On February 9, 2026, a rare moment of transparency unfolded in Washington, D.C., as members of Congress were finally granted access to unredacted Justice Department files related to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. For years, the public and lawmakers alike have clamored for answers about who, beyond Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, might have played a role in his sprawling sex trafficking operation. Now, after months of political wrangling and legislative maneuvering, the first peek behind the curtain has revealed more questions—and a handful of deeply troubling answers.
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), the two lawmakers who spearheaded the push for the Epstein Files Transparency Act, spent two hours combing through the files in a secure Department of Justice reading room. What they found was damning: the names of at least six men, all redacted in previous public releases, who they say are "likely incriminated" by their inclusion in the files. One is "pretty high up" in a foreign government, another a "well known retired CEO," and at least one is a U.S. citizen. The rest? Their nationalities remain uncertain, but their prominence is not in doubt.
“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, as quoted by Nexstar Media. Khanna, for his part, emphasized that this is not 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 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' review was made possible by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in November 2025. The law requires the Justice Department to release all unclassified records related to Epstein and his associates, allowing redactions only in narrow circumstances, such as to protect the identities of victims. Redactions for "embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary" are explicitly barred. Yet, as Massie and Khanna discovered, many of the documents made available to Congress were still heavily redacted—sometimes even before they reached the DOJ.
According to Axios, the files were available for review on computers in a DOJ reading room, with strict rules: no electronic devices, only handwritten notes, and a requirement for 24 hours' notice. Even under these conditions, Massie and Khanna found that "many of the files they viewed were still redacted, meaning they came to DOJ either from the FBI or a grand jury with strike-throughs." Massie said, “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 needs to be unredacted, right?”
The scope of the files is staggering—roughly three million documents, out of a total of more than six million in DOJ possession. But the process of reviewing them is painstakingly slow. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, estimated that it would take lawmakers seven and a half years to review all the documents if four members worked every minute the DOJ made them available. Raskin also found “lots of examples of people’s names being redacted when they were not victims,” as reported by CNN, and noted that the DOJ had not provided a privilege log explaining the basis for each redaction, as required by law.
One detail that drew particular attention was an email in the files from a woman thanking Epstein for a "fun night" and referencing "Your littlest girl was a little naughty." Massie explained that this email was sent by a woman, and that "it may be proper to redact it. It may not be, I don’t know. It seems like part of their algorithm for redaction was just to redact every woman in there, pretty much. We can’t parse if the person who sent that was a victim or not." The ambiguity underscores the challenge lawmakers face in balancing transparency with the need to protect victims’ identities.
Another point of contention is the redaction of material related to former President Trump. Raskin said he found passages that contradicted Trump’s public claims about Epstein’s status at Mar-a-Lago, including an email thread between Epstein’s and Trump’s lawyers in 2009. According to Raskin, "Epstein’s lawyers synopsized and quoted Trump as saying that Jeffrey Epstein was not a member of his club at Mar-a-Lago, but he was a guest at Mar-a-Lago and he had never been asked to leave. And that was redacted for some indeterminate, inscrutable reason." Trump has long denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and the White House has previously stated that Epstein was barred from Mar-a-Lago "for being a creep." No authorities have accused Trump of crimes related to Epstein.
The Department of Justice, for its part, insists that it is acting in good faith. Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis wrote to lawmakers, “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.” Yet, critics argue that the department is skirting its statutory requirements by withholding millions of documents and heavily redacting others. Massie and Khanna have left open the possibility of revealing the six men's identities on the House floor, where they would be shielded by the speech and debate clause of the Constitution.
Attorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, where lawmakers from both parties are expected to press her for answers about the department’s handling of the files. As Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) told reporters, "There are lots of names, lots of co-conspirators and they’re trafficking girls all across the world." Khanna added, "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."
With only a fraction of the records reviewed so far, one thing is clear: the fight over the Epstein files—and the search for accountability among the rich and powerful—is far from over. Whether the Justice Department will heed lawmakers’ calls for greater transparency, or whether Congress will be forced to take more dramatic steps, remains to be seen. For now, the names of the six men remain hidden, but the pressure to bring them—and the truth—into the light is mounting by the day.