Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie are challenging the Justice Department for redacting the names of six men in the publicly released materials related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — and they could take matters into their own hands to reveal their identities.

These omissions, the two lawmakers argued Monday evening outside the Justice Department, could go beyond the scope of redactions that are permitted under the legislation they championed — and which President Donald Trump signed into law in November — to compel the full release of Epstein files within DOJ’s possession.

And while they declined to share the names with reporters Monday, Massie, a Kentucky Republican, didn’t rule out taking steps to do so in the coming days. He told reporters he should “probably” broadcast the identity of the shielded individuals “from the floor or in a committee hearing,” where his remarks would be protected from lawsuits through the Speech and Debate Clause.

“What we’re after is the men who Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women to,” said Massie, adding he would give DOJ officials the opportunity to “correct their mistakes” and reverse the redactions on their own before reading the names of the six men on the chamber floor or from a committee dais.

Massie said at least one of the men was a U.S. citizen, another was a foreigner and the nationalities of others were unclear. He suggested authorities were investigating at least one of them.

“There are six men, some of them with their photographs, that have been redacted, and there’s no explanation why those people were redacted,” Khanna, a California Democrat, told reporters. “That’s really concerning.”

Khanna and Massie were at a DOJ office building Monday to peruse the unredacted Epstein files, a privilege being afforded to members of Congress following the files’ public release. The lawmakers scrutinized the unscrubbed materials on closely-held computers — though Massie complained he was unable to view some documents that have since been taken down from the Justice Department website after being posted publicly.

Khanna suggested that some materials may have been redacted before the Justice Department review — potentially by the FBI — complicating the process for complete transparency.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, also viewed the unredacted materials earlier in the day Monday. He said there were about four computers for lawmakers’ use and viewers can only take written notes on what they see.

“We didn’t want to see any redactions of the names of co-conspirators, accomplices, enablers, abusers, rapists, simply to spare them potential embarrassment, political sensitivity or disgrace of some kind,” Raskin told reporters. “And yet nonetheless, the Epstein … documents that were released are filled with redactions of names and information about people who clearly are not victims and may fall into that other category.”

He pointed to the redaction of Les Wexner’s identity as an example. Wexner, the former CEO of Victoria’s Secret, was an Epstein client and has a deposition scheduled before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later this month.

Raskin also said he saw one redacted document, a message from Epstein’s legal team regarding Trump. He recalled the note mentioned that Trump had identified Epstein as a guest, but not a member, of Mar-a-Lago.

“That was redacted for some indeterminate, inscrutable reason,” he said.

The Congressional investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein hit its latest snag Monday morning when Epstein’s longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, declined to answer questions in a sworn deposition.

Maxwell, now serving a 20-year sentence for her part in Epstein’s sex trafficking scheme, invoked her Fifth Amendment right over video from a prison camp in Texas, months after she had been subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In a copy of Maxwell’s lawyer’s opening statement obtained by Blue Light News, David Oscar Markus reiterated that grant of clemency would facilitate her testimony — a power only President Donald Trump can bestow. He has not ruled out issuing a pardon.

“Only she can provide the complete account. Some may not like what they hear, but the truth matters,” according to Markus’ prepared remarks. “For example, both President Trump and President Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing. Ms. Maxwell alone can explain why, and the public is entitled to that explanation.”

He also noted some of Maxwell’s legal proceedings were still ongoing.

Democrats accused Maxwell of using the deposition as part of a campaign for clemency from Trump, while Oversight Chair James Comer told reporters he did not believe Maxwell should be granted clemency.

“Unfortunately, she had an opportunity today to answer questions that every American has — questions that would be very important in this investigation — and she chose to invoke her Fifth Amendment right,” the Kentucky Republican said.

Rank-and-file members of the panel who shuffled into the deposition room Monday morning for Maxwell’s questioning included Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who is running for governor, and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Il.), who is running for Senate.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said he intended to view the unredacted Epstein files from the Justice Department Monday afternoon. He also noted he would be joined by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), with whom Khanna led the effort to force a floor vote on the release of the files.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is facing bipartisan calls to resign after he appeared in a recent batch of files linked to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) accused Lutnick in a statement Monday of having “lied” about the extent of his connection to Epstein. Lutnick has sought to downplay their relationship, saying in a podcast appearance last year he vowed in 2005 to never again be in the same room as Epstein.

But files recently released by the Justice Department suggest he continued his interactions with Epstein, including planning a visit several years later to Epstein’s Caribbean island.

“Lutnick’s lies about his business dealings with a convicted child sex offender, raise serious concerns about his judgement and ethics,” Schiff said. “Lutnick has no business being our Commerce Secretary, and he should resign immediately.”

The Commerce Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson previously said that Lutnick had “limited interactions with Mr. Epstein in the presence of his wife and has never been accused of wrongdoing.”

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), who is leading an investigation into Epstein and has already subpoenaed multiple associates, did not rule out issuing one for Lutnick. But he said the panel’s outstanding subpoenas take priority for now.

“We’re interested in talking to anyone that might have any information that would help us get justice for the survivorship,” he told reporters Monday.

Schiff is joining a bipartisan chorus of House members who have called in recent days for Lutnick to either resign or be fired – neither of which appears to be on the precipice of happening.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) told CNN during an interview that aired over the weekend that Lutnick should “make life easier on the president, frankly, and just resign.” House Democrats, including top Oversight Committee member Robert Garcia, have also called on Lutnick to go.

“It’s now clear that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has been lying about his relationship with Epstein,” the Californian posted on X. “Lutnick must resign or be fired. And he must answer our questions.”

Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.