The Epstein Files have revealed shocking new details: six powerful men—Leslie Wexner, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Nicola Caputo, Salvatore Nuara, Zurab Mikeladze, and Leonic Leonov—were named by Congressman Ro Khanna in unredacted files obtained under congressional immunity. It’s still unclear if any face charges, and the DOJ maintains redactions were legally required, though critics accuse it of protecting elites. Meanwhile, other documents expose questionable links between Epstein associates and high-profile figures, fueling political furor and a renewed push for transparency.
1. Unredacted Names Spark Debate over Transparency
Congressman Ro Khanna, joined by Thomas Massie, named six individuals whose identities had been redacted in the Department of Justice’s public release of Epstein-related files. Among those revealed are billionaire Leslie Wexner and DP World CEO Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, with four others—Nicola Caputo, Salvatore Nuara, Zurab Mikeladze, and Leonic Leonov—also named. Though none face charges, Khanna stressed that redactions should not shield potentially incriminating information.
Khanna and Massie criticized the DOJ, arguing the concealment of these names undermines public trust. The DOJ claims some redactions were accidental and based on procedural norms, while other witnesses point to biased concealment favoring powerful individuals.
Beyond this, the news highlights the tension between legal redaction requirements and demands for full transparency. The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires only victims’ identities to remain hidden—not those of public or powerful figures—but critics say the law is being undermined in practice.
2. Broader Fallout: Prominent Figures Under Scrutiny
Revelations extend beyond the six named by lawmakers. Entertainment exec Casey Wasserman came under scrutiny after emails with Ghislaine Maxwell surfaced—though he insists he had no ties to Epstein. His clients, including Chappell Roan and Beach Bunny, dropped his agency amid controversy.
Similarly, lawyer Brad Karp stepped down from the Union College board after DOJ files revealed he praised an Epstein legal motion. His firm emphasized limited social contact and regret over his involvement.
These examples underscore how the Epstein Files continue to affect careers and institutions—even where no evidence of wrongdoing exists.
3. High-Profile Exposure: Trump, Maxwell, and DOJ Files
New documents shed light on Epstein’s broader network. A leaked FBI transcript indicates that in 2006, Donald Trump told law enforcement “everyone” knew about Epstein’s wrongdoing and called Ghislaine Maxwell “evil.” This contradicts his later denials.
Another thread in the files suggests Epstein attempted to include a letter from Trump in a 50th birthday book project, which Trump later denied, even filing a defamation suit over related allegations.
Maxwell, testifying before Congress, invoked the Fifth Amendment but offered to clear her ties to both Trump and Clinton if she were granted clemency.
But despite years of public speculation, an Associated Press investigation found no evidence of a “client list” or charges against high-profile individuals beyond Epstein and Maxwell.
4. DOJ’s Document Release: Errors, Retractions, and Political Pressure
The DOJ initially released over 3 million pages of files on January 30, 2026, fulfilling—according to them—the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Still, politicians like Khanna argue the DOJ withheld significant files, including victim interviews and draft indictments.
Compounding the issue, about 9,500 documents were later removed after victims raised concerns about inadvertently revealed identifying information. The DOJ assured they would re-release the files once reviewing them again.
Survivors have voiced outrage, saying the files exposed their identities while abusers remain hidden. One group said it was “outrageous” that survivors are retraumatized while powerful men go unnamed.
5. A Glimpse Inside Unredacted Files: Congressional Access Begins
Starting February 9, select lawmakers were granted access to fully unredacted Epstein files in a secure DOJ reading room. On February 10, Khanna named the six redacted individuals under congressional immunity.
Other members—including Senator Cynthia Lummis and Rep. Jamie Raskin—have publicly expressed shock at what they’ve seen, accusing the DOJ of a cover-up. Raskin noted Trump’s name appears more than a million times.
This inside access marks a shift: the heavily redacted public dossier is only part of the story, while Congress begins to see the full one.
Conclusion
The latest wave of Epstein Files coverage brings new names to light, ignites political confrontation, and deepens the divide between public transparency and institutional caution. The unredacted disclosures—especially the six named individuals—exemplify the growing focus on accountability for those long shielded. Yet DOJ decisions, removals, and redactions continue to frustrate survivors and lawmakers alike. As unredacted documents become accessible to more eyes, one thing is clear: the Epstein Files’ fallout is still very much unfolding.
FAQs
What is the Epstein Files Transparency Act?
It’s a U.S. law signed in November 2025 requiring the DOJ to release Epstein-related documents within 30 days and provide unredacted names of government or politically exposed individuals to Congress.
Why were some documents removed from the DOJ website?
Around 9,500 files were temporarily taken down after victims identified that personal information had been exposed. The DOJ is reviewing and re-redacting them before re-release.
Has the FBI found evidence against other high-profile individuals?
No. While the FBI confirmed Epstein abused underage girls, it found no solid evidence of a sex trafficking ring involving elite or high-profile men.
What triggered Ro Khanna to name the six men publicly?
He reviewed unredacted files in a congressional reading room and used congressional immunity to disclose the names, criticizing DOJ’s redactions as unjustified.
Why are survivors upset about the documents?
Survivors are angry that their identities were exposed in the files, while the men they accuse remain unlisted or redacted, leading to renewed trauma and distrust.
Leave a comment