Trump DOJ Fights Appeals Court To Keep Key Redactions Secret in Epstein Files

The US Department of Justice has moved to block a federal judge's order compelling it to unredact key documents from the Jeffrey Epstein files, filing formal notice of an appeal on Monday, 24 August 2026.

The filing sets up a legal fight over records that include email exchanges referencing a 'torture video' and FBI interview notes tied to a woman who has made allegations against President Donald Trump, which he has denied, according to the DOJ's court filing.

The dispute stems from a lawsuit brought by attorney and independent journalist Katie Phang, who accuses the department of violating the federal Epstein Files Transparency Act. The DOJ has called its own filing a 'protective notice of appeal', saying it remains unsure whether it even has the legal standing to challenge the order.

Judge Ordered Unredacted Epstein Files in June

US District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction in June 2026 directing the DOJ to remove redactions from a set of documents central to Phang's lawsuit. Sullivan concluded the department had likely violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law passed to compel release of the government's Epstein-related records.

The order covers at least eight email exchanges discussing a 'torture video' and sexual activity involving young women, including minors, according to court documents. It also requires the DOJ to produce underlying FBI interview notes involving a woman who has made allegations against Trump, which he has denied and which have not been independently corroborated.

Sullivan wrote in his ruling that 'the Attorney General has conceded that he is in violation of the Act,' according to ABC News. Under the June order, the department must either produce the withheld material in full or formally 'show cause' as to why each redaction should remain in place.

DOJ Cites Victim Protection, Then Signals Appeal

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's department has defended its redactions primarily on victim-protection grounds, arguing that some blacked-out material covers the identities and contact details of individuals who communicated with Epstein and are now considered co-conspirators rather than victims.

A DOJ spokesperson told CBS News the department had not conceded any legal violation, saying Sullivan's 'perverse interpretation appears to be focused on driving misleading headlines.'

The department has separately argued it cannot locate an unredacted version of a draft indictment from the Southern District of Florida, and that 'technical limitations' prevent it from fully scrubbing private victim information from handwritten FBI interview notes, according to comments from a DOJ attorney quoted by The Hill.

Monday's notice of appeal does not lay out the department's legal arguments in detail, narrowly complying with a court-set 60-day deadline to appeal Sullivan's order while the filing itself describes the department's ability to appeal as 'inconclusive.'

Some Redacted Details Have Already Surfaced Publicly

Even as the DOJ fights to keep certain material sealed, some of the information Phang sought has already entered the public record through other channels.

Reporting has identified Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem as the individual who exchanged emails with Epstein referencing the torture video, details the department argues are now redundant to redact given 'widespread media attention' and the ease with which the identity could be found through a basic internet search.

The DOJ has released roughly 3.5 million pages of Epstein-related material under the Transparency Act, though Phang's suit argues the department has improperly withheld or blacked out additional records the law requires it to disclose.

Sullivan also ordered the DOJ to publish a full log detailing every redaction made across the released files, a requirement the department has yet to satisfy in full.

The case moves to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges will decide whether Sullivan's order stands, while the dispute over the DOJ's Transparency Act compliance continues in the district court.