Khanna Names Six Men Who Were Redacted From Epstein Files

U.S. Representative Ro Khanna has publicly named six men he says were redacted from Jeffrey Epstein investigative files “for no apparent reason,” escalating tensions between lawmakers and the Justice Department over transparency in the handling of the long-running case.

Khanna, a Democrat from California, revealed the names during remarks on the House floor after reviewing unredacted versions of the files alongside Republican Representative Thomas Massie at the Department of Justice. The review was conducted under the framework of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation designed to increase public access to government records related to Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in federal custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

According to Khanna, a significant portion of the documents remain heavily redacted despite the law’s intent to limit unnecessary censorship. He said that during their review, he and Massie identified six individuals whose names had been blacked out in previously released versions of the files without clear legal justification. After raising the issue with Justice Department officials, the names were subsequently unredacted.

The six men named by Khanna are Leslie Wexner, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Salvatore Nuara, Zurab Mikeladze, Nicola Caputo and Leonic Leonov. Khanna emphasized that the presence of a name in the files does not equate to criminal wrongdoing and that none of the individuals he mentioned have been charged in connection with Epstein’s crimes based solely on their appearance in the documents.

Leslie Wexner, a billionaire retail executive and longtime associate of Epstein, has previously acknowledged a financial relationship with Epstein but has denied knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct. Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, an Emirati business executive, and the other four individuals named have not been publicly accused of crimes related to the case.

Khanna argued that the redactions raised concerns about whether powerful or well-connected individuals were being shielded from public scrutiny. He maintained that while protecting victims’ identities and sensitive personal information is essential, redacting the names of adults mentioned in investigative records without a clear statutory basis undermines public trust.

The Justice Department has defended its broader redaction process, stating that edits were made to comply with privacy laws, protect victims, and safeguard ongoing investigative interests where applicable. Officials have said that decisions about redactions are made carefully and are not intended to protect individuals from embarrassment or public exposure.