Six Redacted Names From the Epstein Files Revealed on the House Floor

Introduction: a public reading that shakes Washington

An unusual move on the House floor

On February 10, 2026, Democratic Representative Ro Khanna took to the floor of the House of Representatives to publicly read six names of men whose identities had initially been redacted from the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to information reported by CBS News.

This gesture, rare in its public and direct nature, was meant to call out what Khanna described as a cover-up by the Justice Department of the names of "rich and powerful" people without apparent justification, during the release of a large batch of documents on the Epstein case.

A discovery made the day before at DOJ offices

According to Khanna's account, this discovery dates back to the previous Monday, when he went to a Justice Department office together with Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, to review unredacted versions of the Epstein files.

The two lawmakers, one Democrat and one Republican, said they spent part of the afternoon reviewing the documents before spotting the six previously masked names, a bipartisan effort worth noting in a political climate that is usually deeply polarized.

Who are the six men named by Khanna

Leslie Wexner, the mogul behind Victoria's Secret

The best-known name among the six is Leslie Wexner, a billionaire who led the parent company of Victoria's Secret and who had hired Epstein to manage part of his personal fortune for several years, according to details reported by CBS News.

An FBI document from 2019, cited by Khanna during his public reading, refers to Wexner as a "co-conspirator" in the investigation, though this designation in an investigative document does not in itself constitute a formal criminal charge brought before a court.

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem and the four other names

The second notable name is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the former executive of the Dubai-based Emirati logistics company DP World, whose identity also appeared among the redacted passages of the documents reviewed by Khanna and Massie.

The four other names revealed are Salvatore Nuara, Zurab Mikeladze, Leonic Leonov and Nicola Caputo, individuals far less known to the general public whose precise role in the documents remains, to this day, incompletely explained.

What the Justice Department said in response

Names called "completely random"

The Justice Department responded by stating that several of the six named men were "completely random" and had no established link to Epstein, according to the official response reported by CBS News, which introduces a notable contradiction with Khanna's interpretation of the importance of these revelations.

This response from the DOJ raises a legitimate question: if some of the redacted names indeed belong to people with no connection to the case, the initial decision to mask them rather than simply exclude them from the released documents remains, to date, insufficiently explained by the authorities.

A partial un-redaction carried out that evening

Late Monday night, after Massie had identified the three documents containing the six names, the Justice Department carried out a partial lifting of the redaction on those specific files, allowing them to be more broadly reviewed by lawmakers and, eventually, by the public.

This swift response from the DOJ, coming just hours after the two representatives' discovery, suggests the administration chose to handle the situation through transparency rather than prolonged resistance, a choice that deserves to be recognized positively.

No evidence of wrongdoing presented

A crucial distinction between mention and guilt

It is essential to stress, as CBS News explicitly reports, that the documents reviewed by Khanna and Massie do not appear to directly implicate most of these six men in any criminal act, and that Khanna himself made no specific allegation of wrongdoing against them in his public statement.

This factual nuance is of critical importance: the mere appearance of a name in an investigative file, even in a case as widely covered as the Epstein affair, in no way constitutes proof of participation in crimes, and any confusion between the two would amount to damaging misinformation.

The particular case of the "co-conspirator" designation

The only documentary element going beyond a mere mention is the 2019 FBI document designating Wexner as a "co-conspirator," a label that comes from an internal investigative assessment and not from a formal indictment validated by a court or a grand jury.

This distinction between an investigative designation and a formal judicial charge must be rigorously maintained in any responsible journalistic treatment of this case, in order to avoid prematurely attributing guilt that has not been established through a complete judicial process.

The broader context of the Epstein files

A transparency saga stretching back years

This February 10, 2026 revelation fits into a broader, long-running saga concerning the transparency of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein, a case that has drawn constant demands for full disclosure from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, as well as from the general public, ever since Epstein's death in custody in 2019.

The bipartisan pressure for fuller disclosure of the documents reflects a legitimate and widely shared concern over the accountability of wealthy or influential people who may have been connected, closely or distantly, to Epstein's network.

A demand for rigor amid unfounded theories

It should be noted that the Epstein case has also generated, over the years, a considerable amount of unfounded conspiracy theories and unverified speculation circulating on social media, a phenomenon that complicates rigorous factual coverage of any real development in this case.

Given this reality, responsible journalistic treatment of this case demands sticking strictly to documented, sourced facts, never giving in to the temptation to amplify uncorroborated allegations, however tempting that might be in terms of audience.

A demand for transparency that must continue

Calls for full disclosure of the remaining files

This partial revelation inevitably renews calls from several lawmakers, including Khanna and Massie themselves, for a much more complete and systematic disclosure of all the documents related to the Epstein case still held by the Justice Department.

These calls rest on the argument that public trust in judicial institutions depends directly on their ability to treat powerful individuals and ordinary citizens equally, without apparent gray areas or favorable treatment.

What this case does not yet allow us to claim

At this stage, there is no public proof establishing that the Justice Department deliberately protected these six individuals because of their social status or wealth; the official explanation citing "random" names remains, for lack of anything better, the currently available version, even though it leaves several questions without a satisfying answer.

Any claim going beyond these established facts would amount to speculation, and I choose not to venture there, in keeping with the demand for factual rigor that must take precedence in a case as sensitive as this one.

Political reactions in Washington

Republican and Democratic voices alike demand answers

In the wake of Khanna's revelation, several lawmakers from both parties publicly demanded further explanations from the Justice Department regarding the criteria used to decide which names should be redacted in the released documents on the Epstein case.

This cross-partisan demand for clarification shows just how much the issue of judicial transparency in this particular case cuts across the usual ideological divides that generally split the US Congress on almost every other issue.

Thomas Massie's particular role in this effort

Republican Representative Thomas Massie, known for his libertarian positions and his frequent independence from his own party's official line, played an active role in this discovery alongside Khanna, strengthening the bipartisan credibility of the effort.

This collaboration between two lawmakers with very different ideological profiles shows that the demand for transparency on this specific case draws support that crosses traditional partisan lines, a rare and notable fact in today's American political climate.

The impact on public trust in federal justice

Growing skepticism toward institutions

This case, like several other recent episodes tied to the Epstein files, is fueling growing skepticism among American citizens about the ability of federal institutions to treat wealthy individuals and ordinary citizens equally in sensitive judicial proceedings.

This skepticism, fed by years of partial revelations and delays in the disclosure of documents, poses a real challenge to the institutional legitimacy of the American judicial system as a whole.

An opportunity to rebuild trust through transparency

Paradoxically, this same case also offers the Justice Department a concrete opportunity to rebuild some of that eroded trust, by responding clearly and fully to the questions raised by Khanna and Massie rather than settling for partial explanations.

How the administration handles requests for further disclosure in the coming weeks will serve as a revealing test of its genuine willingness to be transparent about this highly sensitive case.

Conclusion: transparency, the only acceptable answer

A bipartisan precedent worth commending

Beyond the six names revealed, this episode illustrates the value of a rare bipartisan collaboration between two lawmakers with opposing political views, united by a shared demand for transparency on a matter of major public interest.

This kind of cooperation, though a one-off, offers a welcome counterexample to the usual polarization of the US Congress, showing that a shared public interest can still transcend partisan lines on certain specific cases.

A journalistic vigilance that must continue

This case will no doubt continue to evolve in the months ahead, as more documents are potentially made public, and it is up to journalists to maintain constant factual rigor, always clearly distinguishing established facts from the interpretations or unverified theories that circulate abundantly on this topic.

It is this rigor, not sensationalist amplification, that will best serve the legitimate demand for truth and accountability called for by Epstein's victims and the American public as a whole.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my limits

I sign this piece as a columnist covering American judicial news, without being myself a lawyer or an investigator. I did not have access to the original documents from the Justice Department and I rely entirely on the news accounts cited.

I explicitly refuse to endorse or relay any unsourced conspiracy theory concerning the Epstein case, in keeping with my commitment to a factual and rigorous treatment of this sensitive case.

My verification method

The facts reported in this piece come primarily from CBS News' reporting, which directly reviewed the partially unredacted documents, supplemented by public encyclopedic resources for the broader context of the case.

No element of this article rests on an unverifiable anonymous source or on an allegation not attributed to an identifiable journalistic source.

Sources

Primary sources

The Guardian — Six men named in Epstein files unredacted, February 10, 2026

CNN — Epstein files unredacted names, February 10, 2026

BBC News — Epstein files names revealed, February 10, 2026

Secondary sources

CBS News — Rep. Khanna names 6 men he says were redacted from Epstein files, February 13, 2026

Wikipedia — Epstein files

Wikipedia — List of people named in the Epstein files