Epstein Data Wiki

Ro Khanna

Properties2
tagsperson, congress, house-of-representatives, legislation, oversight, epstein-files-transparency-act, press-clipping, mailing-list, 2013, 2020, 2021, 2025, 2026
aliasesRo Khanna, Khanna, Ro

32 min read

Name as printed in the files”Ro Khanna”, in his own signature block and in his own byline; “Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)” in press summaries; “Mr. Khanna” in the House print of the bill he introduced1234
How the documents describe himBy his own signature block of 25 July 2025: “Member of Congress”. By his own byline of 15 February 2013: “a deputy assistant secretary of commerce from 2009 to 2011”. By a press summary of April 2021: “the Congressional India Caucus Vice Chair”. By a federal court, January 2026: a co-sponsor of the Epstein Files Transparency Act1256
Documents naming him in the released files19, on searches run 26 October 2026 and described at the foot of this page7
Earliest and latest dated documents15 February 2013 and 4 September 202527
Documents he wroteTwo. A letter of 25 July 2025, on Committee on Oversight and Government Reform letterhead, signed by him and by Robert Garcia, demanding an unredacted copy of the 2003 “birthday book” from the Epstein estate’s counsel; and a Washington Post article of 15 February 2013 printed under his own byline12
Anything from Jeffrey Epstein to him, or from him to EpsteinNone. Nothing read for this page is addressed by either man to the other, and nothing read for this page records a meeting, a call or a reply between them8
MoneyNone in either direction in anything read for this page8
AllegationsNone. This page carries no allegation against him of any kind
His responseNot applicable and not sought. Nothing on this page is put to him as a question, and no request for comment was made for it

Ro Khanna

what this page is about, and what it is not

This page records what the released Epstein files show about a serving Member of Congress, and what they do not. It is not a biography, and it is not an account of the statute he introduced, which has its own page. He is not accused of anything here. Most of the file that carries his name is a commercial press-clipping service, and a press clipping is evidence that a clipping service clipped something: it is not evidence that the person named in it did anything at all.

Nineteen documents in the released files carry the name Ro Khanna, and seventeen of them are documents he had no hand in. Eleven are a commercial news digest published five days a week for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Director and senior staff, in which his name appears because an outlet had mentioned him in the previous day’s reporting: about postal sorting machines, about a Saudi-policy conference, about vaccine supplies to India, and about an award listed at the In Defense of Christians 2020 Summit. Three are issues of a later Bureau news briefing summarising press reporting on the Epstein files. Three are copies of a private weekend newsletter, written and sent by somebody else, which circulated an article of his to a mailing list. Eleven and three and three make the seventeen.

Two of the nineteen are his own writing: one letter and one newspaper article. On 25 July 2025 he and Robert Garcia of California wrote to three lawyers acting for Jeffrey Epstein’s estate and asked them to hand over the 2003 “birthday book”; the other is a Washington Post article of February 2013, dealt with further down. Two and seventeen make the nineteen. Only the letter is an act directed at anybody in these files: it is the one document of the nineteen in which he asks somebody for something, and it is where this page starts.

The letter of 25 July 2025

The letter runs to two pages on the letterhead of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress, which names James Comer of Kentucky as Chairman and Robert Garcia of California as Ranking Member. It is addressed to Daniel S. Ruzumna of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Daniel H. Weiner of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, and Bennet J. Moskowitz of Troutman Pepper Locke LLP. Its request is a single sentence:1

To assist in bringing transparency and accountability, we request that you provide a complete, unredacted copy of the 2003 “birthday book” no later than August 10, 2025, which may provide information essential to further our constitutionally obligated congressional oversight efforts.

The letter states the ground on which it is written, and it does so in one opening sentence that begins with the President: “As President Trump continues his desperate attempts to quell public interest in the release of files related to his longtime friend, convicted sex offender, and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, we write with deep concern regarding potential public corruption, abuse of power, and failures in the federal law enforcement response to the Epstein case”. The two Members source the book’s existence to press reporting rather than to anything the Committee holds: “Recent public reporting indicates that the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein is in possession of a document commonly referred to as “the birthday book,” compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell in 2003 in celebration of Mr. Epstein’s 50th birthday, which has clear relevance to this case.” It footnotes that sentence to the Wall Street Journal of 17 July 2025, at the letter’s footnote 1, and to nothing else. The New York Times of 24 July 2025 is the letter’s footnote 3, on a later sentence about the selective release of the Department’s Epstein files.1

On the second page it ties the request to a step the Committee had already taken. That sentence begins at the foot of the first sheet, which ends “In addition, the Committee on Oversight”, and resumes at the top of the second: “and Government Reform has issued a subpoena to depose Ms. Maxwell, the book’s alleged creator, and should be permitted to review its contents”. The two sheets are quoted separately here and are not joined. The letter adds a possible legislative use: “Information gathered from this document may also inform the development of legislative reforms addressing sex trafficking networks, financial regulation, or other critical matters of public policy.”1 Its authority is given as House Rule X: the Committee is “the principal oversight committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.”1

The letter is signed, and the signatures are handwriting rather than type. Beneath the word “Sincerely,” the page carries two signature rules with typed names under them: Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, on the left, and Ro Khanna, Member of Congress, on the right. Above each rule the file carries a separate image of a manuscript signature. The right-hand one begins with a legible “Ro”. A copy is sent to Chairman Comer.19

What the record does not put beside it. Nothing read for this page is an answer to this letter, from the estate, from any of the three lawyers, or from anyone else; nothing read for this page records whether the book was produced by 10 August 2025, withheld, or ignored; and nothing read for this page records what the Committee did next.8

What most of the file actually is

Eleven of the nineteen documents are copies of four issues of a commercial press digest, and they say so themselves. Each is an e-mail headed to the Bureau’s Director and senior staff, sent by a vendor whose name is printed in the sender field, Bulletin Intelligence, and each closes with a block that describes the product in the vendor’s own words. Two sentences of that block are quoted here, and they are separate sentences on the sheet:10

Copyright 2020 by Bulletin Intelligence LLC Reproduction or redistribution without permission prohibited. Content is drawn from thousands of newspapers, national magazines, national and local television programs, radio broadcasts, social-media platforms and additional forms of open-source data.

The FBI News Briefing is published five days a week by Bulletin Intelligence, which creates custom briefings for government and corporate leaders.

The eleven are four days, not eleven events. Three of them are copies of the briefing of 25 August 2020, three of the briefing of 23 September 2020, four of the briefing of 1 October 2020 and one of the briefing of 26 April 2021. What names him on each of those four days is this:1112135

BriefingThe item that names him
25 August 2020A summary of coverage of the Postmaster General’s appearance before a House committee, quoting the Washington Times; the sentence is below11
23 September 2020A day-ahead listing for the In Defense of Christians 2020 Summit, among a long list of senators and representatives of both parties receiving the organisation’s Congressional Champion Award12
1 October 2020A day-ahead listing for a Project on Middle East Democracy conference on Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia, among the Members giving remarks13
26 April 2021A summary of Reuters on United States assistance to India during the Covid-19 surge; the sentence is below5

The two of those four items that quote him directly are these. The 25 August 2020 briefing prints, as its own quotation of the Washington Times:11

Later in the hearing, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) asked “what’s the harm” in restoring the machines.

And the 26 April 2021 briefing prints, as its own summary of Reuters:5

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), the Congressional India Caucus Vice Chair, “welcomed the announcement” but urged Biden to “give India the United States’ unused COVID-19 vaccines doses from AstraZeneca.”

None of those four items has anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein, and none records an act by this subject toward anyone in these files. The measurement is exact, and it is narrower than it first looks: Epstein’s name appears on none of the eleven sheets that carry this subject’s name, against a control sheet of August 2025 where both appear together. The briefings themselves are whole days of news and eight of the eleven do mention Epstein somewhere in their other sheets, which is a fact about what a daily digest covers and not a fact about this subject. They are in the released material because the Bureau’s copies of that digest were produced, and nothing more should be read into them than that.14

Three further documents are the Bureau’s later Daily News Briefing, a different product with a different masthead, which carries the date, the Bureau’s name and the words Daily News Briefing on three separate lines above the parenthesis “(In coordination with the Office of Public Affairs)”. The one this page quotes is the briefing of 15 August 2025, whose item “Continued Reporting: Jeffrey Epstein Battle Set to Reignite in Congress” summarises The Hill of the previous day:3

a bipartisan pair of lawmakers, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), planning to force a vote on releasing federal files related to Epstein

The released files hold two further briefings, of early September 2025, that name him in the same connection; the briefing of 15 August above is the one this page draws on.15 As with the earlier digest, a Bureau news briefing records what an outlet published, not what the Bureau found, and this page treats every one of them that way.

February 2013: an article, and a mailing list

A Washington Post article he wrote in 2013 is in the released files. It is not a communication between him and Jeffrey Epstein, and nothing read for this page makes it one.

The article itself sits in the release as a three-sheet print of the newspaper’s web page, dated 15 February 2013, headed “Five myths about manufacturing jobs” and bylined to him. Its standfirst is the source of the description in the infobox above: “Ro Khanna, a deputy assistant secretary of commerce from 2009 to 2011, is the author of” the book it then names.2

It reached the files inside a private weekend newsletter sent on Sunday 5 May 2013, nearly three months after the article was published. The sheet carrying that newsletter’s header prints its sender’s name, the date, and a recipient field reading “undisclosed-recipients:”. The newsletter’s body is a private individual’s commentary on the Sunday political talk shows; it refers to the article in the third person, as something “I have included” this week; and the article is one item in a list of attachments. Thirteen attachment filenames are printed on that sheet, read at the page image, and that is the whole of the list. Among the thirteen, his article appears as a filename:16

Five_myths_about_manufacturing_jobs_Ro_Khanna_TWP_February_15,_2013.pdf

This is a mailing list, and the measurement says so. His name and the e-mail address the released files carry as Jeffrey Epstein’s occur together on exactly one sheet in the whole release, the header sheet above, and on that sheet his name occurs inside the name of a file. The same search run against the newsletter’s own sender and the same address returns 245 documents. Being on somebody’s distribution list is not contact, and this page records no contact.17

The statute, and the court

This page does not retell the legislative history of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which is set out with its Congressional Record citations at the Act’s own page. Two facts about this subject belong here, and both come from official sources rather than from the released files.

The first is that he introduced the bill. The House print of H.R. 4405, 119th Congress, records: “Mr. Khanna (for himself and Mr. Massie) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”, on July 15, 2025. It became Public Law 119–38 on 19 November 2025.418

The second is that he and Thomas Massie went to a federal court over the Department’s compliance with it and were refused. On 13 January 2026 the two Members moved for leave to take part in the closed criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell as friends of the court. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, who describes them in the opinion as “Representatives Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)” and as “co-sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act”, denied the motion on 21 January 2026 on two grounds, the second being that “the motion exceeds the bounds of permissible amici participation.” The order states that the denial is without prejudice to the Members’ right to bring a separate lawsuit, and adds that they are “at liberty to pursue oversight of DOJ via the tools available to Congress.”6

What the files do not show

  • No contact in either direction. Nothing read for this page is addressed by Jeffrey Epstein to this subject or by this subject to him; nothing records a meeting, a telephone call, a message or a reply between them. This project’s own index of the released material records a sender for 831,581 documents and names no Khanna in any of them, against a control search on the mailing-list sender’s name that returns 191.8
  • No money. Nothing read for this page records a payment, fee, donation, invoice or benefit between them or between any entity of theirs, in either direction.8
  • No allegation. Nothing read for this page alleges anything against him.
  • Nothing dated between 26 April 2021 and 25 July 2025. The searches described below located no document of this subject dated in that interval, and this page makes no claim about a period they did not reach.7
  • No answer to his letter. See above.8
  • Nothing about his motives, his wider politics or his career outside these documents. This page does not cover them.

How these documents were found, and what the search could not reach

A search of the released files for the surname alone, run on 26 October 2026, matches 37 documents, and that figure is wrong as a count of documents about anybody. One of the 37 does not contain the name anywhere in its text at all, because it matched its own filename, which in this one case is a descriptive phrase rather than a reference number. That match is the first of the two sheets of his own letter, which this index enters as two entries, so striking it also stops the letter from being counted twice and leaves it counted once in what follows. One of the remaining 36 carries the letters of the surname only as scanning damage, on a sheet read at the page image and found to print no such name. So the surname reaches 35 documents carrying a person of that name, and those 35 are not one person: the surname is a common one and it is borne in these files by eight different people, of whom this subject is one. Five of the other seven are reached by a different forename printed beside the surname; the other two are printed with no forename at all, one with a federal prosecutor’s title and one as a surname and initials in a scientific reference list. This page covers none of them. The eight-way split was measured here by those printed forms, against a control form that returns no document at all.19

A search for the forename and surname together returns 19 documents across 20 sheets, and those 19 are this page’s population. Sixteen of the twenty sheets print the two words side by side; on the other four they are separated by a line break or joined by underscores inside a filename, which is why a search that insisted on the literal spacing would have missed them. Two further searches reach documents about the statute that do not name him: the Act’s title, 5 documents, and the phrase “discharge petition”, 3 documents. The three sets do not overlap at all, so the union across all three forms is 27 documents. That is a floor on how far these strings reach, not a count of how much of the record is about him.19

The honest limit. The index of the released files holds more than twelve million distinct words and cannot be listed in a single pass, so a spelling of this name whose first two letters both differ from the correct ones would not have been reached. Arms for the initial forms, for the honorific forms, for the bill number and for the beheaded spellings that this release’s transmission damage produces were run and returned nothing on every one: the bill number in particular reaches 111 documents of unrelated numeric matter and none of them is this bill, so it is excluded here and should never be counted into a figure about him.19

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. Letter of July 25, 2025 from Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, and Ro Khanna, Member of Congress, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Daniel S. Ruzumna, Daniel H. Weiner and Bennet J. Moskowitz, 2 pages. Published by the Committee’s minority at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2025-07-25.garcia-khanna-to-epstein-estate-re-birthday-book.pdf and fetched there on 26 October 2026 (HTTP 200, 182,929 bytes, against a control request for an invented filename on the same host which returned 404). This is a born-digital document, not a scan: it was produced from a word processor and its text is embedded type rather than a photograph of paper, so the type is the document and the quotations above are taken from it directly. All quotations are reproduced as printed. Where a quotation above runs across a line break in the source, the break is a right-hand-margin wrap inside a single justified paragraph. This project’s own copy of the same letter is indexed under the descriptive identifier 2025-07-25.garcia-khanna-to-epstein-estate-re-birthday-book; that identifier does not resolve to a document page on this project’s site, so no link is built from it. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  2. “Five myths about manufacturing jobs”, by Ro Khanna, The Washington Post, February 15, 2013, a three-sheet print-to-file copy of the newspaper’s web page. EFTA02674567 p.1, stamped EFTA_R1_01956107; the run is 3 sheets. Read from the page image at 96 dots per inch, which is this route’s native resolution, and the printed stamp at the foot of the sheet was read there and not derived: counting pixels darker than grey 128 on the 816 × 1,073 pixel render, the foot band, meaning the bottom 50 rows at full width, measures 336 dark pixels at a minimum grey of 0, against a within-sheet body control of 2,742 dark pixels in the 50-row band at rows 317 to 366. Both figures were read at the page image, and the band geometry is given here so that a reader can repeat them. The sheet also prints its own folio as page 1 of 3. The standfirst quoted above is reproduced as printed and stops where this page stops quoting; the sheet’s standfirst runs on into the article’s first sentence without a break, and that fusion is on the sheet itself and is not repaired here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. FBI Daily News Briefing, August 15, 2025, summarising The Hill of 14 August 2025. EFTA00163621; the run is 13 sheets. Two sheets of it are cited here and each span is pinned to its own sheet, because the strings quoted above are not all on the same one. Served p.7 carries the item “Continued Reporting: Jeffrey Epstein Battle Set to Reignite in Congress” and the span quoted in the body, which is reproduced as printed and begins and ends mid-sentence. Served p.1 carries the subject line “[EXTERNAL EMAIL] - FBI Daily News Briefing - August 15, 2025”, the header date “Fri, 15 Aug 2025 10:20:13 +0000”, the line “(In coordination with the Office of Public Affairs)”, and the item’s title in the table of contents. Both sheets were read from the page image at 96 dots per inch. The subject line is quoted from the image, and the released text of that sheet closes the first bracket with a parenthesis instead, so a text search for the string as it is printed above will not find it; the bracket above is the one on the sheet. The masthead on served p.1 carries the date, the Bureau’s name and the words Daily News Briefing on three separate lines, and this page describes them rather than joining them into one quotation. This page asserts no printed stamp for either of these two sheets, in either direction. ↩ ↩2

  4. H.R. 4405, 119th Congress, as introduced in the House, July 15, 2025. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr4405ih/html/BILLS-119hr4405ih.htm — fetched 26 October 2026 and quoted from the official print. A request for an invented bill number on the same service returns a page headed “Page Not Found”, which is the control that discriminates a real package from a fabricated one here; the HTTP status code does not. ↩ ↩2

  5. FBI Public Affairs News Briefing, Monday, April 26, 2021. EFTA00149760 p.34; the run is 40 sheets. The sentence quoted above is the briefing’s summary of Reuters of 25 April 2021 and is reproduced as the released text of the briefing gives it, nested quotation marks included. This is the only copy of this day’s briefing located for this page, and it is the latest-dated of the eleven. The page image of this sheet was opened at 96 dots per inch on 26 October 2026 and the sentence quoted above was read there. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  6. Opinion & Order, Document 844, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), filed January 21, 2026 (Engelmayer, J.), 7 pages. https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Maxwell%2020cr330%20-%20Opinion%20&%20Order%201.21.26.pdf — fetched 26 October 2026 (HTTP 200, 1,057,127 bytes, a born-digital court filing). The motion is dated in the opinion as “In a motion filed January 13, 2026”. The opinion describes the Act as having been “enacted nearly unanimously by Congress, and signed into law, on November 19, 2025”. Two passages of this opinion carry stray spacing inside words when the document’s own text is read out of it, and this page quotes no span that touches them; the quotations above are reproduced as that text gives them, without repair. ↩ ↩2

  7. Searches of this project’s full-text index of the released files, all run 26 October 2026, each a token or phrase search and each reported as documents rather than sheets. The surname alone, matched across every indexed field, reaches 37 documents / 41 sheets; matched in document text only, 36 documents; matched in the identifier field, 2 entries, which are the two sheets of one two-page letter. Exactly one of the 37 contains the name nowhere in its text: it is the first of those two sheets, matched on its own descriptive identifier, and striking it leaves the letter counted once among the 36. One further document carries the letters only as scanning damage on a sheet whose page image prints no such name. 35 documents therefore carry a person of this surname, across eight different bearers, and 19 carry this subject. The forename and surname together: 19 documents / 20 sheets. On 16 of the 20 sheets the two words are printed side by side; on 4 they are separated by a line break or by underscores inside a filename. The Act’s title: 5 documents. The phrase “discharge petition”: 3 documents. The three sets have no document in common in any pair, so the union is 27 documents, and 27 is a floor on how far these three strings reach rather than a measure of how much of the record concerns him. Earliest and latest dated documents located: 15 February 2013 and 4 September 2025. The distribution of the 19 is: one letter he wrote; eleven copies of four issues of a commercial press digest; three Bureau daily briefings; three copies of one private newsletter; and one copy of the article he wrote. Two of the 19 are documents he wrote, the letter and the article, and the other seventeen are documents he had no hand in: 11 + 3 + 3 = 17, and 17 + 2 = 19. The three newsletter copies are not his: they were written and sent by somebody else and they carried his article. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. This is a statement about the documents read for this page, and about this project’s own index of the released material rather than about what any government has released. None of the 19 documents is from Jeffrey Epstein to this subject or from this subject to him; none records a meeting, a telephone call, a message or a reply between them; and none records a payment or benefit in either direction. Separately, this project’s index records a named sender for 831,581 documents in the released material and names no Khanna in that field, against a control query on the mailing-list sender’s name in the same field which returns 191. Nothing in that index is a record of what the producing agencies hold or released; it is a record of what this project has catalogued. No answer to the letter at [^letter] was located by the searches at [^union], and that is a statement about those searches and not about the Committee’s files. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  9. The letter’s two signatures and its masthead are carried in the file as images rather than as type, which is how a word-processed letter carries a handwritten signature. Read at their native resolution from the same document as [^letter]: the masthead graphic (1,584 × 374 pixels at 187 dots per inch) prints the Committee’s name, the Rayburn House Office Building address and the officers of the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress; the two signature graphics on the second page (582 × 205 at 271 dots per inch, and 440 × 187 at 220 dots per inch) are manuscript marks, the second of which opens with a legible “Ro”. This page describes the signatures and does not attempt to read either one beyond that. The typed names beneath the two signature rules are on separate lines from their titles on the sheet and are not joined into a quotation here. ↩

  10. FBI Public Affairs News Briefing, Wednesday, September 23, 2020, sent by Bulletin Intelligence. EFTA00149061 p.45; the run is 45 sheets. Read from the page image at 96 dots per inch. The copyright block is set in a tinted panel at the end of the briefing and its lines break at the right-hand margin, so each sentence quoted above is continuous prose on the sheet. The two sentences are not contiguous and are therefore printed above as two separate quotations rather than joined; the matter between them is the vendor’s list of audience-measurement suppliers and its note on platform terms of use, and it is described here rather than quoted. The foot of this sheet carries no printed stamp: counting pixels darker than grey 128 on the 816 × 1,056 pixel render, the foot band, meaning the bottom 50 rows at full width, measures 0 dark pixels at a minimum grey of 255, against a whole-sheet control of 26,702 dark pixels counted in the same run, which is what shows the count was live rather than dead. ↩

  11. FBI Public Affairs News Briefing, Tuesday, August 25, 2020. EFTA00136518 p.33; the run is 40 sheets. The sentence quoted above is itself the briefing’s quotation of the Washington Times of 24 August 2020 and is reproduced as the released text of the briefing gives it, nested quotation marks included. The same item appears in two further copies of the same day’s briefing, EFTA00149640 p.27 and EFTA01658425 p.28, which are not separately quoted. The page image of this sheet was opened at 96 dots per inch on 26 October 2026 and the sentence quoted above was read there; the two further copies are cited from the released text and nothing is quoted from either. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. FBI Public Affairs News Briefing, Wednesday, September 23, 2020, day-ahead listing. EFTA00149061 p.45, the sheet at [^bulletin], read from the page image at 96 dots per inch. The listing entry that names him begins on the preceding sheet and the line carrying his name is the first line of p.45, so the entry is read across both. He is one name in a list of senators and representatives of both parties. The same entry appears in two further copies of the same day’s briefing, EFTA00136693 p.53 and EFTA01658619 p.45, which are not separately quoted. ↩ ↩2

  13. FBI Public Affairs News Briefing, Thursday, October 1, 2020. EFTA00135712; the run is 42 sheets. Two sheets of it are cited here and each span is pinned to its own sheet. The day-ahead listing that names him is at served p.41. Served p.1 carries the vendor’s name in its sender field, the subject line “[EXTERNAL EMAIL] - FBI Public Affairs News Briefing Thursday, October 01, 2020” — quoted from the image, the released text of that sheet opening the bracketed phrase with a parenthesis instead, so a text search for the string as it is printed above will not find it — and a heading addressed to the Director and senior staff; that heading is printed with the letters spaced wide apart, which this page describes rather than quotes, because the spacing cannot be reproduced here. Served p.1 was read from the page image at 96 dots per inch, and its foot carries no printed stamp: counting pixels darker than grey 128 on the 816 × 1,056 pixel render, the foot band, meaning the bottom 50 rows at full width, measures 0 dark pixels at a minimum grey of 218, against a within-sheet body control of 889 dark pixels in the 50-row band at rows 316 to 365. The same listing appears in three further copies of the same day’s briefing, EFTA00136746 p.51, EFTA00148896 p.43 and EFTA01658495 p.43; they are named here as an ordinary bibliographic fact and nothing above is taken from them. ↩ ↩2

  14. Measured on 26 October 2026 across the eleven documents at [^dejoy], [^idc], [^pomed] and [^india]. Jeffrey Epstein’s name appears on none of the eleven sheets that carry this subject’s name, against a control sheet — served p.7 of the briefing at [^hill] — on which both names appear, so the query would have found it. Across whole documents the figures are different and are given here so that nobody mistakes the one for the other: eight of the eleven briefings mention Epstein somewhere among their other sheets, and four mention Ghislaine Maxwell, each briefing running between 34 and 53 sheets of a single day’s news coverage. Maxwell on its own reaches seven of the eleven, and three of those seven are a different person: the three copies of the 25 August 2020 briefing carry it once each, in an item on Korea policy, where the sheets describe its bearer as a former Special Forces officer and a North Korea expert. Four and three make the seven, and no briefing falls in both sets. A control token present in all eleven returns eleven in the same run and an invented token returns none; the figures were counted with line breaks and repeated spaces normalised away, because on one of those sheets the surname wraps across a line break. ↩

  15. Two further Daily News Briefings, of early September 2025, name him in connection with the same measure. The searches at [^union] reach them and they are counted in the 19. Nothing above is quoted or taken from either of them, and this page draws on the briefing at [^hill] instead. ↩

  16. Private e-mail newsletter, subject “Greg Brown’s Weekend Reading and Other Things… 05/05/2013”, sent Sunday, May 5, 2013. The attachment list quoted above is at EFTA01136195 p.1; the run is 20 sheets. The filename is reproduced exactly as the sheet prints it at the page image, where every separator inside it is an underscore, as in every other filename in the list. The released text of this sheet renders one of those underscores as a space; the image is followed above and the released text is not repaired inside the quotation. Five of the longer filenames wrap at the right-hand margin, which leaves their tails looking like separate entries; that wrapping is on the sheet itself and the released text reproduces the same five. What the released text adds is six further lines carrying only an underscore, and those have no counterpart at the image, where the list is thirteen filenames and nothing further. The newsletter’s covering commentary, which refers to the article in the third person, is on p.14 of the same document. The sender’s name, the sending date and the recipient field “undisclosed-recipients:” are read from a separate copy of the same mailing, EFTA01758290 p.1 (the run is 25 sheets), where each header label is printed in a left-hand column beside its own value on the same line, so no field is matched to a value by inference. On the sheet carrying the attachment list this page names no field at all: what it states is that the values printed on that sheet include the sender’s name, the recipient field above, and the e-mail address the released files carry as Jeffrey Epstein’s. The mailing is in the release in a third copy as well, EFTA02674542; it is named here as the ordinary bibliographic fact that the mailing was produced more than once, and nothing above is taken from it. The page images of EFTA01136195 p.1 and EFTA01758290 p.1 were opened at 96 dots per inch on 26 October 2026 and every value reported above was read there; p.14 is read from the released text and nothing is quoted from it. ↩

  17. Measured on 26 October 2026 against this project’s full-text index of the released files. A search for the forename and surname together with the address the files carry as Jeffrey Epstein’s, [email protected], returns 1 document — the header sheet at [^mail], where the name occurs inside an attachment filename. The same search shape run against the newsletter’s own sender together with the same address returns 245 documents, which is the control that proves the query would have found a message had one existed. A known-positive control token returns 567,984 documents and an invented control token returns 0, in the same run. ↩

  18. Epstein Files Transparency Act, Public Law 119–38, 139 Stat. 655 (Nov. 19, 2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ38/html/PLAW-119publ38.htm — fetched 26 October 2026. The enrolled text carries the note “Nov. 19, 2025 - [H.R. 4405]”. ↩

  19. Controls for the searches at [^union] and [^listmeasure], all in the same runs. A known-positive control token returns 567,984 documents / 752,295 sheets; an invented control token returns 0. The whole index holds 1,425,556 documents / 2,925,025 sheets. Forms that were run and returned nothing: the initial form of the forename with the surname; “congressman” with the surname; the surname with a different common forename; and the beheaded spellings that this release’s transmission damage produces, in which a name can lose its first letter. The bill number was run and is excluded. Searched as a bare number it reaches 111 documents, and the sampled matches are ledger figures, spreadsheet cells and a filename rather than references to this bill; searched as the bill is cited, with its chamber prefix, it returns 0 documents. It must not be counted into any figure about this subject. The eight-way split of the surname was measured on the same day by searching each bearer’s printed form beside it, which for two of the eight is a title or an initialled reference form rather than a forename; the eight return 19, 8, 6, 5, 2, 2, 2 and 1 documents respectively, and an invented form returns 0 in the same run. Those eight figures count document-and-bearer pairs and must not be added: five documents each carry three different bearers, so the eight sum to 45 pairs across a union of 35 documents, which is the figure the body gives. The other seven bearers are not named here, because naming them changes nothing on this page. Every sheet cited on this page was read in full before it was cited, and nothing on this page is taken from any passage concerning a complainant or a survivor in the Epstein case. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

Backlinks