Rep. Khanna: Why Are So Many Of The Unredacted Epstein Files Redacted?
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) held a joint press conference on Monday after viewing the “mostly-unredacted” Epstein files at the Justice Department. The Congressmen said at least 6 men likely incriminated have had their names redacted and called on the DOJ to unredact them. Massie posted on X that one of the co-conspirators is a well-known retired CEO and called on the DOJ to unredact his name. “The point is that these six are just what we found in two hours of a review of the files that aren’t redacted,” Khanna said. “The broader issue is why so many of the files they’re getting are redacted in the first place. And until that becomes unredacted, the main things that they’re sending to the career attorneys to review, I don’t think we’re going to have full compliance with the law, get to the question that most Americans want to know. Who were the rich and powerful people who went to this island?”
REPORTER: What’s your message to Pam Bondi after what you saw today? REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): They need to do a little more work. And I would like – I mean, we’ll see her at the Judiciary Committee here in a couple days. REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): At the very least, these six men maybe she can make public. I mean, we’re happy to provide the information to them, and they should do that. Look, there’s some of the effort – because there were a lot of career attorneys on that. There’s some redactions that were appropriate, some, to protect the survivors. And some of the most sensational things out on the Internet, there may have been appropriate redactions. So, you know, for Thomas and me, it’s always been about the facts. And our biggest concern is what was redacted before it even came to the Justice Department. I mean, the reality is that the most important things, the 302 files and some of the information on the prosecution memos, it’s unclear that those redactions happened here. We saw a lot of files that already were redacted. And then, of course, they have been protecting some of these men. Maybe it was not intentionally, but the law is very clear. They need to comply with the law. MASSIE: And finally, the documents that they put up and decided for one reason or another they had to take back down, I was hoping to see those here. They didn’t appear to be in the database that we were able to search. Those ostensibly are wholly redacted files now. We know they exist. They published them for a brief period of time and pulled them back. They need to answer to us as to do they intend to redact those files and put them back up and put them in the database so that we can search them and see if it was appropriate to take them back down from the website. REPORTER: Are these men U.S. citizens? What fields do they work in? Is it finance? Is it political? MASSIE: At least one is a U.S. citizen. At least one is a foreigner. And the other three or four have names. I’m not sure if they’re foreign or U.S. In which field do they work in? REPORTER: Is it finance, banking, political? MASSIE: One is pretty high up in the foreign government. KHANNA: And one of the others is a pretty prominent individual. But I think that the point is that these six are just what we found in two hours of a review of the files that aren’t redacted. The broader issue is why so many of the files they’re getting are redacted in the first place. And until that becomes unredacted, the main things that they’re sending to the career attorneys to review, I don’t think we’re going to have full compliance with the law, get to the question that most Americans want to know. Who were the rich and powerful people who went to this island? Did they rape underage girls? Did they know that underage girls were being paraded around? And after seeing this, I don’t blame the U.S. attorneys, the assistant U.S. attorneys reviewing it. If they’re reviewing redacted material, what are they supposed to do? But they’re getting, it seems like, material that’s already been redacted.
.@RepRoKhanna and I just spent two hours at DOJ viewing the mostly-unredacted Epstein files.
Four of the 18 redacted names on this document are men born before 1970. DOJ needs to explain why they are redacted unless they were just randoms in a line-up.https://t.co/fLLzGW9rR7 pic.twitter.com/bJKtTLjYIf
– Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 9, 2026
This is well known retired CEO.
DOJ should unredact this.
Why did they redact it?https://t.co/F6hhKELDm0 pic.twitter.com/Dh2v88961p– Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 9, 2026








