On July 21, the US National Archives made more than 250,000 pages of documents relating to the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.  publicly available.

The records don’t include wiretap recordings, etc. taken during the years of FBI surveillance prior to his killing — those are under court seal until 2027, and the King family and others claim there’s not a whole lot of “there” there in the newly released tranche.

At the same time, however, the family and advocates claiming to represent the family’s interest in privacy — and in protecting Dr. King’s reputation — object to the release.

So … why now, all of a sudden, instead of just waiting for the 2027 unsealing of much more?

Reverend Al Sharpton hit the nail on the head in an MSNBC interview. “This is clearly a distraction …. Let me get this right: “You can bring files out that’s been under seal since ’77, that were not even supposed to be released now … but you can’t bring out files on Epstein? … anything to try to distract.”

The sole and entire reason for this release, at this moment, is to try to “change the conversation” away from inquiry into the relationship between US president Donald Trump and convicted child molester Jeffrey Epstein. That’s it. That’s all.

But that doesn’t mean the files shouldn’t have been released.

If there are false claims in the files, those claims can be contested, but the King family’s desire that their patriarch not be dishonestly insulted — or honestly shown to have not been the saint he’s been turned into over the last half-century — doesn’t outweigh the public’s interest in the life and death of a public figure.

Personally, I’m a “transparency fundamentalist” — I don’t agree that governments should be allowed to keep anything secret, ever, for so much as a minute, let alone for decades on end. They claim to work “for the public.” In what universe does the employee get to hide job-related information from the boss?

But even those who approve of “classified information,” “sealed court files,” and other tools government uses to avoid disclosure should be able to admit that keeping the public in the dark for 57 years is beyond ridiculous.

The US government still treats some information from World War 2 as “classified,” and it was only in 2011 that the last information from World War 1 was “declassified.”

The General Accounting Office claims that key documents from the 1947 “Roswell Incident,” which many believe involved the crash of an extra-terrestrial craft, are missing or could not be located.

At least two grand jury testimonies from the prosecution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg remain sealed 72 years after their executions for espionage.

We shouldn’t allow government get away with withholding information on Epstein, King, or anything else.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On July 17, the Wall Street Journal published an exposé by Khadeeja Safdar and Sadie Gurman, detailing a racy — and, in context, rather damning — 2003 birthday message from real estate developer Donald Trump to financier Jeffrey Epstein, who later allegedly killed himself while awaiting trial on charges of sexually trafficking minor girls.

Trump followed his usual crybully playbook: Deny everything, scream “fake news!,” issue clearly false statements (“I never wrote a picture in my life”) to make the story sound implausible, sue for some ridiculous amount of money ($10 billion).

While I tend to distrust “scandal” stories in “mainstream media” outlets, those very predilections on Trump’s part make this particular story more, rather than less, credible.

Would the Journal have called those predictable consequences down on its own head without ensuring it could justify every comma in the story? I doubt it.

Would the Journal‘s owner, Rupert Murdoch, have allowed publication if he wasn’t convinced himself? Murdoch’s Fox News has already paid out nearly $800 million for making false PRO-Trump claims about the 2020 presidential election, with another $3 billion still on the line. He’s a very rich man,  but he’s been burnt on this kind of thing before and likely learned his lesson.

So: The story’s claim that Trump gifted Epstein a doodle of a naked woman, accompanied by a note averring that “we have certain things in common,” to the “age” of “enigmas,” and to shared “secrets,” will likely stand up in court, if it ever gets there. And the Journal and Murdoch probably wouldn’t have published the story if they weren’t willing to go there.

“What did the president know,” US Senator Howard Baker (R-TN) asked during the Senate’s hearings on the Watergate affair,  “and when did he know it?” He’s also reported to have informally mused that “it is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble.” We know how that all came out, of course.

One big difference between Watergate and this affair is that Nixon went down over, basically, refusing to let his underlings take the fall for the initial burglary.

There’s no one Trump won’t throw under the bus without a second thought, and there probably wouldn’t BE a scandal if Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino hadn’t busked for their administration jobs on, partially, claims that they’d bring out the whole truth on Epstein.

Would a few ritual human sacrifices adequately propitiate the gods of public opinion and legal process this time? Well, maybe. How many “ladies and gentlemen … we got him” moments has Trump already preempted or survived?

On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder if the naked lady in the doodle is Brünnhilde, and whether she’s about to sing.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In 2024, the US Internal Revenue Service piloted its “Direct File” program, through which its victims — American taxpayers — in some states could complete tax returns online directly with the IRS rather than through third party tax preparation services. In 2025, the program expanded to 50 states and millions of Americans saved themselves a little money.

Spare taxpayers the cost of paying private sector professionals to navigate complicated government paperwork? Seems like the least the government can do, right?

Enter the “Department of Government Efficiency” and lobbyists for the “Free File Alliance,” a tax preparation industry group that provides supposedly free tax services in  “public-private partnerships” with the government.

While Direct File hasn’t actually been eliminated yet, the “Big Beautiful Bill” signed by president Donald Trump on July 4 directs the IRS (per DOGE recommendation) to find a replacement for it by returning to those aforementioned “public-private partnerships.”

Why do commercial tax preparers want to do your taxes for free? They don’t, as many taxpayers quickly learn. If your tax return is more complicated than the old “1040-EZ,” chances are you’ll have to cough up. The “free” claim is just clickbait to get you in the door.

According to the National Taxpayers Union, Americans will spend nearly $150 billion dollars on tax preparation this year — not counting the value of the 7.1 billion hours they’ll put into the affair even with that professional help (your bit of that money and time is already gone unless you own a business and/or do quarterly filing).

If you have to ask why, the answer is usually “money.” And that’s the answer here. Direct File threatens to derail a $150 billion gravy train. “Tax professionals” are more than willing to spend a little  on lobbying (let’s speak plain English: “Bribing politicians”) to keep said train on the rails and moving at full speed.

So, I have an alternative proposal to offer, because of course I do.

Two alternative proposals, actually.

The first one is “eliminate the federal income tax.”

No dice? OK, how about this:

A 100%, “refundable,” tax credit for all payments to tax preparation services, plus $94.25 (the federal minimum wage of $7.50 per hour for the 13 hours the average American spends on the process).

No, not a deduction from your “gross adjusted income,” especially not a deduction that only applies if your TOTAL deductions exceed the “standard deduction” amount.

A direct deduction from your tax BILL, with payment to you if your costs exceed the amount the IRS pretends you “owe.”

Tax preparation costs are really taxes themselves — government just has you pay them to its “public-private partners” instead of to the IRS. Therefore they should be deducted from the total bill, right?

Implement that and see how quickly “Direct File” returns.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY