For nearly two years, Americans were told they didn’t need to see the truth.
They were assured—by law enforcement, by federal officials, and by sympathetic media outlets—that withholding the writings of the Nashville school shooter was necessary, responsible, even compassionate. Publishing the documents, they said, would only inflame tensions, spread hatred, and risk copycat violence.
Now that the documents have finally been released, one conclusion is unavoidable:
The public was deliberately shielded from facts that fundamentally change the understanding of the attack.
Earlier this week, the FBI quietly released long-suppressed manifesto documents written by Audrey Hale, the individual who carried out the March 2023 massacre at Covenant School in Nashville. The attack left three children and three adults dead before police fatally shot Hale at the scene.
What those documents reveal is deeply disturbing—and explains why officials fought so hard to keep them out of public view.
A Massacre, Then a Blackout
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, authorities confirmed that Hale had left behind extensive written materials detailing her motivations, planning, and ideological beliefs. Nashville police acknowledged the existence of a manifesto but refused to release it, citing concerns about public safety and social cohesion.
The decision sparked outrage, particularly among parents, victims’ families, and transparency advocates who pointed out that manifestos from other mass shooters are routinely released, often within weeks.
But this case was different.
According to officials, the content was “sensitive.” Translation: politically explosive.
The newly released documents confirm that assessment.
“I Hate Religion” – The Line They Didn’t Want You to See
One of the most striking revelations from the FBI release is Hale’s explicit hostility toward religion—particularly Christianity.
“The shooter also said, ‘I hate religion.’ THIS WAS HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC!!!” wrote Eric Daugherty, chief content officer at RightLine News and Florida’s Voice, reacting to the documents.
That sentence alone shatters the early narrative that the attack was random, purely personal, or disconnected from broader ideological grievances.
Covenant School was not an accidental target. It was a Christian institution, chosen deliberately.
The documents reveal repeated expressions of resentment toward religious belief, religious authority, and what Hale described as “religious indoctrination.” This was not vague anger. It was explicit animus.
And it raises an obvious question: Why was the public told none of this mattered?
A Chilling “Pros and Cons” List
Perhaps the most unsettling section of the manifesto is a handwritten “pros and cons” list Hale created while weighing potential targets.
According to reporting by the New York Post, Hale seriously considered attacking a different school she had previously attended—a middle school where she spent grades five through eight.
Why did she ultimately decide against it?
Not because of morality. Not because of regret. But because of demographics.
The documents show Hale rejected that target because the student body was “mostly black.”
Under the “disadvantages” column, Hale reportedly wrote:
- “Predominantly black school (black people I love)”
- “Black community in despair and suffering (I don’t want to cause that)”
- “Black friends and black community will hate me”
- “Likely to influence racist white shooters in future”
Meanwhile, under “advantages,” Hale coldly listed factors such as:
- “Easy to navigate”
- “Not a big school”
This wasn’t the rambling of someone acting on impulse. It was methodical target selection, guided by ideological considerations.
That fact alone undermines months of claims that releasing the manifesto would somehow mislead the public.
Why This Information Was Politically Inconvenient
From the beginning, officials insisted the manifesto could not be released because it might “harm the LGBTQ community.”
But the FBI documents do not merely describe Hale’s gender identity. They document explicit hatred toward religion, deliberate selection of a Christian target, and a calculated decision-making process that contradicts many of the narratives pushed in the wake of the attack.
That creates a political problem.
Acknowledging ideological hostility toward religion—particularly Christianity—complicates efforts to frame the shooting as an apolitical tragedy or to redirect blame toward unrelated policy debates.
It also raises uncomfortable questions about double standards.
Why are the ideological motivations of some mass shooters treated as essential to understanding the crime, while others are buried under claims of “sensitivity”?
Federal Student Aid and the Weapons Question
Adding another layer of controversy, recent reporting revealed that Hale used federal student aid money to help purchase the weapons used in the attack.
That revelation alone should have prompted immediate congressional scrutiny. Instead, it was met with near silence.
Taxpayer-funded aid—intended to help students build futures—was allegedly diverted to finance mass murder. Yet for months, the public was denied access to the shooter’s own words explaining her motivations.
Transparency was sacrificed. Trust eroded.
The FBI’s Quiet Release—and Loud Implications
Notably, the FBI did not hold a press conference to explain the release. There was no public briefing. No acknowledgment of why the documents were withheld for so long.
They were simply posted.
That silence speaks volumes.
If the documents were truly too dangerous to release in 2023, what changed in 2025? And if they were always safe to release, why were the American people lied to?
The answer appears to be political risk management—not public safety.
Victims Deserved the Truth
Lost in the institutional defensiveness are the victims:
- Three children who never came home
- Three educators who died protecting others
- Families who were denied full transparency about why their loved ones were targeted
Those families deserved honesty, not narrative control.
Understanding motive does not excuse violence—but it does matter. It matters for prevention. It matters for accountability. And it matters for trust.
A Dangerous Precedent
The suppression of the Nashville manifesto sets a troubling precedent:
That government agencies can selectively withhold information based on political optics, rather than consistent standards.
That some forms of ideological extremism are deemed too inconvenient to acknowledge publicly.
That transparency is optional when it conflicts with preferred narratives.
Once that line is crossed, public confidence collapses.
The Question No One Answered
The newly released documents force a question that officials spent nearly two years avoiding:
If this manifesto had reflected a different ideology, would it have been released immediately?
The answer seems painfully obvious.
Final Thoughts
The FBI’s release confirms what many suspected all along: the Nashville manifesto wasn’t hidden to protect the public—it was hidden to protect institutions from backlash.
But truth has a way of emerging.
And when it does, it leaves behind a trail of unanswered questions, broken trust, and a growing sense that Americans are not being told the full story—until it’s no longer politically avoidable.
This wasn’t just a tragedy.
It was a failure of transparency.
And now, finally, the public can see why.