This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up to get stories like this sent to your inbox.
More than five decades after his assassination, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. continues to provoke questions—regarding both his death and the United States’ declared moral standing.
Without any prior notice, President Donald Trump’s administration last Monday released nearly a quarter-million pages of documents concerning the civil rights leader’s 1968 assassination, despite objections from most of the King family. This action appeared to be a transparent and crude attempt to create a diversion from the President’s own political issues involving a convicted sex offender . Regrettably, it also perpetuated a contemptible practice, established during King’s lifetime, of political figures leveraging his moral influence—and its complexities—for their own ends.
Scholars so far have uncovered little new information in the recently disclosed documents. Many of them appear obscure, as if penned in a code only understandable by FBI personnel. Conspicuously missing from the collection were FBI wiretaps of King. These remain under seal until 2027.
However, those who uphold King’s legacy worry that the files might contain potentially embarrassing or inappropriate details of King’s personal life. Such disclosures threaten to do more than merely tarnish King’s legacy; they also carry ramifications for the U.S. on the international stage.
Both in life and after his death, King stands as an unparalleled emblem of U.S. hypocrisy. America’s inconsistent record on civil rights has consistently hindered its government’s capacity to persuade both allies and adversaries towards common objectives. This is why President Harry Trump in 1947 became the first U.S. President to address the NAACP. On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on a warm June Sunday, he articulated his understanding that the early Cold War era would be defined by how Americans treated their fellow citizens.
“It is my deep conviction that we have reached a turning point in the long history of our country’s efforts to guarantee freedom and equality to all our citizens. Recent events in the United States and abroad have made us realize that it is more important today than ever before to insure that all Americans enjoy these rights,” Truman said. He then made clear, wrapping his 12-minute speech, that he was speaking with purpose: “When I say all Americans, I mean all Americans.”
During the period from the end of World War II until Vietnam became the primary global concern, U.S. civil rights issues were a frequent talking point used by foreign diplomats as a counter-argument. State Department archives from that period contain numerous briefing memos instructing how to address the succinct retort popularized by Moscow and its satellite nations: “But you lynch Negroes.”
One April 1950 discussion outline for the State Department recognized the challenge bluntly: “No American problem receives more wide-spread attention, especially in dependent areas, than our treatment of racial minorities, particularly the Negro. Discussion of this problem cannot be evaded, and only by full publicity to improvements in this field can the United States position be put in fair perspective before the bar of world opinion and communist propaganda be discredited.”
Concerns over racial issues’ impact on foreign policy were so strong that the Truman administration explicitly referred to America’s “image problem” in an amicus curiae brief supporting the NAACP’s Brown v. Board of Education.
Effective propaganda doesn’t necessitate distortion. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has consistently aimed to re-utilize Cold War themes, understands this well. In a 2018 interview with Fox News, questioned about human rights in Russia, Putin’s reply surveyed 20th Century U.S. history. “Haven’t Presidents been killed in the United States? Have you forgotten about—well, has Kennedy been killed in Russia or in the United States? Or Mr. King?” he asked, adding, “All of us have our own set of domestic problems.”
Attempts to discredit King’s message are not novel; they frequently aim to dilute his platform, which, in his later years, encompassed an economic and social justice agenda that provoked government disapproval. However, the potential for scandalous headlines concerning King in 2025 would not merely serve as a diversion; it could also supply fresh and effective propaganda to America’s adversaries.
Perhaps the more significant takeaway from Trump’s recent maneuver is this: King persists as a global figure whose words command worldwide attention, even when used contrary to his intentions or without his approval. This was evident when he advocated for civil and voting rights, and subsequently opposed the Vietnam War and systemic injustices. It was also the case at the time of his assassination in Memphis, where he was supporting striking sanitation workers. And it remains so, as the Trump administration, cornered, shows little hesitation in potentially eroding King’s legacy.
In fact, King’s daughter herself remarked on the incongruity of releasing hundreds of thousands of potentially damaging files concerning her father at this sensitive time. Bernice King shared a black-and-white image of her father, appearing displeased, alongside the provocative caption: “Now, do the rest of the documents.”
Make sense of what matters in Washington. .