In a dramatic week on Capitol Hill, the saga of the Jeffrey Epstein files took another unexpected turn, ensnaring global business leaders, lawmakers, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in a public dispute over transparency, accountability, and the reputations of those named in the explosive documents. The controversy reached a boiling point on February 13, 2026, when Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the powerful chair and CEO of Dubai-based logistics giant DP World, abruptly resigned after being identified in newly unredacted emails between himself and the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. The fallout has left the DOJ, Congress, and the public grappling with thorny questions about privacy, due process, and the right to know.
According to Spectrum News, the latest revelations began earlier in the week when Representatives Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), co-authors of the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, were granted access to unredacted versions of the DOJ’s Epstein files. The law, passed in November 2025, compels the DOJ to release virtually all documents related to Epstein, with only narrowly defined redactions allowed. Both lawmakers have championed the cause of full disclosure, insisting that transparency is essential for justice and public trust.
After reviewing the files, Massie posted a screenshot of a 2009 email from Epstein’s account that read, “Where are you? Are you ok, I loved the torture video.” The recipient’s name was redacted in the publicly released version, but Massie and Khanna identified the recipient as Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. The nature of the referenced video remains unknown. Massie wrote on social media, “A Sultan seems to have sent this. DOJ should make this public.” Within hours, DP World announced Sulayem’s resignation, effective immediately—a move that sent shockwaves through the international business community.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche quickly entered the fray, responding on X (formerly Twitter), “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. And you know that the Sultan’s name is available unredacted in the files. See EFTA00666117. Be honest, and stop grandstanding.” According to Newsweek, Blanche emphasized that being named in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing, and Sulayem has not been charged with any crime in connection with Epstein.
Further complicating matters, Massie and Khanna also pushed for the release of additional names that had been redacted in the DOJ’s files. Khanna claimed on the House floor that six wealthy men were concealed “for no apparent reason.” After a joint appeal from the lawmakers, the DOJ revealed the names. But as The Mercury News and The Guardian reported, four of the six men—Salvatore Nuara, Zurab Mikeladze, Leonid Leonov, and Nicola Caputo—were found to have no connection to Epstein or his alleged crimes. They had been included in the files years ago as part of an FBI photo lineup, not as subjects of investigation. Khanna publicly retracted their names on February 14, acknowledging the error and blaming the DOJ for failing to provide context. “It’s sad that the DOJ has created confusion that has protected the rich and powerful, exposed survivors, and exposed men not involved with Epstein’s crimes. This is why Massie and I called for a special master,” Khanna said in a statement to the Bay Area News Group.
Blanche, on the other hand, accused the lawmakers of acting recklessly and making “false accusations about four men, while we were checking the facts.” In a social media post, he wrote, “These individuals have NOTHING to do with Epstein or Maxwell.” The dispute spilled into public view, with critics on both sides questioning the motivations and judgment of the players involved. One social media user, identified as a retired law enforcement officer, quipped, “Ro Khanna: ‘How dare the DOJ redact these names!’ Also, Ro Khanna: ‘How dare the DOJ un-redact the names I insisted they un-redact!’”
The episode has reignited debate over the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files. The department says it made heavy redactions to protect victim privacy, but lawmakers and advocates argue that excessive secrecy has shielded the powerful and undermined public confidence. Attorney General Pam Bondi, facing a contentious hearing with the House Judiciary Committee, defended her department’s approach and dismissed Massie’s criticisms as those of a “failed politician.” Yet, as Newsweek noted, Bondi is now facing calls for her impeachment over her handling of the file releases.
Meanwhile, the resignation of Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem has cast a long shadow over the global logistics sector. DP World, a state-linked Emirati company that plays a major role in international shipping and trade, announced in a statement, “DP World Limited announces that Group Chairman and CEO, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem has resigned from the company, effective immediately.” The board appointed Essa Kazim as Chairman and Yuvraj Narayan as Group CEO. Journalist Yashar Ali described the communications between Sulayem and Epstein as “disgusting and horrific,” though it bears repeating that Sulayem has not been accused of any crime.
Adding to the intrigue, the files have highlighted Epstein’s vast network of elite contacts, including government officials, businesspeople, and royalty. In a 2013 email reported by the Associated Press, Epstein called Sulayem “one of my most trusted friends in every sense of the word, you have never let me down.” Sulayem allegedly responded, “Thank you my friend I am off to sample a fresh 100% female Russian at my yacht.” The DOJ has released about 3.5 million files so far, but critics, including Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), say millions more remain unreleased.
Massie and Khanna remain undeterred. Massie wrote, “@RepRoKhanna and I first discovered his name and released it Monday. Today he resigns.” Khanna added, “We will not rest until there is elite accountability for the Epstein class.” Both lawmakers continue to call for a special master to oversee the release of files and ensure proper context and accuracy. The DOJ, for its part, has defended its redactions as necessary under the law and accused the lawmakers of grandstanding and endangering innocent individuals.
For now, the controversy shows no sign of abating. More Epstein files are expected to be released in the coming months, promising further political, diplomatic, and corporate fallout. As the world watches, the central question remains: Can justice and transparency be achieved without sacrificing fairness and privacy? The answer, it seems, is still up for debate.
The events of this week underscore the high stakes and deep tensions at play as Congress, the DOJ, and the public continue to grapple with the legacy of Jeffrey Epstein and the secrets contained in millions of government files.