Former Hawaii congresswoman and current intelligence adviser Tulsi Gabbard has ignited a new wave of political and public debate after admitting she used artificial intelligence (AI) to help determine which secrets in the long-classified John F. Kennedy assassination files should be released to the public.
Gabbard made the startling disclosure during a keynote address at a national technology and governance summit in Washington, where she detailed the behind-the-scenes process of declassifying the last batch of JFK-related files. In a speech focused on the intersection of AI and national security, she explained that AI tools were used to analyze thousands of pages of sensitive documents and flag information for further review.
“With over 80,000 pages of material spanning decades, this was not a job any human team could finish quickly or objectively,” Gabbard said. “We turned to artificial intelligence not to make final decisions, but to assist us in identifying patterns, red flags, and potential national security risks that still exist today.”
The announcement came just months after the U.S. government released what it described as the final wave of declassified JFK assassination files. The documents, while intriguing to historians and conspiracy theorists, contained no bombshell revelations. However, Gabbard’s admission that AI was involved in deciding what to release and what to withhold has drawn fresh scrutiny from both transparency advocates and former intelligence officials.
Gabbard, who has long positioned herself as a maverick in national politics and a critic of the “deep state,” defended the use of AI as a necessary tool in a modern, data-heavy intelligence environment. “This is not about rewriting history or concealing truth,” she said. “It’s about being responsible with information that could still put lives at risk if released recklessly. AI helped us do that faster and more effectively than we could have done on our own.”
She emphasized that the final decisions remained in human hands, and that AI merely served as an assistant—sifting through documents, identifying classified references, and cross-referencing sensitive names and intelligence methods that might still be in use. According to Gabbard, the process allowed for a more efficient review that met legal deadlines and national security standards without sacrificing transparency.
Critics, however, are not convinced. Privacy watchdogs and transparency advocates argue that the use of AI in such a historic and emotionally charged case sets a dangerous precedent. “The public deserves to know exactly what’s being hidden and why,” said one government transparency advocate. “Letting machines influence that process—especially in a case as iconic as JFK’s assassination—undermines public trust.”
Some intelligence veterans have also voiced concerns that the overreliance on AI could lead to errors, missed context, or even manipulation if the systems aren’t properly supervised. The algorithms used for national security decisions, they warn, often operate in a “black box” where even their creators can’t always explain how conclusions are reached.
Still, others have praised the move as a forward-thinking approach that balances the public’s right to know with the practical challenges of modern intelligence work. “AI isn’t perfect,” said one analyst familiar with the process, “but neither is human judgment. The combination of both is where we’re headed.”
Gabbard concluded her remarks by saying that the use of AI in this process represents a model for future declassification efforts, where vast archives of sensitive material must be reviewed under time and resource constraints. “This is the future,” she said. “And it’s up to us to use it wisely, transparently, and with respect for the American people’s right to the truth.”
The full set of newly declassified JFK files is now available through the National Archives, though many are still combing through the documents for clues—both to what they contain, and to what may still be hidden.
