Trump DOJ Ordered to Hand Over Unredacted Epstein Files After Federal Judge Rejects Sweeping Redactions

A federal judge has ruled that Donald Trump's Justice Department likely broke the law by withholding key Epstein-related records, ordering officials to release unredacted versions or explain to the court why they cannot.

US District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the preliminary injunction on 25 June 2026 in a lawsuit brought by attorney and independent journalist Katie Phang.

The ruling set a deadline of 2 July 2026 for Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a law Congress passed in late 2025. Blanche's department has since refused to hand over several of the disputed documents, setting up an appeal.

Judge Rejects DOJ's Unpersuasive Arguments on Epstein Files

In his memorandum opinion in Phang v. Blanche, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Sullivan rejected the Attorney General's argument that Phang had suffered no concrete harm from the withheld records.

Sullivan wrote that the Attorney General's arguments were unpersuasive, noting that Phang had identified half a dozen stories she is currently unable to report because of the department's refusal to disclose the material.

The judge also rejected the department's position that Phang should have pursued the records through a standard Freedom of Information Act request instead, noting the department had itself previously said the Epstein Act directed a much broader and less redacted release of the files than would have been made under FOIA.

The order compelled the DOJ to unredact or justify withholding several specific categories of material. These included at least eight email exchanges involving Epstein discussing a torture video and sexual activity with young women, including minors; two documents identifying potential co-conspirators; a draft 2009 indictment from the Southern District of Florida; and foreign-language records that may fall under the Act.

Sullivan also ordered the department to produce a full log of every redaction made across the files, as the law requires.

The Trump Assault Allegation at the Centre of the Dispute

Among the most sensitive material covered by the order are FBI interview notes tied to a woman who alleges Epstein introduced her to President Trump and that Trump sexually assaulted her when she was a minor.

The department had previously released typewritten reports summarising those interviews but withheld the underlying handwritten notes. Trump has denied the allegation, which has not been independently corroborated. His appearance in Epstein-related files does not, on its own, indicate wrongdoing.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward told the court on 2 July that the handwritten notes could not be produced, citing what he called technical limitations in ensuring that handwritten materials are free from private victim information.

Woodward separately argued that redactions in the 2009 draft indictment were present in the file as originally obtained, saying investigators have been unable to locate an unredacted version of this specific photocopy.

DOJ Refuses to Comply, Vows to Appeal Epstein Files Ruling

Rather than fully complying, the Justice Department told Sullivan on the 2 July deadline that it had already met its obligations under the law and declined to release the additional material, arguing that much of it was properly withheld to protect victims.

A department spokesperson called the judge's approach perverse, adding: This judge is suggesting DOJ violate the law by un-redacting victim names, who as the Department has always explained, sadly became co-conspirators. DOJ has produced all responsive documents and will appeal this decision with confidence, a claim the judge explicitly rejected in his ruling.

Brendan Ballou of the Public Integrity Project, which represents Phang, said after Sullivan's ruling that the government ignored a law passed by Congress and then refused to defend its own conduct in court, all for the sake of protecting the rich and powerful.

The department maintains it has released roughly 3.5 million pages of Epstein-related material since the Act took effect, though the judge found the department had still withheld material the law requires it to disclose. The department continues to withhold what it describes as duplicate, privileged, or irrelevant records.

Sullivan's opinion explicitly found that the law bars withholding records based on embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity. That standard will now be tested as the fight over the department's remaining redactions heads toward appeal.

The case now moves to a higher court, where the scope of what the public and Congress will ultimately see from the Epstein files remains far from settled.