Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, on lawmakers demanding release of more Epstein files: NPR
NPR’s Leila Fadel asks Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California about lawmakers’ demands that the Justice Department release more records related to Jeffrey Epstein.
LEILA FADEL, HOST:
ALL RIGHT. Now let’s turn to one of the members of Congress who co-sponsored the legislation that requires the Justice Department to release these documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. Ro Khanna is a Democrat from California. Congressman, thanks for being back on the program and good morning.
RO KHANNA: Hello.
FADEL: So you called this latest publication a bombshell, and you cite in particular a reference to 10 co-conspirators. What do you look at in the files that seem like a bomb to you?
KHANNA: The fact that there is an email saying there are 10 co-conspirators means there are other rich and powerful men who were involved. Many skeptics said it was a hoax – that only Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were involved in the abuse. I know from talking to survivors that this is not true. They named other men who traveled to rape island, abused them, or covered up the abuse. That’s in the statements to the FBI, the 302 statements, and that’s what we’re insisting be released. But we got an email saying at least there were 10 other co-conspirators.
FADEL: Now, you said – to expand on what you wanted to see released, you said you wanted to see the FBI witness interviews, which name other men, Epstein’s emails seized from his computers, the 60-count draft indictment and the 82-page prosecution memo. You know, just tell me what you’re looking for in these particular documents that you want that lead you to want them to be public. Like, what are you looking for in these documents?
KHANNA: The most important are the interviews with the FBI witnesses. I know from survivors and survivors’ attorneys that when they had these conversations with FBI agents, they specifically named other men that they had been trafficked to…
FADEL: Yeah.
KHANNA: …Or who showed up on the island or who covered up the abuse. And there were the survivors’ lawyers who were present. There are dozens of these interview memoranda. The DOJ has not released a single one. In fact, in one case, the DOJ illegally released a survivor’s name, but it had not released the record the survivor wanted. The 60-count draft indictment shows how botched the prosecution of Epstein was. They only prosecuted him on two counts. So we need it. And the emails on Jeffrey Epstein’s computer are… these are his emails to other men, arranging trafficking, arranging flights to the island. None of this came out.
FADEL: We have well exceeded last Friday’s deadline for the disclosure of all files set by your legislation. What do you think of the DOJ’s argument that it takes time because it requires reviewing each document to avoid inadvertently identifying victims?
KHANNA: Well, frankly, they didn’t do a good job. I mean, they inadvertently released too many survivors. But Thomas Massie and I said we were less concerned about the issue of time. We wish more that they followed the spirit of the law in good faith, but they did not. If they released some 302 memoranda of interviews with FBI witnesses, that would be great. If they released the 60-count draft indictment, that would be good. It doesn’t take much time and the law explicitly requires them to publish or not publish internal communications about billing. So they’re protecting people, and the president has made it clear who they’re trying to protect. He fears that people’s reputations will be tarnished – whether it’s bankers and powerful politicians who are involved in these issues. And that’s true, and that’s the purpose of the law, to have public accountability for them. But the DOJ seems intent on protecting them, frankly, more than the survivors.
FADEL: Now, you and Republican Thomas Massie, co-sponsor of this legislation, have talked about initiating, quote, “inherent contempt” proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi. What would that look like? What is inherent contempt?
KHANNA: Well, we have Republican support – some Republican support as well. We would grant the Attorney General a 30-day grace period to continue disclosing compliant documents. And after those 30 days, she would start getting fined $5,000 personally for documents she doesn’t disclose. We also plan to go to the Southern District of New York to ask the judge who ordered these releases to ask a special expert to see what should be redacted or not, or to create a congressional committee, a bipartisan committee, to see what should be redacted or not.
FADEL: Is it realistic, though, for such a thing to pass the House? I mean, no charges of inherent contempt have been brought in the House against anyone since the 1930s, and this House in particular seems unable to agree on much of anything.
KHANNA: Well, people thought it was very unrealistic for us to pass the release petition. This also hasn’t happened in decades. We know we have some Republican support. And the fact is, given Republican support, the Justice Department has started to backtrack. An hour after Massie and I announced that they had begun releasing redacted documents in unredacted form, they proceeded with a second release of documents containing this email about the 10 co-conspirators. They are…
FADEL: We will have to leave it there. Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you. He is a co-sponsor of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit the terms of use and permissions pages on our website at www.npr.org for more information.
The accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. The text of the transcript may be edited to correct errors or match updates to the audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio recording.
