Ro Khanna Says Trump Would Have Fired Lutnick Over Epstein Testimony

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) has gone on the record claiming that President Trump "would have fired" Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had he personally witnessed Lutnick's Senate confirmation testimony regarding Jeffrey Epstein. -s[1]-✦✦✦✦✦✦ The statement adds a sharp political edge to already-simmering debates about how the Trump administration handles Epstein-related disclosures and what accountability looks like inside a Cabinet confirmation process.

What Lutnick Said—and Why It Matters

During his Senate confirmation hearings, Howard Lutnick—the Cantor Fitzgerald CEO turned Commerce Secretary—made remarks concerning Jeffrey Epstein that struck several lawmakers as evasive or damaging. -s[2]-✦✦✦✦✦✦ While the full exchange drew limited mainstream attention at the time, Khanna's public comments have brought renewed focus to what exactly was said and whether the administration properly vetted it.

The Epstein files have remained a politically charged topic since a tranche of documents was released in early 2024, naming associates and alleged clients. -s[3]-✦✦✦✦✦✦ Any Cabinet official's connection to, or commentary about, that network carries immediate political weight—particularly for a party that spent years demanding transparency on the matter.

Khanna's Argument: A Test of Internal Accountability

Khanna's core claim is pointed: he's not just criticizing Lutnick—he's suggesting Trump himself would be angered by the testimony if he'd actually seen it. -s[1]-✦✦✦✦✦✦ This framing does two things at once:

• It pressures Republicans to address what their own Commerce Secretary said under oath
• It challenges the White House to either distance itself from Lutnick's remarks or defend them publicly

Khanna, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and has positioned himself as a progressive willing to engage directly with the right, has used this moment to highlight what he sees as a lack of internal discipline inside the Trump administration. -s[2]-✦✦✦✦✦✦

Why This Has Staying Power

The Epstein issue doesn't fade because there are still unanswered questions—both about who knew what and about how public officials discuss their knowledge (or lack thereof) when questioned directly by Congress. -s[3]-✦✦✦✦✦✦ Lutnick's confirmation testimony, largely overshadowed by other Cabinet battles, is now receiving a second look.

For Khanna, the political calculus is clear: invoking Trump's own hypothetical reaction is a way of making the critique bipartisan-adjacent—arguing that even the president's allies should be troubled by what was said. Whether that framing lands with Republican colleagues remains to be seen, but it ensures the story won't quietly disappear.

The bottom line: Khanna's remarks put Lutnick and the White House in an awkward position—either address what was said during Senate testimony about Epstein, or let the silence speak for itself.