Footage of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein at a party at Mar-a-Lago in the 1990s (Image: Screengrab via NBC News)
US District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan may have opened the floodgates by siding with former MS NOW show host Katie Phang in her lawsuit demanding the Trump administration adhere to the word of the Epstein Transparency Act.
Politico writer Josh Gerstein reports Judge Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction against the DOJ for failing to comply with the letter of the Act by over-redacting released records and not explaining the reasons behind redacting the info.
The ruling means Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche now has explain why he shouldn't be forced to release names redacted from emails and documents that reference potentially damning videos and allegations of abuse of minors. Also included in redacted info includes the potential names of co-conspirators of convicted sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, as well as potentially damaging FBI interview notes from a victim who claimed Epstein introduced her to President Donald Trump when she was only 13.
Trump has denied the allegation that he assaulted the minor.
Blanche, who was Trump’s personal attorney before Trump put him over the DOJ, did not defend the redactions of the information before the court but instead argued the court had no power to decide on the case.
However, “The Attorney General has conceded that he is in violation of the Act,” Judge Sullivan said. Additionally the judge refused the DOJ’s wish to be granted a stay, arguing that "There is no competing harm to the government with the issuance of preliminary relief that orders compliance with statutes.”
“Phang is not requesting the immediate production of documents, but rather that the Attorney General show cause if he declines to do so,” Sullivan wrote. “As to the requests to review of foreign language documents and publish the redaction log, the Act required the Attorney General to produce the documents and publish the log by December 19, 2025 — more than six months ago. … Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Ms. Phang’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
Prior to this judicial decision the Epstein Transparency Act had no enforcement, but Phang sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, which potentially lets courts overturn government agency decisions.
Sullivan’s decision could open the floodgates to a host of other journalists suing under the same argument.
