DOJ Renews Court Request for Epstein Grand Jury Files — Plus Evidence This Time

The Justice Department has asked two New York judges to unseal grand jury transcripts and investigative material for the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, the first public moves by the Trump administration to satisfy the transparency law passed by Congress last week.

On Monday, prosecutors submitted two nearly identical letters to the federal judges who oversaw those cases, asking them to permit the unsealing of these files. Both recently rejected the Department of Justice’s previous narrow request to unseal only the grand jury transcripts.

This time, the DOJ cited the explicit demands of Congress and the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“The Department of Justice interprets the act as requiring it to publish the grand jury and discovery materials in this case,” wrote Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, which handled both cases.

The new law gives Attorney General Pam Bondi just 30 days to make public “all unclassified records” at the DOJ that touch on the FBI’s investigation into Epstein, Maxwell and any people or corporations who were part of his underage sex trafficking network. The DOJ is now asking judges to do what they rarely ever do: give the world a window into exactly what federal prosecutors and government witnesses told grand jurors when trying to convince them that these two should be charged with crimes.

“The act manifests a Congressional intent to override some of the underlying bases for grand jury secrecy,” Clayton wrote to both judges, asking for expedited rulings to comply with the quickly approaching Dec. 19 deadline.

President Donald Trump vehemently opposed the release of the Epstein files for months and called it a “hoax” before eventually conceding and supporting the congressional effort.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration ignored growing public calls for the FBI to release files of its investigation into the dead billionaire’s underage sex trafficking. It opted instead to present an underwhelming counteroffer: the transcript of the DOJ’s grand jury proceedings that led to separate indictments against Epstein and Maxwell.

Much of what was presented to the grand juries likely came out in both indictments and Maxwell’s trial. Epstein died before facing trial for those charges.

The administration’s counteroffer was seen as suspect by those who noted Epstein’s yearslong friendship with Trump and the fact that one of the late financier’s victims was recruited into his world after he spotted her at Mar-a-Lago decades ago. The public release this summer of Trump’s alleged birthday letter to Epstein only fueled calls for transparency. Trump has denied wrongdoing related to Epstein and said he did not write the 2003 birthday letter bearing his signature.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — formerly Trump’s top defense lawyer — asked judges in July to unseal grand jury transcripts, writing that “transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this administration.”

Both judges promptly rejected Blanche’s request. Judge Richard Berman, who oversaw the Epstein case, decided that he would not risk violating the privacy rights of an untold number of women who were Epstein’s victims, who may number at “over a thousand.” But he also tossed the ball right back at the DOJ.

“The information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales in comparison to the Epstein investigation information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice,” Berman wrote.

Judge Paul Engelmayer, who oversaw the Maxwell trial, cited what he called a “systemic interest in grand jury secrecy” to guard the traditional practice of incentivizing witnesses who would otherwise remain silent if they knew their testimony could go public. But he went further by noting that the grand jury presentation in this particular case wouldn’t be revelatory anyway, pointing to “the understandable but mistaken belief that these materials would reveal new information.”

“Contrary to the government’s depiction, the Maxwell grand jury testimony is not a matter of significant historical or public interest. Far from it,” he wrote. “It consists of garden-variety summary testimony by two law enforcement agents. And the information it contains is already almost entirely a matter of longstanding public record, principally as a result of live testimony by percipient witnesses at the Maxwell trial.”

However, Monday marked the first time the DOJ has asked for a judge’s permission to also release the evidence that it shared with defense lawyers — some of which may not have been presented at trial. And this formal request could be the only public indication of whatever review is going on at the DOJ ahead of the hard deadline next month.

Maxwell’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.