The Department of Justice pushed back Thursday against calls to release additional unredacted records tied to its investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, telling a federal judge that it has already met its legal obligations under the law.
The response came just before a court-imposed deadline requiring the DOJ to either remove redactions from at least a dozen documents or explain why it could not do so. The records at issue include at least eight email exchanges involving Epstein that reference a “torture video” and sexual activity with young women, including minors, as well as interview materials from a woman who alleges she was abused by President Trump while she was a minor.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, through attorneys representing the department, argued that the DOJ has already committed substantial resources to reviewing the massive volume of records connected to the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA).
According to the filing, the department has examined more than 6 million documents as part of its efforts to comply with the law. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan that producing unredacted versions of many of the disputed records would conflict with the established application of the EFTA.
Woodward argued that the law includes specific exemptions allowing the Justice Department to withhold or redact information in certain circumstances, including when records contain the identities of victims or information that could jeopardize an ongoing federal investigation.
The DOJ said several email exchanges remain partially redacted because they contain the names of victims or include private email addresses belonging to individuals involved in the communications.
Woodward also explained that some communications written by victims may appear troubling when viewed without additional context. He said the department has exercised its authority under the law to prevent personally identifiable information belonging to victims from becoming public, even in situations where some victims later became complicit in or participated in objectionable conduct or communications.
The filing also addressed questions surrounding a draft indictment from the Southern District of Florida. According to the DOJ, the redactions appearing in that document were already present in the original photocopy, and officials have been unable to locate an unredacted version.
In addition, the Justice Department said it could not release certain FBI interview notes because of technical limitations that make it difficult to ensure handwritten materials are fully stripped of private victim information before disclosure.
The department urged the court not to require the release of any additional records and instead requested permission to provide further explanations directly to the judge during closed-door proceedings. It also asked for a 60-day extension to allow the solicitor general time to evaluate whether to pursue an appeal if the court orders additional disclosures.
The legal dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by attorney and independent journalist Katie Phang, who alleges the Justice Department violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by improperly withholding records from the public.
The case continues to draw attention as scrutiny over the department's handling of the Epstein files remains intense. Blanche has repeatedly defended the administration's approach to reviewing and releasing the records, even as the rollout has faced bipartisan criticism.
