Topline
The Trump administration may make more Epstein files public Thursday and release previously redacted names of associates who discussed women with Jeffrey Epstein, after a court ordered it to do so—though the government has vowed to fight the ruling.
Jeffrey Epstein and now-President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, in 1997.
Getty Images
Key Facts
Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled last week the Trump administration has until Thursday to release and unredact information in the Epstein files, as part of a lawsuit brought against the government by journalist Katie Phang.
Phang argued the Trump administration violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by withholding documents and names of some people in the files, without giving a proper explanation for the redactions.
Phang pointed particularly to redacted names in emails that discuss women, redacted names of potential co-defendants in a draft indictment against Epstein, and missing FBI notes from agents’ interview with a woman who alleged she was assaulted by President Donald Trump, which the president has denied.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which forced the Epstein files’ release, allows the government to withhold information under only very limited circumstances—such as to protect victims’ identities or in cases of ongoing investigations—and submit justifications for why any redacted or withheld information wasn’t released.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche “conceded that he is in violation of the Act” by not releasing some names and documents or explaining why he didn’t, Sullivan ruled, siding with Phang and ordering the government to comply with the legislation.
The Justice Department had vowed to appeal Sullivan’s ruling, but nothing appears to have yet been filed ahead of Thursday’s deadline, and the agency has not yet responded to a request for comment.
What to Watch for
It’s unclear when the documents and names at issue in the case could be released Thursday, or if the government could instead try to file a last-minute appeal in order to keep them on hold. Sullivan already said in his ruling last week he would not pause his order to give the government time to appeal the decision, noting the Epstein Files Transparency Act “required the Attorney General to produce the documents and publish the log by December 19, 2025—more than six months ago.”
What Names Could Be Unredacted In The Epstein Files?
Sullivan’s order directs the DOJ to make names public from eight emails in the files that appear to discuss women, which could shed light on who knew about and participated in Epstein’s alleged abuse. Names of both the sender and recipient were redacted in a 2013 email saying, “New Brazilian just arrived, sexy and cute, 19yo,” 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, a sender whose name is redacted 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 range from 2009—when Epstein told an unnamed recipient, “I loved the torture video”—to emails from 2018, one year before the financier’s arrest. “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,” an unnamed person wrote to Epstein in March 2018, while in September of that year, an anonymous person told Epstein, “My favorite from Lithuania, [REDACTED], 19. Will meet when I am there.” The government was also directed to release names from 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. The DOJ could also submit explanations for why the names in the emails and indictment are redacted, Sullivan noted, though the Epstein Files Transparency Act specifically bars redacting anything on the basis of “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.”
What Other Documents Could Be Released?
Sullivan’s order directs the DOJ to 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, and the release of the potential notes comes after other documents related to that accuser were also previously not made public. The Trump administration then released them amid a public outcry, claiming they had been incorrectly labeled as duplicates, but did not release the underlying FBI notes that formed the basis for agents’ report. The judge also ordered the government to review and release documents in the Epstein files that aren’t in English, after the DOJ previously declined to do so, and submit a full redaction log explaining every decision to redact or withhold information in the files, as the Epstein Files Transparency Act requires.
Key Background
Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act last year after months of controversy over the DOJ’s decision to not release any further Epstein files voluntarily—a move that sparked public outrage and came after many top DOJ officials had previously promised the files’ release. The government finally released the bulk of the Epstein files in January, weeks after the 30-day deadline set out in the act, but has continued to face criticism over its handling of the documents. In addition to the names that were allegedly improperly redacted from the files and documents that were withheld, the DOJ also came under fire for not redacting some victim information, while seemingly protecting the names of Epstein associates. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has defended the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files and claimed it has released everything it could, telling Fox News in April, “We have released everything … We are not sitting on a single piece of paper. Nothing that should be released.”
Further Reading
Justice Dept. Ordered To Unredact Some Details From Epstein Files (Forbes)
Epstein Files Accusations Against Trump: What We Know—And Don’t Know (Forbes)
Rich And Powerful In The New Epstein Files: Steve Tisch Transfers His NY Giants Ownership (Forbes)
Leave a comment