Article Directory
On a Friday, a political announcement was made regarding a historical anomaly. Donald Trump stated on his social media platform that, if elected, he would order the declassification of all government records pertaining to the 1937 disappearance of aviator Amelia Earhart. The stated scope is total: "all government records related to Amelia Earhart, her final trip, and everything else about her."
This directive was not generated in a vacuum. It followed a direct request from Del. Kimberlyn King-Hinds, a Republican lawmaker from the Northern Mariana Islands, who cited "credible, firsthand accounts" of Earhart having been on the island of Saipan. The announcement taps into a powerful and persistent narrative—one of espionage, capture, and cover-up. It is also a narrative that runs counter to the most probable, if unsatisfying, conclusion supported by the preponderance of available data.
The official theory of the case is one of mundane, catastrophic failure. Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, flying a twin-engine Lockheed Electra, were attempting to circumnavigate the globe. They vanished during the leg from Lae, Papua New Guinea, to Howland Island, a remote U.S. territory where they were scheduled to refuel. The prevailing analysis concludes they experienced communication failures, were unable to locate the two-square-mile island in the vastness of the Pacific, and ran out of fuel. The aircraft was lost to the sea. No verifiable debris has ever been recovered.
This conclusion has a high degree of probability but a low degree of narrative satisfaction. As a result, alternative hypotheses have flourished for decades. One posits that Earhart landed on Nikumaroro Island and perished as a castaway; a partial skeleton found there in 1940 was initially assessed by doctors as male, but subsequent analyses have been inconclusive (a classic case of contaminated historical data).
The other major alternative, and the one directly relevant to the recent announcement, is the Saipan theory. This hypothesis suggests Earhart was a government operative on a spy mission, was forced down or crashed in the Japanese-controlled Mariana Islands, and was taken into custody. It is a compelling story. The problem is the lack of supporting evidence and the existence of significant contradictory data.
The Expected Value of a Historical Null Event
An Audit of the Existing File
When confronted with a new claim, the logical first step is to audit the existing record. The public record on the Earhart case is not empty. FBI files and Navy search reports have been declassified over the years. More significantly, a 1967 manuscript by a retired Air Force officer, which explicitly reviewed then-"confidential" Navy files, was submitted to the FBI for review. The Bureau's conclusion? It had no objection to the manuscript’s publication. That manuscript directly addressed the Saipan theory and found it baseless, concluding Earhart was not a spy and was not captured.
This is a critical data point. It indicates that, as far back as the 1960s, a review of classified materials yielded a negative result for the espionage hypothesis. Furthermore, legislative efforts to compel a full declassification are not new. In 1993, bills were introduced in both the House and Senate to this effect. They never made it out of committee.
And this is the part of the analysis that I find genuinely puzzling. The entire premise of the declassification order is that a trove of secret, revelatory documents exists. Yet, decades of prior investigation and declassification have yielded nothing to support the Saipan narrative. It is not clear what, if any, classified documents the U.S. government still holds on an 87-year-old aviation accident. My analysis of similar historical "document dumps" suggests the result is often a deluge of low-signal administrative paperwork—memos, requisitions, and duplicative reports—rather than a single, clarifying "smoking gun." We are being promised a key that may not have a lock.
The public fascination is, of course, the primary variable. In his announcement, Trump noted Earhart's story "has captivated millions." He stated she "made it almost three quarters around the World before she suddenly, and without notice, vanished." To be more exact, the planned 29,000-mile journey was approximately 22,000 miles complete when the plane was lost, a completion rate of 75.8%. The sentiment is correct, if the number is imprecise. Laurie Gwen Shapiro, an author and expert on the subject, quantifies the probability differently. She states it is "99.9%" likely the plane simply ran out of fuel, calling the Japanese capture theory "nonsense."
This is the core discrepancy: a political announcement promising resolution to a conspiracy theory that the historical and expert data suggests is a statistical phantom. The value of the announcement is not in its likely outcome, but in its immediate narrative impact.
A High-Signal, Low-Information Event
My conclusion is that this is an exercise in political signaling, not historical discovery. The announcement generates a high volume of narrative energy and public engagement at a near-zero cost. The potential upside—the infinitesimal chance of a stunning revelation—is politically enormous. The probable downside—the release of mundane documents or the quiet admission that no revelatory files exist—is negligible and will occur long after the signal has served its purpose. It's an asymmetric bet on history. The expected value of new, actionable information from these `amelia earhart files` is functionally zero. The return on investment in terms of narrative control, however, is significant. This isn't about finding out `what happened to amelia earhart`; it's about demonstrating a willingness to challenge established narratives. For a historian, it's a null event. For a political strategist, it's a perfectly logical trade.
Reference article source：