Democrat Ro Khanna Demands Vote To Release Full Jeffrey Epstein Files
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Representative Ro Khanna (D‑CA) has announced plans to force a vote in the House of Representatives demanding the full, unredacted release of all documents related to disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Khanna said he will introduce an amendment this week that would require the House Speaker to bring the measure to a roll-call vote, putting every member of Congress on the record.
Newsweek contacted Khanna's team via email and House Speaker Mike Johnson via online form for comment outside of usual working hours on Sunday.
The Context
As reported by Newsweek, Epstein, who died in prison six years ago while facing sex trafficking charges, had maintained close ties with numerous high-profile figures around the world. Though his death was officially ruled a suicide, speculation has persisted for years that he may have been murdered to prevent the release of a so-called "client list," a roster some believe could implicate prominent political figures, including President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and the U.K.'s Prince Andrew.
After being accused of sexual abuse connected to the Epstein scandal, Prince Andrew denied all accusations against him and resigned from royal duties in 2020. Clinton maintains that he did not have any contact with Epstein after the financier was accused of sex crimes, and never visited his now-infamous private island of Little St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The controversy was reignited last month when billionaire Elon Musk alleged, in a since-deleted social media post, that the government had withheld Epstein-related records because "Trump is in the Epstein files." The president dismissed the claim, saying he "had nothing to do with it," but it sparked further interest in the government's records.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, although they were known to have interacted in social and professional circles in the early 2000s. The former president distanced himself from Epstein after the financier admitted soliciting prostitution from a minor in Florida and was sentenced to 18 months in prison in June, 2008.
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to make Epstein-related files public. A partial release occurred in February, overseen by Attorney General Pam Bondi.
But earlier this week, both Trump and Bondi announced that their investigation had turned up "no incriminating 'client list,'" prompting sharp criticism from Democrats, and even backlash from some of Trump's own MAGA supporters who had anticipated deeper revelations.
A memo, first reported by Axios, said investigators found "no incriminating 'client list'" and "no credible evidence ... that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals." It also said video footage from the Manhattan jail where Epstein was being held when he died supported a medical examiner's finding that he had died by suicide.
In a TruthSocial post on Saturday, Trump urged others to "not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) questions witnesses during a roundtable discussion on Supreme Court Ethics conducted by Democrats of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee at the Rayburn House Office Building on June 11, 2024 in...
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) questions witnesses during a roundtable discussion on Supreme Court Ethics conducted by Democrats of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee at the Rayburn House Office Building on June 11, 2024 in Washington, D.C. MoreforWhat To Know
Late Saturday, Khanna posted to his X account: "Why are the Epstein files still hidden? Who are the rich & powerful being protected? On Tuesday, I'm introducing an amendment to force a vote demanding the FULL Epstein files be released to the public. The Speaker must call a vote & put every Congress member on record."
The post has since had over 432k views.
Khanna's initiative is seen as a way to hold both Congress and the Justice Department accountable, especially as the Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Trump-appointed officials, including Bondi, recently reversed its previous commitment to release more documents.
The move is also politically strategic. If Khanna's proposal is accepted, it would force a House vote on releasing the full Epstein files, allowing the public to see how each representative stands on the matter, with many praising it as a savvy political move that puts pressure on those trying to avoid scrutiny.
This comes after months of mounting bipartisan frustration. Though Democrats have led the charge, some Republican voices have also joined the call for full transparency. However, the Justice Department's decision to halt further disclosures has renewed criticism that the agency is protecting politically sensitive figures.
Earlier this month, congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, called for the release of any documents mentioning Trump.
What People Are Saying
In response to criticism of his proposal on X, Khanna said: "This is about transparency and restoring trust, not partisan politics. The public outcry is apparent. The files should be fully released and can be done so consistent with DOJ principles of protecting victims and the innocent."
What Happens Next
Even if the measure fails, Khanna's supporters argue it will create a clear public record—either the files will be released, or voters will know exactly who stood in the way. With trust in government transparency at stake, the coming vote could mark a pivotal moment in the long-running Epstein saga.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
4 minutes ago
- Politico
House Judiciary Dems call for DOJ leaders to testify on Epstein fallout
Senate Majority Leader John Thune says he will bring the first procedural vote to the floor Tuesday on the White House's request to claw back $9.4 billion in spending. It's not clear he has even the 51 votes necessary to start debate on the package. Congress needs to approve the request before it expires Friday, or the administration will have to spend the money as lawmakers originally intended. That deadline is looming large as several GOP senators insist the administration clarify what spending it is actually seeking to rescind. They'll question President Donald Trump's budget director Russ Vought during senators' closed-door lunch Tuesday afternoon. 'We still are lacking the level of detail that is needed to make the right decisions,' Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins told reporters Monday evening. 'It's extremely unusual for any senator to not be able to get that kind of detailed information.' The Maine Republican is concerned not just over the administration's proposal to scale down the global AIDS-fighting program PEPFAR, but also about broader cutbacks in overseas public health. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) told POLITICO he's particularly interested in protecting funding for global food aid programs like Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. It's increasingly evident the rescissions package will have to be changed in order to pass the Senate, and Thune told reporters as he left the Capitol on Monday that leadership is working with wary senators to 'see what a path forward on amendments looks like.' Senate leaders expect a vote-a-rama on amendments to start Wednesday, teeing up a final vote late Wednesday or early Thursday. If senators are able to advance a package with tweaks, House GOP leaders plan to put the package on the floor Thursday; they have already started to clear away procedural hurdles that would prevent them from passing the spending cut proposal ASAP. Throwing another wrinkle into it all, though, is that House GOP leaders don't want the Senate amending the package at all, knowing their members will be jammed with changes they don't like and be forced to choose between passing a watered-down product or missing the deadline to act. 'I think you got to respect the White House's request, and that's what we did, so I hope that's what we get back,' Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday. 'There are two big categories of rescissions, and I'm not sure either of them should be subject to dispute.' It's also unclear whether an amended rescissions package would even have the support in the Republican House. Fiscal hawks are already drawing red lines, with Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) going as far as telling POLITICO he won't support a rescissions package that is 'a penny less' than the House-approved version. MEANWHILE, IN OTHER FUNDING FIGHTS — Senate appropriators remain at a standstill on moving a funding bill forward for the Commerce and Justice departments. They're trying to schedule a briefing with the FBI on the administration's rationale for abandoning the plan to move the bureau to suburban Maryland, according to Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), whose stand against Trump's desire for a site in the District of Columbia derailed a markup of the bill last week. But Van Hollen insists that even if the FBI assures senators that the Washington location is a secure site, he won't back off his attempt to block the administration from diverting about $1.4 billion that has been set aside for relocating the agency's campus to Maryland. Across the Capitol: House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole said that House leaders began whipping votes Monday night as the chamber prepares to take its vote on the $831.5 billion defense appropriations bill later this week. While defense appropriations bills have been bipartisan in the past, Republicans are expecting this measure to be a largely party-line affair. What else we're watching: — Epstein meltdown: We'll see if Republican leaders' headache from their members over the DOJ's failure to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein continues. Rep. Norman voted Monday in favor of a Democratic amendment in the House Rules Committee that would have forced a floor vote on the DOJ releasing more materials from the federal case. — Russia sanctions timeline: The bipartisan Russian sanctions bill might stall in the House and Senate after Trump announced secondary tariffs on countries trading with Russia. Thune said Monday he would hold off on advancing the bill for now. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise also said a vote could be delayed to post-August recess. — Dems' last stand against a controversial Trump pick: Senate Democrats are making a final bid to draw the spotlight to a whistleblower's allegations that Emil Bove, a top Justice Department official and 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals nominee, urged defiance of the same judicial branch he is seeking to join. Democrats want the whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, to testify before senators prior to their confirmation vote on Bove, which is set for Thursday morning. Jordain Carney, Katherine Tully-McManus, Jennifer Scholtes, Meredith Lee Hill and Cassandra Dumay contributed to this report.
Fast Company
5 minutes ago
- Fast Company
You credit score could be negatively impacted by this controversial court ruling about medical debt
Last Friday, a federal judge axed a Biden-era rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would have prohibited consumer credit reporting agencies from including certain medical debts on consumer credit reports. The CFPB rule amended a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulatory exception that allowed creditors to obtain and use information on medical debts. The rule had been finalized shortly before the Biden administration left office and was set to take effect on March 15. However, legal challenges delayed its start date. The rule prohibited creditors from considering medical information when determining credit eligibility and restricted credit reporting agencies from including certain types of medical debt information in consumer credit reports. Medical debt will stay on credit reports On July 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sean Jordan of the Eastern District Court in Texas reversed the Biden-era rule. In his opinion, Jordan, a Trump appointee, said that the court found that rule exceeded the CFPB's authority under the FCRA. The federal lawsuit was filed on January 7, the same day the Biden-era rule had been finalized. In the legal complaint, the Cornerstone Credit Union League and the Consumer Data Industry Association asserted that the rule violated the law and that only Congress had the authority to make such changes. The Trump-era CFPB, along with acting director Russell Vought, joined the lawsuit on April 30, with the agency asking the court to vacate the rule. In response to the ruling, Senate Democrats led by Raphael Warnock of Georgia wrote a letter to Vought asking for an explanation about the reversal. 'Medical debt collections information is often inaccurate, and studies show that it is not useful in determining a consumer's ability to repay other debts,' the senators wrote. Fast Company reached out to CFPB for comment. Court order impacts millions of Americans with medical debt CFPB research found that a medical bill on a credit report isn't a good indicator of a person's ability to repay a loan. Research also showed that medical debt on credit reports contributed to mortgage application denials for loans that consumers would have been able to afford. In its January announcement, the CFPB stated that the rule would remove an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from credit reports and affect approximately 15 million Americans. It added that people with medical debt on their credit reports could see an average boost of 20 points on their score. However, now that the rule has been reversed, debt will remain on consumer credit reports, and creditors are still allowed to consider medical debt when making credit decisions.
Axios
5 minutes ago
- Axios
House GOP blocks second Dem attempt to release Epstein files
House Republicans on Tuesday voted down another Democratic procedural maneuver aimed at forcing the Justice Department to release documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. Why it matters: It's the second time this week Democrats have forced their GOP colleagues to choose between loyalty to President Trump and a MAGA base that is furious at his administration over its handling of the Epstein files. Democrats are already promising future votes: "That was probably not the last time that you're going to see us deal with this issue," House Rules Committee ranking member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) told Axios. Republicans dismissed the vote as a cynical partisan ploy, with Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) telling Axios: "It's just politics, it's not about protecting little children. And that ticks me off." What happened: The House voted 211-210 against allowing a House vote on Rep. Ro Khanna's (D-Calif.) measure to force the DOJ to publish the Epstein files online within 30 days. Democrats' procedural motion would have scuttled the GOP's legislative agenda for the day in favor of the Khanna bill, making it difficult for Republicans to vote for it. The vote fell along party lines, with all Democrats who were present voting for their party's maneuver and all Republicans voting against it. It came after Republicans on the House Rules Committee voted Monday night against attaching the Epstein language to a broader cryptocurrency and defense funding vote. What they're saying: Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who voted for the Khanna measure in the Rules Committee on Monday, told Axios he did so because "I believe in transparency, I believe in putting things on the table." But, with regards to the Tuesday vote on the House floor, he said he believes Attorney General Pam Bondi has "an independent party that's looking at it," which he called "the right course." Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) offered a simpler explanation: Republicans generally vote against such Democratic procedural motions, and this time shouldn't be an exception. The other side: "These guys have [trafficked] in conspiracy theories for as long as I can remember, and it's coming home to bite them in the ass and they don't know how to deal with it," said McGovern. "They riled up a base that is demanding more information, and because they're more afraid of Trump than they are their own constituents, they're providing him a circle of protection," the Massachusetts Democrat added. Yes, but: Despite his party rejecting the Khanna measure, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in an interview that "we should put everything out there and let the people decide it."
