On February 9, 2026, a rare and tense scene unfolded at a secure Department of Justice (DOJ) satellite office in Washington, D.C., where members of Congress were, for the first time, permitted to review unredacted files related to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. The event marked a significant milestone in the ongoing push for transparency, accountability, and justice in one of the most notorious criminal cases of the past decade. But what the lawmakers discovered inside those files has reignited fierce debate over whether powerful individuals—some with global stature—are still being shielded from scrutiny.
Representatives Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), the two lead sponsors of the bipartisan bill that forced the public release of the Epstein files, spent about two hours combing through a selection of the documents. As reported by multiple outlets, including The Hill and Axios, the lawmakers emerged with a startling revelation: at least six men, whose names had been redacted in public versions, appear to be “likely incriminated” by their inclusion in the files. Among these six, one is described as a “high-ranking official in a foreign government,” another as a “prominent individual,” and at least one is a U.S. citizen. Massie later hinted on social media that the group included a “well known retired CEO” and a “Sultan.”
“There are six men. We went in there for two hours. There’s millions of files, right? And in a couple of hours, we found six men whose names have been redacted, who are implicated in the way that the files are presented,” Massie told reporters outside the Justice Department office, as quoted by The Hill. Khanna was quick to clarify, “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.”
The lawmakers have so far refused to name the six men, explaining that they want to give the DOJ a fair chance to review and, if necessary, correct the redactions. “I think we need to give the DOJ a chance to go back through and correct their mistakes,” Massie said. “They need to themselves check their own homework.” Nevertheless, both Massie and Khanna left open the possibility of revealing the names in a future committee hearing or even reading them aloud on the House floor—an action that would be protected by the Constitution’s speech and debate clause.
The law that mandated the release of the Epstein files—the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed by President Donald Trump in November 2025—was intended to limit redactions strictly to the personal information of victims and materials that would jeopardize active criminal investigations. It explicitly prohibited redactions based on embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including for government officials, public figures, or foreign dignitaries. Yet, as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, observed after his own review, “There were lots of examples of people’s names being redacted when they were not victims.”
Raskin also found material contradicting former President Trump’s longstanding public claims that he expelled Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. According to Raskin, a redacted passage summarized comments attributed to Trump by Epstein’s lawyers, stating that Epstein had never been asked to leave the club—material that, in Raskin’s view, had no legal basis to be concealed. “That was redacted for some indeterminate, inscrutable reason,” he said, as reported by TIME.
The process for reviewing the files is far from simple. Lawmakers must give 24 hours’ notice, cannot bring electronic devices, and may only take handwritten notes. Only four computers are available in the DOJ reading room, and the review hours are strictly limited. With more than three million documents in the tranche released so far—and over six million reportedly in the DOJ’s possession—Raskin estimated it could take years for a thorough review. “This is going to be an extremely time consuming and painstaking process… There is no way before Attorney General Bondi arrives on Wednesday that we’re going to have the opportunity to go through every redaction in order to ask thorough questions,” he told reporters.
Some of the most troubling findings, according to Massie and Khanna, relate to the origin of the redactions. They discovered that certain files were already redacted when the DOJ received them from the FBI or from grand jury materials—contrary to the law’s requirement that such materials be disclosed in full. “I don’t think that’s nefarious on the career attorneys that were reviewing it, but they obviously haven’t gotten the production because our law says that the FBI and the original grand jury [material] needs to be unredacted,” Khanna explained.
The DOJ, meanwhile, has defended its actions. Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis wrote in a letter to members of Congress, “We are confident that this review will further demonstrate the Department’s good faith work to appropriately process an enormous volume of documents in a very short time.” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has said that about 200,000 pages were withheld or redacted based on privileges such as attorney-client communications and deliberative process protections—categories that Massie and Khanna argue are not permitted under the statute.
Other lawmakers who viewed the files echoed concerns about over-redaction and the potential shielding of co-conspirators. Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz emerged from the secure reading room visibly disturbed, telling reporters, “There are lots of names, lots of co-conspirators and they’re trafficking girls all across the world.” Khanna, drawing a comparison to the reckoning faced by the British monarchy over Epstein’s ties, remarked, “People in power whether they’re in government, whether they’re in finance, whether they’re in technology—if they have been implicated in the files in morally embarrassing ways and in ways that shock the conscience, should be held accountable and it should be regardless of party.”
Monday’s revelations have spurred renewed calls for oversight and accountability. Attorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, where lawmakers from both parties are expected to press for answers about the DOJ’s handling of the files and its compliance with the law. The review, as Khanna and Massie made clear, is only just beginning, and the fight over the Epstein files is far from over. “They have been protecting some of these men,” Khanna said. “Maybe it was not intentional, but the law is very clear. They need to comply with the law.”
As the painstaking review continues, the question remains: will the full truth about Epstein’s network—and the powerful individuals entangled in it—finally come to light?