Epstein Files Showdown: Congress Vs DOJ

A viral claim about Ro Khanna’s “CIA photo” is colliding with a much bigger fight over who really controls the Epstein files: Congress or the federal bureaucracy.

Story Snapshot

Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie reviewed unredacted Epstein-related material, then Khanna read six previously redacted names into the Congressional Record.
Khanna publicly criticized the Trump Justice Department’s initial file release as incomplete and suggested escalation options like contempt or impeachment threats against AG Pam Bondi.
One named figure, Leslie Wexner, has disputed implications by stressing cooperation with investigators and saying he was not a DOJ “target,” even as an FBI document used the term “coconspirator.”
A separate viral narrative about Khanna and a misidentified photo is not confirmed by the core congressional reporting, highlighting how quickly misinformation can distract from document accountability.

Khanna and Massie force names into the open using congressional protections

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) became an unlikely tag team in the Epstein transparency fight after reviewing unredacted material tied to the government’s Epstein records. Khanna then used the House floor to read six names that had been withheld in earlier releases, placing them into the Congressional Record. That move relied on Congress’s constitutional speech protections and instantly raised the stakes for the DOJ’s approach to redactions.

Khanna’s floor remarks included the question many Americans have asked for years: why it took congressional pressure to make names public at all. Politico’s account emphasized that lawmakers reviewed the material for roughly two hours before Khanna publicly identified names, including Leslie Wexner and Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. Massie also signaled caution that “appearance” in documents is not proof of guilt, even while pressing for transparency and clearer accountability in how files are handled.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act set the rules, but compliance is still being contested

The current standoff traces back to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress passed in 2025 and President Trump signed into law. The law aimed to limit broad redactions and accelerate disclosure, responding to years of public frustration after Epstein’s 2019 death. A DOJ release followed in December 2025, but Khanna soon argued the release fell short of what Congress intended, framing the dispute as a test of whether agencies can slow-walk politically explosive information.

Khanna escalated his criticism in early February 2026 during a televised interview, saying the DOJ’s releases were “not good enough” and floating heavy congressional tools—contempt and even impeachment threats directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi. Those statements framed the controversy as a separation-of-powers issue: Congress legislated transparency, while the executive branch still controls the mechanics of production, redaction standards, and the pace of disclosure. The sources provided do not document formal House action, only the stated threats.

What the newly named figures do—and don’t—prove so far

One immediate flashpoint involves Leslie Wexner, the longtime retail executive linked to Epstein in reporting and records. Politico reported that Wexner’s representative said he cooperated fully with law enforcement and was not a target of the DOJ, pushing back on insinuations triggered by the name being read on the House floor. At the same time, the reporting referenced a 2019 FBI document that used the label “coconspirator,” a term that can inflame suspicion without resolving guilt.

Khanna also identified Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the DP World CEO, after lawmakers reviewed the unredacted material. Politico described an email connection in the files to a referenced “torture video,” a detail that is bound to generate headlines but still lacks the context needed for the public to know what, if anything, is criminal. As of the research provided, no new charges were reported as a result of the disclosures, and several additional names remain unidentified publicly.

The viral “Hermès vs. CIA” claim shows how distractions can swamp real oversight

The user’s prompt centers on a viral allegation that a photo tied to Khanna was mislabeled as “CIA headquarters” when it was supposedly a Hermès location. The core congressional reporting cited here focuses on document releases, names, and DOJ compliance—not photo verification—so the “third strike” narrative is not substantiated by the provided mainstream citations. That gap matters, because viral side-stories can pull attention away from the real constitutional question: whether federal agencies can keep secrets by default.

For conservative readers who have watched years of bureaucratic stonewalling—on everything from border enforcement to politicized agency behavior—the Epstein file fight is a familiar pattern. The strongest, most defensible conclusion from the research is narrow but important: Congress is testing its oversight power, and the DOJ is being publicly challenged on redactions and deadlines. Americans should demand transparency without rushing to declare guilt by association, because the rule of law requires evidence, not just names.