The public deserves to know the “truth” about the killing of Martin Luther King, Jr., the US attorney in Washington, DC argued in a move to speed up the release of FBI papers relating to the civil rights hero by two years.
While making his Friday appearance at the White House, Trump also brought up the secret King files.
“They’re going to expose everything,” he declared.
The materials, which have been kept secret since 1977, supposedly contain recordings and transcripts of the FBI’s surveillance of the civil rights leader prior to his passing. They may contain explicit and unflattering details regarding King’s relationships with women, which could damage his reputation and the image of the man whose likeness is etched in granite on a monument near the National Mall.
While his administration has embraced secrecy in its quest to undermine portions of the federal government, President Trump—a known conspiracy theorist—has openly championed openness, particularly for papers pertaining to the JFK assassination. It is puzzling that the government desires the MLK files to be provided early, given this apparent contradiction.
Is it so the people may learn about the government’s knowledge? At a time when Trump’s administration is attempting to rid the government of diversity programs that have their origins in the civil rights movement that King led, is the purpose to bring attention to the shortcomings of a civil rights icon?
The murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. by James Earl Ray raises major problems, but the King family is opposed to the material’s early distribution because they are afraid it would be used to discredit King’s legacy.
Jonathan Eig, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his book “King: A Life” (which examines both King’s achievements and his shortcomings), spoke with me. I wanted to ask Eig how he feels about the idea of the public having access to tapes of the FBI—guided by then-Director J. Edgar Hoover and authorized by then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy—recording an American hero in an effort to smear him, given that he gained access to some FBI files while writing the book.
The following is a modified version of our phone discussion, which we had to shorten and make more clear.
Can you tell me why the FBI has Martin Luther King Jr. files?
WOLF: What gives the FBI the right to access Martin Luther King Jr.’s records?
EIG: Since the Kennedy administration was worried that King was mingling with US Communist Party members in the early 1960s, surveillance on King commenced.
Robert F. Kennedy authorized the monitoring, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI sought it out, and after listening to the tapes, it became evident that King had nothing to do with communism.
However, they discovered that tapping into his and his accomplices’ phones yielded important information—basically dirt. They could overhear King conversing with females on the phone. They saw him as an enemy, someone they needed dirt on for their own good.
This is why we have audio recordings of King’s conversations as well as transcripts of his phone calls; this is due to the fact that some of his hotel rooms were bugged.
Do we have any grounds to doubt the most heinous accusations?
A wolf: A scandalous FBI document that vividly refers to King’s infidelity with many women was previously leaked by the National Archives as part of an earlier leak of JFK-related papers. Simultaneously, there is a sense that the FBI could have been involved in a misinformation effort. Are the contents of these documents credible?
In my opinion, we may have a reasonable amount of faith in the veracity of phone call transcripts. Some of the persons who were there during those conversations have reportedly seen the transcripts; they include Andrew Young and Bayard Rustin, who claimed during his lifetime that the FBI was faithfully recording their conversations.
We also know that many FBI agents believed they could win favor with their supervisor by disparaging King and portraying him in an unflattering light, so we have to be very cautious of any statements the bureau makes about King. In light of this, we must exercise extreme caution when presented with evidence such as memoranda that do not constitute conversation transcripts or marginal notes allegedly indicating that King engaged in unethical behavior. That’s why the tapes would be intriguing; they may shed light on the credibility of the FBI’s reports.
In this case, why is the Trump administration acting this way?
WOLF: What are your thoughts on making these tapes and everything else available to the public? His legacy might take a major hit if the items described are shown. On the other hand, people want to know what the FBI was up to and want everything to be open and honest.
EIG: I support openness in general, and I believe the public has a right to know the FBI’s treatment of King. In my opinion, that takes precedence over King’s actions in his private life. The question of whether it should be released early is one on which I do not have a strong view.
I am worried that the government is trying to undermine King’s role as an icon and hero by releasing the tapes earlier than planned, and that this is all part of a larger movement to attack diversity and civil rights. Personally, I think they’re aiming too low if they want to bring King’s reputation down.
How much more can we get from the FBI’s records and documents?
A wolf: You mention reading through several FBI files in your book. Have you seen most of the classified information, or is there more that could surprise you?
EIG: After what I’ve seen, I can probably deduce what more is on those recordings. How people react when they hear King’s voice is going to be the main concern, in my opinion. That worries me. Some may try to undermine King by claiming that we can hear him saying unflattering things if we had his voice. It would be more appropriate to center our attention on the actions of the FBI rather than King’s.
When it came to King, the FBI was very much on the case.
A wolf: There was more going on than merely monitoring by the FBI. Attempts to defame him were vigorously pursued by it. How was that implemented?
EIG: All right, that was a success. The FBI’s efforts to tarnish King’s reputation, undermine the Civil Rights Movement, and make his life unbearable were highly effective. They leaked information about his private life and phone conversations to the media, which impacted how the news outlets reported King. Their knowledge of his sex life, even if they refrained from writing about it, damaged his reputation, in my opinion. He was met with far greater skepticism by the press.
The Civil Rights Movement was more fractured as a result. Because of the attacks on his reputation and his declining popularity, King found it more difficult to collaborate with other campaigners. In 1966, a Gallup poll found that around 63% of Americans disapproved of Martin Luther King, Jr., which greatly complicated his work. The fact that no one was paying attention to him anymore was leaving him feeling disoriented and even depressed. Therefore, in my opinion, the FBI’s operation against King was mostly successful.
If King was spied on, how did he react?
A wolf: You say he was aware of it at the moment it happened. Was he in any way involved?
EIG: Very little. A meeting did occur between him and J. Edgar Hoover, but it was far from combative. The king rambled on and on. He was receiving advice from coworkers to be more forceful, to openly criticize the spying, and to name-call Hoover. But King refrained from doing so.
The FBI has just undergone yet another leadership change.
A wolf: In the 1960s, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) attempted to defame and spy on American citizens. Investigations of President Trump’s political opponents have resumed under the new leadership of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). Does what we are discovering now remind you of the prior FBI in any way?
EIG: In my opinion, private persons have always been the target of government surveillance in our nation. I don’t see anything novel about this administration, but the lesson we took away from the King spying was the need for stricter regulations about government intrusions into individuals’ personal lives.
The case for Martin Luther King Jr.’s status as a Founding Father
A wolf: Your book argues that King should be considered a Founding Father in addition to a civil rights hero. After being privy to all the information the FBI had obtained on him, you wrote that.
It is none of King’s business why he is revered as one of our greatest heroes, in my opinion (EIG). Many of the men who signed the Constitution, our nation’s founders, had extramarital relationships. They enslaved ladies who had relations with some of them.
We must rise beyond the fact that our heroes aren’t perfect. In my view, what is important is that King continued his life of public service and sacrificed for the potential of America while knowing that he was being monitored by the government, was attacked, and had been detained 29 times. Despite the terrible treatment he received, he remained steadfast in his belief in the nation’s potential and was prepared to fight for it.
Are the Malcolm X files still in the works?
WOLF: Has anything been omitted from this subject?
Regarding the killing of Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam, it would have been far more fascinating and beneficial to share the FBI’s material at that time, according to EIG. I think the government’s money would be better spent that way.
Wolf: What do you believe our takeaway would be?
EIG: I’m not sure, but I believe that many of the files include answers to the questions of who was involved in the killing of Malcolm X.
