Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna has carefully cultivated a reputation as a reform-minded lawmaker willing to challenge powerful interests, particularly when it comes to transparency surrounding the Epstein files. His public insistence that political connections to Jeffrey Epstein should be fully examined has earned him praise from those who believe the scandal transcends party lines. Now, recent disclosures have placed that posture under a sharper spotlight, offering Khanna an opportunity to demonstrate whether his rhetoric is matched by resolve.
The latest tranche of documents released by the Department of Justice has drawn renewed attention to Democratic Del. Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands. According to multiple emails contained in the release, Plaskett used a pseudonym, “LeRoy Daughter,” to communicate with Epstein in 2017, soliciting his financial support for a proposed “new voter file.”
The project was described as a data-driven effort to catalog recent voters in the Virgin Islands, updating their contact information to assist campaign messaging, phone banking, and get-out-the-vote operations. In her pitch, Plaskett portrayed the initiative as a strategic advantage that would allow favored candidates to outperform their opponents across multiple races.
cc @RoKhanna https://t.co/nLQKky6ath pic.twitter.com/PllS56moMT
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) February 10, 2026
The substance of the request is notable, but the context is more troubling. By 2017, Epstein’s criminal history was widely known. He had been convicted in 2008 of soliciting a minor for prostitution, and his name was synonymous with allegations of sexual exploitation.
Despite this, the emails suggest not only continued communication but a level of comfort and familiarity that extended beyond a single exchange. Subsequent revelations show that Plaskett received text messages from Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing, with Epstein allegedly offering guidance on what questions to ask. Plaskett later characterized these communications as routine constituent interaction, a defense that has done little to quiet scrutiny.
The timeline intensifies the questions. Epstein’s arrest in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges underscored the seriousness of his alleged crimes, yet documents indicate that Plaskett’s interactions with him continued well into that period. Emails also show her inviting Epstein to political events and, at one point in 2018, asking whether she could refer to him as a “friend.” Taken together, these details suggest a relationship that was neither incidental nor fleeting.
This is where Khanna’s prior statements become relevant. He has argued that individuals with direct personal or professional ties to Epstein should be compelled to testify before Congress.
If that principle is applied consistently, Plaskett would appear to fall squarely within its scope. The questions raised by her communications are not partisan in nature; they concern judgment, influence, and the extent to which a convicted sex offender may have had access to or sway over an elected official.