Khanna reads names of 6 men ‘likely incriminated’ in Epstein files on House floor

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) shared the names of the six men he claimed were “likely incriminated” in the Epstein files on the House floor Tuesday.

Khanna’s comments come as the Justice Department has been under fire for how it has handled redactions in the documents, in some cases failing to conceal the names of victims while in other instances shielding the identities of those exchanging salacious emails with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who together co-sponsored the bill that mandated the public release of the files, both went Monday to review the unredacted version of the files now available to lawmakers at a Justice Department office. The duo told reporters that in their two-hour review they saw six names they thought could face criminal culpability based on the content of the files, with Massie describing the group as being “likely incriminated.”

Khanna, after revealing the six names on the House floor, said, “Now my question is, why did it take Thomas Massie and me going to the Justice Department to get these six men’s identities to become public? And if we found six men that they were hiding in two hours, imagine how many men they are covering up for in those 3 million files.”

“Now my bill is clear. The Epstein Transparency Act requires them to unredact those FBI files, and yet the Justice Department said to me and to Congressman Massie, ‘We just uploaded whatever the FBI sent us.’ And guess what? The FBI sent scrubbed files. That means the survivor statement to the FBI naming rich and powerful men who went to Epstein’s Island, who went to his ranch, who went to his home and raped and abused underage girls or saw underage girls being paraded — they were all hidden. They were all redacted. It’s a little bit of a farce.”

Khanna’s decision to disclose the names comes after Massie had said he did not plan to publicly do so, instead arguing that the Justice Department should have a chance to “correct their mistake” first.

“They need to themselves check their own homework,” Massie said Monday.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act only allows for narrow redactions in the files, largely to protect the identities of victims.

Khanna’s listing of the names on the House floor offers the lawmaker a degree of protection should any of the six men be interested in filing a defamation suit.

The Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution protects members from being questioned for speech made within the course of their role as a lawmaker, shielding them from both criminal liability and civil suits.

Though he did not say so on the floor, Khanna on Monday noted that inclusion in the Epstein files itself does not necessarily indicate guilt.

“None of this is designed to be a witch hunt. Just because someone may be in the files doesn’t mean that they’re guilty. But there are very powerful people who raped these underage girls — it wasn’t just Epstein and [his close associate Ghislaine] Maxwell — or showed up to the island or showed up to the ranch or showed up to the home knowing underage girls were being paraded around,” Khanna said Monday.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on Tuesday shot back at Massie, accusing the lawmaker of “grandstanding” even as the Justice Department responded by unredacting several new pages.

Massie specifically referenced three documents on the social platform X that featured heavy redactions: an unclassified list of 20 individuals that initially only displayed the names of Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell; email correspondence in 2009 between Epstein and a man Massie said appears to be a sultan; and an FBI memo of possible co-conspirators of Epstein compiled days after he died by suicide in 2019.

After Massie’s criticism, the department unredacted the names of 16 additional people on the 20-person list. Two names remain redacted, and photos of all individuals other than Epstein and Maxwell also remain redacted.

“You looked at the document. You know it’s an email address that was redacted. The law requires redactions for personally identifiable information, including if in an email address,” Blanche posted on social media late Monday.

“Be honest, and stop grandstanding.”

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.