The Social Security numbers and other confidential details of over 200 former congressional staffers and others were publicly exposed on Tuesday in unredacted records connected to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.
“This is absolutely unacceptable. It’s careless and unprofessional,” said former Trump campaign attorney Joseph diGenova, 80, whose private data was included in the leak.
“This isn’t just about identity theft—I’ve received threats before,” added diGenova, a well-known figure in Republican legal circles who has strongly supported President Donald Trump and frequently criticized Trump’s opponents on television. “I’ve had to report serious threats to the FBI in the past. There are dangerous people out there.”
Over 60,000 pages tied to Kennedy’s 1963 assassination were released this week by the Trump administration. Some of these documents had been disclosed previously but contained redactions. While many of those redactions were removed, not all were eliminated. The documents were uploaded to the National Archives website under the heading “JFK Assassination Records — 2025 Documents Release.”
Upon reviewing these materials, The Post discovered the Social Security numbers, birthplaces, and birth dates of over 100 members of the Senate Church Committee, which was formed in 1975 to investigate misconduct by U.S. intelligence agencies. Additionally, The Post identified more than 100 Social Security numbers belonging to staffers of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which examined Kennedy’s killing. Many of the affected individuals are still alive. The Department of Justice declined to comment on Wednesday night, while the National Archives did not respond to a request for clarification.
Legal experts say the exposure of such information raises concerns under the Privacy Act of 1974.
“A Social Security number is essentially the key to a person’s entire identity,” said Mary Ellen Callahan, former chief privacy officer at the Department of Homeland Security. “This is a clear violation of privacy laws.”
Several individuals whose personal data was compromised went on to hold high-ranking positions in Washington, including a former assistant secretary of state, a former U.S. ambassador, intelligence analysts, State Department employees, and prominent attorneys.
When announcing the document release on Tuesday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that approximately 80,000 pages were “previously classified records that will now be made available without redactions.”
“It’s shocking that our personal information has been exposed like this. Someone made a serious mistake,” said Loch Johnson, a retired intelligence specialist and professor emeritus at the University of Georgia. “I just hope they were more careful with covert operatives in these files.”
Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer who advocated for the public release of JFK documents, called the exposure of private details “extremely irresponsible.”
“In many of these documents, the only thing that was being withheld for the past two decades was someone’s Social Security number,” Zaid explained. “This creates a major security risk for these individuals, who could now be victims of doxxing.”
DiGenova said he was unaware that his name, Social Security number, and birth details were included in the JFK files until a reporter from The Post contacted him while he was grocery shopping.
“It makes sense that my name appears, given my work in the 1970s investigating intelligence abuses,” he said. “But revealing private details like this—it's security 101 to redact such things.”
“That period was an extraordinary time,” diGenova recalled. “One of our team’s lawyers tracked down the girlfriend of a mafia figure rumored to be romantically involved with JFK. He found her in Nevada or Arizona but got chased away by her husband. We also examined plots to assassinate Castro and the role of CIA assets. It was incredible work.”
DiGenova argued that the government should cover protection costs for those affected, similar to how corporations compensate customers after data breaches.
At its height, the Church Committee employed around 150 staff members. According to Senate records, the committee conducted 126 hearings, interviewed more than 800 witnesses, and reviewed 110,000 documents. Their investigations uncovered misconduct by several federal agencies, including the CIA, FBI, IRS, and NSA.
In the unredacted files, former Church Committee employees’ names and sensitive information appear neatly typed in columns, indicating which individuals were granted “access to classified materials up to and including TOP SECRET.”
“This was post-Watergate and Nixon,” said a former Senate staffer who requested anonymity to avoid becoming a target of identity fraud. “The whole point was to reveal secret and illegal activities.”
That former staffer, who later worked at the State Department, expressed outrage over the risks of financial fraud and identity theft. “It’s infuriating to know that this administration is handling such sensitive materials with zero regard for the people affected,” she said.
Three other former Church Committee members said that after learning from The Post about the exposure of their Social Security numbers, they had contacted their banks to freeze accounts and monitor transactions. One individual was considering legal action against the National Archives.
“It feels like the damage is done, but we need to consult some attorneys,” one of them remarked.
Christopher Pyle, a former Army officer who exposed military intelligence abuses, testified before Congress and later landed on Nixon’s infamous “enemies list.” Pyle only learned about the breach when a Post journalist reached him by phone on Wednesday.
“I’m stunned that my information was included in the release,” he said. “Good Lord, government incompetence at its finest.”
Pyle expressed concern over the consequences for those who fought in the 1970s to expose government wrongdoing. “Why did they even have this information on the Church Committee?” he asked. “I’d love to know that.”
Đăng nhận xét