Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche submitted unredacted documents related to Jeffrey Epstein to a federal court for review on July 30, 2026, complying with an order from U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan just before the day's deadline.

The submission marks a significant development in a lawsuit brought by journalist and former MS NOW host Katie Phang, who sued the Trump administration to enforce compliance with the Epstein Transparency Act. Judge Sullivan ruled in Phang's favor, directing the Department of Justice to produce the documents for in camera review — a process in which the judge examines the materials privately in chambers before deciding whether any portion must be disclosed to the public.

Blanche, who previously served as President Donald Trump's personal defense attorney, submitted the Notice of Compliance referencing the court's July 25, 2026 order. According to the filing: "Defendant Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States … respectfully submits the Notice of Compliance with the Order of this Court dated July 25, 2026, requiring Defendants submit certain documentation to the Court for in camera review."

Hard copies of the documents were hand-delivered to the court's chambers at 2:28 PM on July 30 — narrowly meeting the court's deadline.

Phang had predicted on Wednesday that Blanche would "try to get an appeal" to delay the release of the redacted information but acknowledged that doing so would be "very difficult," noting that Judge Sullivan had already denied on two separate occasions Blanche's attempts to secure a stay or postponement of compliance.

MS NOW senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin noted on X (post 1, post 2) that of the 10 documents at issue, the DOJ does not classify the redacted information as pertaining to a victim or law enforcement personnel. Instead, the department characterizes the redactions as "PII," or personally identifiable information. That distinction is notable because federal privacy exemptions typically shield specific protected categories — such as the identities of victims or law enforcement sources — whereas a general PII designation may carry a narrower legal basis for continued withholding. The court filing is available here.

The Trump administration had faced criticism for months of stalling on the release of Epstein's files, which the Epstein Transparency Act requires to be disclosed. The legislation reflects a broader push by lawmakers and transparency advocates for full disclosure of government-held records related to Epstein, whose 2008 non-prosecution agreement and 2019 death in federal custody have fueled sustained public scrutiny over the extent of his network. Judge Sullivan's rulings centered on demands for insight into Trump's longstanding personal relationship with Epstein.

Trump's connection to Jeffrey Epstein dates back to the 1980s, when the two met at Mar-a-Lago. They subsequently socialized frequently in New York and Palm Beach. Multiple women have described witnessing Trump and Epstein together at parties and events during the 1990s.

Following Epstein's 2008 conviction on prostitution-related charges, Trump publicly distanced himself, stating he barely knew Epstein. However, the DOJ under Trump has resisted efforts to disclose information regarding their relationship or any potential knowledge of Epstein's criminal activities.

Legal experts contend that the Epstein Transparency Act mandates public disclosure of the files, and Judge Sullivan's rulings indicate that courts may compel release regardless of the administration's resistance. The unredacted documents could potentially expose communications, financial records, or witness accounts related to Trump and his associates' decades-long association with Epstein. Following his in camera review, Judge Sullivan will determine whether the documents — or portions thereof — will be ordered released publicly.

Source: Alternet