Rep. Thomas Massie wants Howard Lutnick gone. The Kentucky Republican said Sunday that the Commerce Secretary should step down after newly released Epstein files revealed business dealings between Lutnick and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein years after Epstein's 2008 conviction in Florida — dealings Lutnick had effectively denied.
Massie didn't mince words on CNN's Inside Politics Sunday when asked whether Lutnick should testify before Congress about his ties to Epstein: "No, he should just resign."
Documents released by the Department of Justice paint a timeline that directly contradicts Lutnick's prior claim that he and his wife severed ties with Epstein in 2005. As reported by the Washington Examiner, email records show Lutnick apparently planned to get drinks with Epstein in 2011. By December 2012, the two men signed an agreement on behalf of limited liability companies to acquire stakes in Adfin, an advertising technology company that would later shutter. That same month, Lutnick planned to visit Epstein's private island — an invitation that extended to his family.
Three years after Epstein's conviction. Seven years after the supposed cutoff.
Massie drew a pointed comparison across the Atlantic, where Epstein's network has already cost multiple public figures their positions.
"There are three people in Great Britain that have resigned in politics … for less than what we've seen Howard Lutnick lie about."
He's not exaggerating. Peter Mandelson, the British politician once tapped as ambassador to the United States, was removed from that post last year over his known ties to Epstein. Last week, Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and quit the governing Labour Party entirely. On Sunday — the same day Massie made his remarks — Morgan McSweeney, an aide to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, resigned for recommending Mandelson serve as ambassador in the first place. And last fall, King Charles III formally stripped Prince Andrew of his royal titles over his alleged association with Epstein.
Britain is clearing house. Massie wants to know why Washington isn't.
"He should make life easier on the president, frankly, and just resign. If this were Great Britain, he'd already be gone."
Lutnick's office responded not with an explanation of the timeline, but with a pivot to policy wins. The Commerce Department issued a statement calling the revelations "nothing more than a failing attempt by the legacy media to distract from the administration's accomplishments, including securing trillions of dollars in investment, delivering historic trade deals, and fighting for the American worker."
The statement added that Lutnick "had limited interactions with Mr. Epstein in the presence of his wife and has never been accused of wrongdoing."
"Limited interactions" is doing extraordinary work in that sentence. Signing a joint business agreement through LLCs, planning a family trip to a convicted sex trafficker's private island, and keeping in touch via email for years after a supposed 2005 breakup — that's not limited interaction. That's a relationship. The Commerce Department is betting that nobody reads the documents. Millions of pages suggest otherwise.
Massie co-led the bipartisan effort with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) that forced the Trump administration to release the Epstein files. President Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law late last year, and at the end of January, over three million pages of investigative documents hit the public record — though only in partial form.
The administration has faced criticism for failing to release unredacted files in full and on time. Massie and Khanna have urged Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to grant Congress the ability to view the complete, unredacted versions. That access begins Monday, when members of Congress can start reviewing the full scope of those three million-plus pages.
What they find will matter. Massie is convinced Lutnick visited the island if the interactions outlined in the files are accurate. Whether that conviction holds up against the full documentary record is precisely what congressional review is designed to determine.
Massie is no stranger to bucking his own party — he's been described as a vocal critic of President Trump. But this isn't an intraparty squabble. This is a straightforward question: Should a Cabinet secretary who appears to have lied about his relationship with a convicted sex trafficker remain in office?
The conservative position here isn't complicated. Transparency in government is not a concession to the media. Accountability for public officials is not a Democratic talking point. And the Epstein files exist precisely because conservatives — Massie chief among them — fought to make them public. The entire point was to follow the truth wherever it landed, including into uncomfortable territory.
Britain grasped this. Mandelson is out. McSweeney is out. Prince Andrew lost his titles. The common thread: association with Epstein carries consequences, regardless of party, regardless of station.
Lutnick's Commerce Department can cite trade deals and investment numbers all it wants. None of those answers why its secretary was signing business agreements with Jeffrey Epstein four years after the man pleaded guilty in Florida. The documents are public now. The timeline speaks for itself. And starting Monday, Congress gets the unredacted version.
Massie already knows what he thinks the answer is. The files will tell the rest of us.
