The Justice Department has responded to a court order to either turn over the Jeffrey Epstein file containing new details of the investigation or explain why it won’t. The Justice Department argued that releasing more files would harm Epstein’s victims.
The Epstein File, Accountability, and What Lawmakers Can Do
There are several steps lawmakers can take to act on the Epstein files. USA TODAY’s Aisha Bagchi explains.
Justice Department officials defended the limited release of investigative materials related to the case of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a new court filing released on July 2..
The Justice Department released 3.5 million pages of documents related to Epstein, but many of the documents released by federal authorities were heavily redacted, and the Justice Department withheld another 2.5 million pages. The department’s limited release of the material has sparked protests and lawsuits from people who say the department is acting to protect the wealthy and powerful people named in the files.
In a new filing, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the attorney general’s decision to withhold millions of investigative files, saying releasing more material would harm Epstein’s victims and the government. Blanche suggested instead that additional material be shared “in camera” (a legal term meaning behind closed doors with the judge).
“The court should not order the department to take further action,” Blanche said. “Governments can share additional details about the specific recordings captured on camera or with appropriate safeguards in place.”
Blanche’s filing is the latest in a lawsuit filed against the Justice Department by Katie Pang, a lawyer and independent journalist who previously hosted a show on MSNBC, over the limited release of Epstein files. The lawsuit was filed April 27 in Washington, D.C., and is presided over by U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan.
The filing by the Justice Department’s top lawyer is in response to an order issued by Mr. Sullivan ordering the department to release additional investigative materials, including unredacted names of potential co-conspirators and FBI interviews, or to explain why Justice Department officials are refusing to do so.
Many advocates for transparency and accountability see the disclosure as overwhelming, or even worse, a violation of the Epstein File Transparency Act, a federal law enacted in November that orders the Justice Department to release unclassified Justice Department files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with a few authorized exceptions.
Blanche has previously defended the Justice Department’s actions on transparency laws. He said many documents were suppressed to protect victims’ privacy as allowed by transparency laws. He also said the Justice Department withheld documents for reasons not explicitly acknowledged, including to hide internal deliberations related to Epstein.
The Department of Justice’s track record on Epstein
The limited release followed a decades-long track record that deeply frustrated many whistleblowers.
Epstein, a sex trafficker who has rubbed shoulders with many of the world’s richest and most famous men, including President Trump and former President Bill Clinton, pleaded guilty in 2008 to two Florida prostitution crimes, one of which involved a minor, as part of a plea deal that spared him state or federal charges that could have been far more serious.
Epstein served approximately 13 months in a Florida prison and was often allowed to leave the prison upon his release.
Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in 2019. Later that year, he died in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial. The medical examiner ruled his death a suicide.
Epstein’s ex-girlfriend and longtime colleague, Ghislaine Maxwell, was later charged and convicted of sex trafficking of minors. She is currently serving a 20-year sentence.
In July 2025, the Justice Department and FBI released a memo that said Epstein “harmed more than 1,000 victims,” but after reviewing the file, they said they “found no evidence that could form the basis for an investigation against unindicted third parties.”
Other than Maxwell, no other associates of Epstein have faced criminal charges in the United States in connection with the sex trafficking charges.
“Torture video” email participants, alleged co-conspirators: Suspected withholding by Mr. Blanche
Pan accused Branch of violating transparency laws in multiple ways, including redacting the names of senders and recipients in email communications with Epstein about “torture videos” and sex acts with young women, including minors.
She also accused him of breaking the law, including redacting the names of Epstein’s potential co-defendants from a draft criminal indictment and withholding certain notes from an FBI interview that mentioned President Trump.
In his June 25 ruling, Judge Sullivan concluded that he must order Blanche to release more information or explain for himself that Blanche likely violated transparency laws. He noted that Blanche, through her Justice Department lawyers, made various procedural arguments as to why the case should be dismissed in her response to Pan’s lawsuit, but “failed to substantively respond to any of[her]claims” that she violated transparency laws.
