answers about JBK in the Answer Key .
• Download and print  Activity Worksheets .

Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy saw the world through the eyes of an artist. Whether she was painting a picture, writing a poem, or introducing art to others, she tried to make the world a more beautiful place. How did she bring her interests and talents to the White House in her role as first lady of the United States?

Jacqueline Kennedy painted this picture of the White House for her husband when he was president. He hung it in the Oval Office. How can you tell it was a scene from long ago? (Check your answer in the Answer Key ).

MO 63.2145. Copyright restrictions, reproduction prohibited.

Jacqueline Lee Bouvier, or "Jackie" as her family called her, was born on July 28, 1929 in Southampton, New York. Her father's ancestors were from France; her mother's had emigrated from Ireland. The two families became very wealthy.

Jacqueline Bouvier with her dog Bonnett in 1935. As a child, Jackie had several dogs and entered them in dog shows. [PX81-32:51]

Jackie loved the summers she spent near the ocean in East Hampton, New York. She swam, played outdoors, and rode horses. She began riding when she was less than five years old, and won two national contests by the time she was eleven! She loved the challenge of riding. It gave her quiet time to think, too.

Later, as a mother, she shared her love of riding with her children, John Jr. and Caroline. [JFKWHP-ST-498-1-62]

Jackie also loved to learn. She spent hours reading books, and writing stories and poems. She liked to draw and paint, too. She was ten when she wrote and illustrated this poem called "Sea Joy."

How does the poem show Jackie's love of the sea?

Growing up in New York was exciting. Jackie took ballet lessons and learned to speak French. But it was a difficult time, too. Her parents divorced a week before her eleventh birthday. She spent even more quiet time by herself. Two years later, her mother remarried, adding step-brothers and sisters to her family.

This is the Auchincloss family, around 1946. Jackie's mother, Janet Bouvier, married Hugh D. Auchincloss, who was from a wealthy New York family. About how old is Jackie in the photograph? [JKO563P]

After graduating from high school, Jackie entered Vassar College in New York, where she studied history, literature, art, and French.

She spent her junior year of college in France. It was one of the best years of her life. Jackie spoke French, studied hard, visited museums and monuments, and attended concerts and parties with new friends. Instead of returning to Vassar College for her senior year, she finished college near her family, at The George Washington University in Washington, DC.

Jacqueline Kennedy returned to Paris with President Kennedy in 1961. This photograph, taken about a mile from where Jacqueline lived during her year of study in Paris, shows a crowd ready to greet the president. What was the weather like that day? [PX96-33:67]

After graduation, Jackie returned to Europe with her sister Lee. They kept a journal about their travels. Jackie created the drawings and poetry, and wrote some of the journal entries. Lee wrote about their ocean journey, and their adventures in London, Paris, Venice, and Florence.

Jackie's illustration shows the sisters at a concert in Paris. Her sister Lee had dressed quickly for the fancy event. When they met the Indian Ambassador, Lee's underclothes fell down to her feet! Can you find Lee?

Soon after she returned home, Jackie started a job doing office work at the  Washington Times-Herald  newspaper. She convinced the editor she was serious about writing, and he gave her a chance. As "Inquiring Camera Girl," she asked people in Washington, DC interesting questions, took their picture, and then wrote about their answers in a newspaper column. She even covered the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in England!

Jacqueline Bouvier used this camera to earn $42.50 per week as a reporter and photographer for the  Washington Times-Herald . [MO 63.6106]

Jackie first met Senator John F. Kennedy at a dinner party in 1951. They  married on September 12, 1953 at her family's summer house in Newport, Rhode Island.

Ann Lowe, an African American clothing designer and seamstress created Jacqueline's wedding gown. The dress required more than 50 yards of silk taffeta (half the length of a football field), and took Lowe over two months to make. [PX81-32:61]

Jacqueline knew that marrying a senator meant that life would be busy. The couple would have little time to themselves. She did her best to lead a normal life, especially after she became a mother. Her daughter Caroline was born in 1957 and her son John Jr. was born in 1960. On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy became president. Jacqueline was only 31 years old. [ JFKWHP-ST-C22-1-62 ]

As first lady, she focused on making the White House a home for her family. She set up a kindergarten for Caroline and other children. There was also a swimming pool in the White House, a swing set, and a tree house on the White House lawn.

Mrs. Kennedy worked with Caroline and her classmates on their kindergarten projects. How is she helping in this photograph? What are they learning in school? To see the details, you may want to click below to see the full image. [JFKWHP-KN-28674]

Mrs. Kennedy wanted to make big changes to the White House for the American people, too. As a child, she was disappointed by her visit there. She had expected a special place that would show the history of the important people who had lived there. In her role as first lady, she could change all of that. She searched through every closet and storage space to find special objects, furniture, and art from earlier times.

Mrs. Kennedy found this desk in the White House broadcast room. She had it restored and moved into the Oval Office. What material was used to make the desk? What symbol can you find on the desk? [MO 79.242]

Many experts helped her make the White House a beautiful, historical place, a "living museum." After months of hard work, Mrs. Kennedy was ready to show the world the newly restored White House. Over a hundred million people in fifty countries watched her on television as she gave a guided tour of her home. She received a special award, an Emmy, for the program.

During her childhood visit to the White House, Jacqueline Kennedy had wished there had been a souvenir booklet. By establishing the White House Historical Association in 1961, she made sure  The White House: An Historic Guide  would be available to the public for years to come. Over 4 million people have learned about the history of the White House through this book.

With Mrs. Kennedy as first lady, the White House was never boring. There were special dinners, concerts, and plays for guests from around the world. For these events, she wrote detailed notes to the White House staff so that they would know which soup to serve, who would sit where, and who might perform a concert or ballet.

Isaac Stern, one of the most famous musicians of the 20th century, performed at a dinner for France's Minister of Culture, Andre Malraux. What instrument did Mr. Stern play? [ JFKWHP-KN-C21656 ]

Jacqueline Kennedy had an eye for fashion long before she moved into the White House. As first lady, she met with famous designers who created her clothing for elegant parties, award ceremonies, and trips to other countries. She had a style of her own and people around the world were interested in the clothes she wore.

View more of the first lady's clothes. Which dress or coat do you think Jacqueline Kennedy wore on a daytime boat ride in India? Which one did she wear to the inaugural gala the night before her husband officially became president? [ MO 1963.1373 ]

Mrs. Kennedy traveled all over the world representing the United States. She went to France, Austria, and Greece with President Kennedy, and Italy, India, and Pakistan as well. People liked that she was interested in other cultures and could speak Spanish, French, and Italian.

This is Jacqueline Kennedy at the Taj Mahal in India. Why do you think people in India called her Ameriki Rani, "the Queen of America"? [ JFKWHP-ST-C62-1A-62 ]

A year before the upcoming 1964 presidential election, Mrs. Kennedy joined the President on a trip to Texas to meet voters and elected officials. On November 22, 1963, Jacqueline Kennedy's life changed forever when President Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas. She planned his state funeral that millions of people all over the world watched on television. People admired her courage during this sad time.

On November 25, 1963, President Kennedy was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. The funeral was attended by heads of state and representatives of more than 100 countries. [ JFKWHP-AR8255-3K ]

After President Kennedy's death, Mrs. Kennedy helped to plan and create the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston, Massachusetts, to honor her husband. She selected the architect I.M. Pei to design a building that would reflect the ideas and values of President Kennedy.

One of 13 presidential libraries administered by the National Archives, the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum was dedicated on October 20, 1979. In addition to over 21 exhibits, it houses more than 8.4 million pages of documents, 400,00 photographs, and 8 million feet of film.

Many people will always remember how Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy captured the attention of the people all around the world with her intelligence, beauty, and grace. She cared deeply about her family and country. She dedicated herself to raising her children well and to making the world a better place through art, literature, and a respect for history.

Jacqueline Kennedy died on May 19, 1994 and was buried next to President Kennedy at Arlington National Cemetery across the river from Washington, DC. [ JFKWHP-ST-124-1-62 ]

JFK Assassination Records

JFK Assassination Records - 2023 Additional Documents Release

Have a question about JFK Assassination Records?

Ask it on historyhub.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is processing previously withheld John F. Kennedy assassination-related records to comply with President Biden’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the Temporary Certification Regarding Disclosure of Information in Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy , requiring disclosure of releasable records by June 30, 2023. NARA worked in concert with agencies to jointly review the remaining redactions in 3,648 documents in compliance with the President's directive. Between April and June 2023, NARA posted 2,672 documents containing newly released information. Documents released in December 2022 are not being posted again if the redactions have not changed.

• August 24, 2023: 21 documents
• June 27, 2023: 1,103 documents
• June 13, 2023: 290 documents
• May 11, 2023: 502 documents
• April 27, 2023: 355 documents
• April 13, 2023: 422 documents 

Accessing the Release Files

The table below displays metadata about all the released documents. You can also  download the spreadsheet as an Excel file  ( 162 KB).

Search: Search Reset