Blanche has until July 30 to hand over some key unredacted Epstein files. What he finds could change everything.
A federal judge is about to see something the rest of the world hasn’t: some of the DOJ’s unredacted Jeffrey Epstein files.
On July 25, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the Justice Department to hand over 10 disputed records, in full, with no black boxes, for his private review.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche—whose confirmation to the permanent role has been complicated in no small part by Epstein survivors who have refused to be silent about the botched and incomplete release of the Epstein files earlier this year—has until July 30 at 3 p.m. to comply with the court’s order.
This is the first time a judge has reviewed the DOJ’s release of the files—and it isn’t happening by accident.
As many survivors of sexual assault know, when it comes to the legal system, almost nothing happens without a fight. This fight was brought by Katie Phang.
Phang, an attorney and former MSNBC anchor, has become one of the most tenacious independent journalists covering the Epstein files.
The DOJ Botched the Release
When the Trump administration uploaded the first set of the Epstein files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act in December 2025, survivors and their advocates immediately flagged serious problems. Despite the legislation’s very limited exceptions outlining what information could lawfully be blacked out or redacted, the DOJ exposed the names and identifying information of many victims, endangering them, while keeping many other names hidden behind black boxes—names that many survivors believe belong not to Epstien’s victims, but to the people around Epstein: his associates, facilitators, potential co-conspirators and fellow perpetrators.
Phang told Ms. she remains especially disturbed by this aspect of the release. “Either it was a grossly negligent kind of attempt to protect the victims and survivors who were explicitly supposed to be done by way of this law, or an intentional un-redaction to coerce them to be in a place of public embarrassment, fear and shame, which they should never be in, to deter literally hundreds if not more, maybe even thousands, of victims and survivors from coming forward.”
The DOJ also completely held back what survivors and advocacy organizations say are approximately 3 million more files, including hundreds of thousands of foreign-language documents. The DOJ also failed to provide a public log explaining the reasons for each of their redactions or withholdings as required.
Phang explained her growing frustration as the documents continued to be released: “I noticed that these redactions were protecting people that I wanted to investigate more.”
She said she and other independent journalists noticed how many inconsistencies, skipped numbers and weird patterns appeared in relation to the redactions.
After this botched release, the man former Attorney General Pam Bondi told Congress was “in charge” of the Epstein files declared the matter closed, claiming they “should not be part of anything going forward.”
Someone Had to Push Back: Phang Stepped Up
While many leaders inside Washington just wrung their hands, Phang decided to act.
“I never thought there would be active concealment by the Department of Justice, and yet I came to that conclusion a few months after Todd Blanche made the announcement in January that he was done,” Phang says. “I knew that I was waiting for something to happen that was never gonna happen. I was waiting for the right thing to be done by this administration and the DOJ, and I would be an idiot to keep on waiting for it to happen. And so that’s when we decided to file suit.”
In April, Phang and her attorneys Brendan Ballou and Sam Ward-Packard at the Public Integrity Project filed Phang v. Blanche in federal district court in Washington, D.C. The complaint alleged that Blanche had committed a “brazen, shocking, and ongoing violation” of the Epstein Files Transparency Act: improperly redacting documents, failing to explain those redactions as the law required and redacting and retracting documents referencing Donald Trump that should have been produced in full.
It asked the court, among other things, to compel full production and strip out every redaction that couldn’t be legally justified.
Phang’s filing forced Blanche to respond in court, with evidence, to the pointed allegation that the Department of Justice is protecting the wrong people. And that allegation is about to be put to a big test.
The Test: 10 Files
After months of back and forth filings in the case, on June 25, Judge Sullivan issued Phang what she sought: a preliminary injunction ordering Blanche to produce a batch of disputed documents or “show cause”—explain in writing to the Judge—why they shouldn’t have to.
Blanche produced no documents.
Instead, in his response to the court, Blanche claimed none of the five disputed categories required production at all.
The eight emails Phang sought? Victim names or private email addresses, or law enforcement, allegedly properly protected.
The draft indictment listing alleged co-conspirators? Couldn’t locate an unredacted copy.
The FBI’s handwritten interview notes? “Substantially similar” to the typed reports already released.
The hundreds of thousands of foreign-language documents? Not “practicable” to review.
The Federal Register privilege log, a clear statutory requirement under the Epstein Files Transparency Act? Blanche claims he has already complied by providing Congress a summary, despite the act’s clear requirement that they be specified and published.
Notably, several of these responses asserted a basis for withholding or redacting information that simply is not in the Epstein Files Transparency Act—at all.
Sullivan’s response, issued July 25, amounted to “prove it.”
The judge’s response: He ordered Blanche to hand over the disputed records for his private review by July 30 at 3 p.m., along with documentation supporting its representations about the reasons for each redaction—an unusual step that signals he is not taking those representations at face value.
If Blanche complies with the court’s order, the documents the judge will be reading tell a story of their own.
Seven of the eight disputed emails were sent to Epstein and received the protection of a black box, blocking out their name and email address. The question the judge faces is: Are they entitled to that protection—or are they Epstein associates, co-conspirators or possibly even perpetrators themselves?
According to Blanche, at least six are redacted under victim protection claims:
- an email from someone at Mademoiselle Agency, a Paris-based modeling agency, describing “a new Brazilian, just arrived, sexy and cute. 19yo” (EFTA01187999)
- another reading “Thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little bit naughty” (EFTA01930501)
- one that clearly references a child (EFTA01928255)
- others referencing children, including a visa for a “Lolita,” a 19-year-old girl in Lithuania, and another referencing “very good young poor” (EFTA02648868, EFTA01022356, EFTA02504630)
The remaining two (EFTA00749245 and EFTA00628112), the DOJ claims, are redacted under the Privacy Act or disclosed elsewhere, according to Blanche, but one begins with, “Where are you. Are you ok? I loved that torture video…”
The Privacy Act is not one of the five exemption provisions Congress wrote into the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which purposefully created a much more limited framework for redactions. And, there is no special legal exception noted in the law for information that can allegedly be obtained elsewhere.
If Blanche complies with the judge’s order, the judge will also see an unredacted copy of a briefing email from October 2019, after Epstein’s death, that lists names under a “co-conspirators” heading (EFTA00038227). The email’s sender and recipient lines are redacted under what Blanche claims is a “law enforcement personnel” exception, an exemption that does not exist in the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Of the names listed under the co-conspirators heading, Ghislaine Maxwell and Leslie Groff are visible. Three others remain redacted. Blanche is claiming they are victims, even though the same document has a separate section specifically listing victims.
The Judge has also asked to see a draft federal indictment naming Epstein and co-defendants EFTA00194840. The DOJ’s filing claims it cannot locate an unredacted copy of another document EFTA01703108, and has offered this as a substitute it calls a “near duplicate.”
If Blanche produces the documents, the Judge will learn the identities of all of the blacked-out senders, those listed as co-conspirators and co-defendants, and Blanche will also have to provide evidence to support his representations that they are legally entitled to the protection the DOJ gave them.
At his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on July 15, Blanche testified that the DOJ doesn’t have evidence that Epstein trafficked women to other men. These 10 emails may begin to shed light on the truth of this claim, and may also impact other important and unresolved issues in Phang’s case that remain before the court.
Other Documents Phang is Still Waiting For
In Sullivan’s previous order, the June 25 preliminary injunction, the court ordered Blanche and the DOJ to produce the handwritten FBI interview notes from four different interview sessions with a a woman who alleged that Donald Trump sexually and physically assaulted her when she was an approximately 13 years old. The DOJ’s Epstein Files release already includes heavily redacted typed summaries of those same four interviews, called FBI FD-302 reports, (EFTA01245620, EFTA02858481, EFTA02858491, EFTA02858495) in which the DOJ redacted the victim’s name and other details across dozens of pages. Blanche has claimed the separate handwritten notes are too difficult to redact without exposing the victim’s identity, an interesting argument given the DOJ’s demonstrated ability to redact the typed accounts of those same interviews and thousands of pages throughout the files. Phang is awaiting a further order from the Judge on this, as Blanche has yet to fully comply with the previous one.
The June 25 order also directly ordered the DOJ to initiate review and production of hundreds of thousands of foreign-language documents, no show cause option. Blanche had argued the review wasn’t “practicable.” Sullivan disagreed. The government still objects to producing foreign language documents.
For many survivors who have long maintained that Epstein ran an international sex trafficking network, the foreign language documents are not a footnote. They may be a bedrock.
Phang calls the current fight for documents, “a smaller battle in the bigger war.”
If Sullivan finds problems with what he sees, or if the DOJ refuses to produce what they have already been ordered to, the question stops being about individual redactions and starts being about the entire redaction and withholding system the DOJ used.
Phang is also still waiting for another key piece of evidence that goes to that systemic question.
The Missing Log—That Was Never Published
The Epstein Files Transparency Act required every redaction to be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register, a public record of what was taken out, blacked out, or withheld, and why.
On Dec. 19, 2025, the day documents were due, Blanche wrote to Congress promising it would come “in due course.” More than seven months later, it hasn’t.
Sullivan ordered Blanche to either publish the log or explain why he hadn’t. His explanation is that his summary to Congress was sufficient, despite the fact that the Epstein Transparency Act clearly states on its face that, “(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.” EFTA § 2 (c )(2). Phang’s motion to enforce seeks $1,000-per-day sanctions until it appears. Sullivan has not yet ruled.
Without the log, there is no public accounting of which documents were redacted, which justification was applied or whether the same exemption was used consistently or strategically.
The log was intended by Congress to be the public record of the process. Its absence is not an oversight. It’s a gaping hole at the center of the transparency effort.
What Happens Next?
First, Phang and her attorneys wait to see if Blanche and the DOJ will comply with the court order.
That sentence would have been almost unthinkable a few years ago.
Judge Sullivan demanding that Blanche bring proof of the reasons for his withholdings and redactions rather than taking DOJ’s word is not a judge being unusually cautious. It is a judge responding to a record.
This record was recently documented when Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sent Blanche a formal letter the day before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s markup on his nomination, citing an “alarming and widespread pattern” of DOJ attorneys misleading federal courts and defying lawful orders across 15 specific cases.
Phang said she finds the judge’s order requiring Blanche to show evidence for his withholdings and redactions particularly important in context, characterizing it as evidence that Blanche has a credibility problem. She explained he’s basically saying “show your work, right? That’s what I tell my 11-year-old.”
Before the in-camera order, Blanche asked Sullivan to certify an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, a request the judge is under no obligation to grant. He could also petition the D.C. Circuit directly for mandamus, but that remedy is extraordinary, rarely granted and the bar is high.
What the Judge Sees Could Impact Everything
Once the documents are before him, Judge Sullivan has broad authority. He can determine redactions are appropriate and decline to order disclosure. If he finds a redaction was improper, he can order unredacted versions released and names disclosed. He can require DOJ to narrow its redaction methodology, separating legitimately protected victim information from identifying information about the people and institutions around Epstein that the law was designed to expose
And if what he finds is not a one-off mistake but a flawed methodology applied across thousands of decisions, he can order a sweeping re-review, impose oversight requirements. Or, as Phang and her legal team have requested, he could appoint a Special Master to monitor compliance.
Phang explained why she wants this during our interview:
“The sheer amount of documents that have been released by the DOJ, and knowing that Blanche says he’s still sitting on another, what, three million as well, a special master would be the perfect person who could take this off of the district court judge’s plate and call the balls and strikes.” She continued, “You need somebody that’s not inside the DOJ to sit there and verify whether or not the DOJ is being honest with me and the American people about whether or not those redactions are compliant.”
To understand the scale of information that could be at stake if a larger review is ordered, consider what Blanche released and what it didn’t.
Of roughly 6 million total pages Blanche says the DOJ reviewed, it released approximately 2.7 million. It acknowledged withholding approximately 200,000 pages under privilege claims, deliberative process, work product or attorney-client and separately pulled 47,635 files offline after the initial release. Of what was released, at least 500 pages were blacked out entirely with nothing visible. Partial redactions of names, email addresses and passages are scattered across the rest in numbers no one has even attempted to count.
If Judge Sullivan finds that even a few of the redaction justifications don’t hold up under scrutiny, then every black box in those 2.7 million pages becomes a question mark.
If a pattern emerges, one that consistently protected the same people or category of people, it could prove what many survivors have long claimed: that what Blanche called a disclosure was, in meaningful ways, a cover-up.
If further systemic failures in the redaction process are revealed, it would also reframe Blanche’s Senate confirmation fight to become permanent attorney general, which is unfolding at the same time as this fight in court. The question would shift from whether Blanche botched his disclosure obligations by releasing victim information to whether the man now leading the Justice Department presided over an intentional cover-up.
Judge Sullivan is now looking at the evidence himself.
What he finds may be exactly what survivors and advocates have been waiting for: proof that there is far more to this story.
Phang feels that just three months after filing, they are making progress, noting that one of her favorite sayings is “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.”
Ms. is continuing to follow the Epstein story. Look for our piece on the international modeling industry and Epstein ties in the Fall 2026 print issue.
*
A note from Ms. editors: We want to hear from you for The Majority, a new campaign collecting stories about how reproductive freedom has enabled readers to build the lives they want and need. Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans support reproductive healthcare access. Yet public debate overlooks the lives shaped by abortion access, contraception, IVF, miscarriage care, maternal healthcare or comprehensive sex education—countless women who chose to pursue an education, have children, not have children, protect their health and chart their own future. Add your voice and complete the sentence: “Access to reproductive choices gave me the freedom to….” Together, these stories will help show not only why reproductive freedom remains a majority value, but also what it makes possible.
