Could More Epstein Files Be Released Soon? Redacted Docs Will Be Reviewed By Judge This Week

Topline The Justice Department will turn over unredacted Epstein files to a federal judge this week as part of a dispute over whether they should be publicly released—potentially teeing up a set of new documents to be released, despite the Trump administration’s efforts to keep them under wraps.

Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled Saturday the DOJ must turn over a set of redacted or withheld documents about Epstein to the court by Thursday, so that the court can review the documents “in camera,” meaning privately without other parties or the press present.

The files at issue include multiple emails about women where the name of the person Epstein was emailing with is redacted, as well as FBI notes regarding allegations against President Donald Trump, documents that aren’t in English and names of potential Epstein co-conspirators in a draft indictment against the financier.

Journalist Katie Phang sued the DOJ, arguing keeping the files hidden violates the Epstein Files Transparency Act and her right to report on them, and while Sullivan previously sided with her , the government has disputed the ruling and fought to keep the documents hidden.

Sullivan ordered the government to either turn over the documents or explain why it couldn’t, which the DOJ responded to by alleging it either couldn’t turn over the documents or wasn’t required to—making arguments that Phang has alleged are insufficient, such as claiming one name didn’t have to be unredacted because it had already been reported in the press.

Sullivan will look at the unredacted files and decide whether they should be released, and, if he thinks they should be, whether or not he should pause his order so the Trump administration can appeal it—which would keep the files private for potentially months longer as the case goes to a higher court.

Phang has also asked for the court to fine Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche $1,000 per day for each day the files aren’t released, in order to compel the government to speedily make them public.

The DOJ’s deadline to turn over the files is the same day the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on whether Blanche’s nomination for the permanent AG role should move forward to a full Senate vote. Blanche’s handling of the Epstein files—particularly regarding documents that were either improperly redacted or withheld—has become a major sticking point in the fight over his confirmation, and Sen. Thom Tillis , R-N.C., said Blanche needed to meet with Epstein victims before he would vote in his favor. Blanche ultimately did meet with victims shortly after Tillis made his demand, but the victims have decried that meeting as being woefully insufficient .

Former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance argued Saturday that Sullivan’s order to review the documents privately suggests the judge isn’t willing to take the DOJ at its word that the Epstein files under scrutiny don’t need to be released or unredacted. “The government has acted like it has something to hide, even after Congress passed the Transparency Act and Trump signed it into law,” Vance wrote. “So the Judge isn’t accepting what the government has represented to it as truthful, and is requiring documentation to support its claims.”

Sullivan could rule anytime after the Thursday deadline that the government must release the documents publicly—either immediately, as Phang wants, or after a 7-day or 60-day delay, which is what the DOJ wants if a release is ordered. While some documents would be able to be released quickly, like materials that only have a couple things redacted, others could take longer to produce, like materials in foreign languages. If the judge rules the documents don’t have to be released immediately, that would give the Trump administration time to ask an appeals court to overrule Sullivan and keep the documents private. It’s also possible Sullivan could side with the DOJ that the documents don’t have to be released at all, at which point Phang could ask a higher court to take up the case. In either case, bringing the dispute to an appeals court could mean the documents would remain under wraps for weeks or months longer while new judges consider the case.

The disputed files include eight emails that appear to discuss women. A 2013 email saying, “New Brazilian just arrived, sexy and cute, 19yo,” is at issue, for instance, while in a 2014 email, an unnamed sender told Epstein, “Thank you for a fun night… Your littlest girl was a little naughty.” In 2015, an anonymous sender wrote, “The key are the 14 to 15 year old girls—i am a sexual pervert because i say they are now of a reproductive age?” The emails go up to 2018, when an unnamed person told Epstein, “I found at least 3 very good young poor but we was so tired. I will cover up this week. Meet this one, not the beauty queen but we both likes her a lot.” In September of that year, an anonymous person then told Epstein, “My favorite from Lithuania, [REDACTED], 19. Will meet when I am there.” The case also concerns prosecutors’ draft indictment against Epstein in 2007, which ultimately was never issued because the financier instead reached a non-prosecution agreement. The indictment has a heading titled “Co-conspirators,” but four of the five names it lists are redacted, other than associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Phang has asked the DOJ to also release notes from the FBI’s interview with an unnamed woman, who alleged she was forced to perform oral sex on Trump in the 1980s after meeting him through Epstein. (Trump has strongly denied the allegations, which have not been corroborated.) Other documents related to that accuser were also previously not made public, but the Trump administration then released them amid a public outcry, claiming they had been incorrectly labeled as duplicates. In addition to the documents themselves, Phang also wants the government to comply with a provision in the Epstein Files Transparency Act that requires the DOJ to submit a detailed redaction...

Indexed and credited by AIPROPX. Originating outlet: Forbes. Open at source →