{"id":149743,"date":"2026-04-27T14:43:03","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T22:43:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/04\/27\/todd-blanche-sued-over-epstein-files-cover-up\/"},"modified":"2026-04-27T14:43:03","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T22:43:03","slug":"todd-blanche-sued-over-epstein-files-cover-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/04\/27\/todd-blanche-sued-over-epstein-files-cover-up\/","title":{"rendered":"Todd Blanche Sued Over Epstein Files Cover Up"},"content":{"rendered":"

Todd Blanche wants to talk about the White House ballroom<\/a>. Or the Southern Poverty Law Center<\/a>. Or how to transfer taxpayer dollars into Donald Trump\u2019s personal account<\/a>. But he definitely does NOT want to talk about the Epstein files, a subject of inquiry that he\u2019s bent over backward to obfuscate<\/a>, frustrate<\/a>, and affirmatively conceal from production<\/a>. Faced with an explicit statutory command to turn over the Epstein files without any redactions or withholdings designed to protect the men involved, Blanche worked tirelessly to keep the men engaged in Epstein\u2019s sex trafficking operation from the public eye. There\u2019s an argument that his willingness to go in front of cameras and say that the Epstein files have all been released \u2014 a demonstrable lie<\/a>, that even he acknowledges in other statements \u2014 and that the topic \u201cshould not be a part of anything going forward.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s almost like Blanche\u2019s boss has a vested interest in this criminal investigation disappearing!<\/p>\n

This weekend<\/a>, journalist Katie Phang filed a lawsuit<\/a> laying out Blanche\u2019s violations of the Epstein Transparency Act, styling her complaint as Administrative Procedures Act and ultra vires<\/em> claims that Blanche directed the Department of Justice to arbitrarily and improperly act in direct opposition to statute.<\/p>\n

In a sense, this is the other shoe dropping. The authors of the Epstein Transparency Act, Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, tried to get a judge<\/a> to recognize the DOJ\u2019s contemptuous approach to the Epstein files and to secure an independent monitor to complete the orderly release of the remaining documents, but Judge Paul Engelmayer turned away the request as outside the purview of the Maxwell criminal case he oversees. Still, Judge Engelmayer explained that they were free to bring a new lawsuit to seek compliance. Phang just did it. <\/p>\n

After months of stonewalling, public pressure overwhelmed the Trump administration\u2019s effort to sweep the matter under the rug and the Transparency Act became law. The Act gave DOJ 30 days to produce documents. The full production was due December 19 and the DOJ\u2026 did not comply. Blanche promised \u201cseveral hundred thousand\u201d more \u201cover the next couple weeks\u201d \u2014 a number, the complaint dryly notes, that \u201cwas several orders of magnitude\u201d higher than what actually came out. By February 2, Blanche wrote Congress to declare that \u201c[t]oday\u2019s production marks the Department\u2019s compliance with its production obligations under the Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

It did not mark that.<\/p>\n

Documents could be withheld in only five enumerated circumstances: victim PII, child sexual abuse material, narrowly tailored and temporary withholding to protect active investigations, images of injury or abuse, and properly classified national security material. Critically,\u00a0the Act explicitly forbids redactions based on\u00a0\u201cpolitical sensitivity, or because of the embarrassment or reputational harm\u201d to government officials, public figures, or foreign dignitaries. Congress wrote that with intent.<\/p>\n

DOJ\u2019s response was to redact things that fall into none of the permitted categories and several of the prohibited ones while pumping out clearly irrelevant material like the Above the Law<\/em> newsletter written after Epstein\u2019s death.<\/p>\n

The complaint catalogs the kind of redactions that DOJ apparently believes are statutorily authorized. The identities of people in a draft indictment who allegedly conspired with Epstein \u201cto persuade, induce, and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution.\u201d The identity of whoever wrote Epstein in 2014 to thank him for \u201ca fun night\u201d and praise his \u201clittlest girl\u201d for being \u201ca little naughty.\u201d The identity of the person who in 2017 told Epstein, \u201cI met [REDACTED] today. She is like Lolita from Nabokov, femme miniature.\u201d The person who told Epstein in 2018 about three \u201cvery good young poor\u201d girls. And \u2014 because apparently the limiting principle here is \u201canything Trump\u2019s friends might find awkward\u201d \u2014 the identity of whoever Epstein wrote to in 2009 saying, \u201cwhere are you? are you ok I loved the torture video.\u201d<\/p>\n

These are, as the complaint correctly notes, names of potential co-conspirators. That\u2019s not victim PII, CSAM, or national security. The only conceivable hook is \u201cactive federal investigation,\u201d which Blanche himself foreclosed when he announced\u00a0the investigation \u201cis over.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

Which, as an aside, was an amateurish own goal. The DOJ has a lot of latitude to pretend they\u2019re investigating something. They only needed to say \u201cwe\u2019re taking this seriously [wink, wink]\u201d and held onto a colorable excuse for years. But they didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The complaint points to the DOJ failure to produce, retracted, or improperly redacted multiple categories of material referencing the President, including the accusation from a woman that the FBI interviewed four times who said Trump forced her to perform oral sex when she was a minor, a document describing Epstein introducing a 13-year-old girl to Trump at Mar-a-Lago with the line \u201cthis is a good one, huh,\u201d and an email in which Epstein contradicted Trump\u2019s later public claims about being kicked out of Mar-a-Lago. Some of these documents were produced to Maxwell\u2019s defense team during her prosecution. They appeared briefly on DOJ\u2019s website before disappearing. Sometimes they came back. Sometimes they didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

Phang and her attorneys from the Public Integrity Project<\/a> argue that the DOJ has a \u201cnondiscretionary duty\u201d \u2014 a phrase that does a lot of work in APA litigation \u2014 to produce the materials. <\/p>\n

The two big questions going forward are standing and remedy. On standing, Phang\u2019s contention is that she\u2019s a journalist who has covered the Epstein matter\u00a0for years across MSNBC, her YouTube channel, and Substack<\/a>, and the complaint maps the harm with the kind of specificity that survives a 12(b)(1) motion: she can\u2019t report on documents that don\u2019t exist, can\u2019t analyze redactions that aren\u2019t explained, can\u2019t assess scope when DOJ keeps unringing the bell. Whether that\u2019s enough informational injury will be the first real fight.<\/p>\n

But whatever happens, Blanche is back to talking about the Epstein files, the one topic his boss never wants to hear about again.<\/p>\n

(Check out the complaint on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Todd Blanche Sued Over Epstein Files Cover Up<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTodd Blanche and Donald Trump (Photo by Brendan McDermid-Pool\/Getty Images)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Todd Blanche wants to talk about the White House ballroom<\/a>. Or the Southern Poverty Law Center<\/a>. Or how to transfer taxpayer dollars into Donald Trump\u2019s personal account<\/a>. But he definitely does NOT want to talk about the Epstein files, a subject of inquiry that he\u2019s bent over backward to obfuscate<\/a>, frustrate<\/a>, and affirmatively conceal from production<\/a>. Faced with an explicit statutory command to turn over the Epstein files without any redactions or withholdings designed to protect the men involved, Blanche worked tirelessly to keep the men engaged in Epstein\u2019s sex trafficking operation from the public eye. There\u2019s an argument that his willingness to go in front of cameras and say that the Epstein files have all been released \u2014 a demonstrable lie<\/a>, that even he acknowledges in other statements \u2014 and that the topic \u201cshould not be a part of anything going forward.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s almost like Blanche\u2019s boss has a vested interest in this criminal investigation disappearing!<\/p>\n

This weekend<\/a>, journalist Katie Phang filed a lawsuit<\/a> laying out Blanche\u2019s violations of the Epstein Transparency Act, styling her complaint as Administrative Procedures Act and ultra vires<\/em> claims that Blanche directed the Department of Justice to arbitrarily and improperly act in direct opposition to statute.<\/p>\n

In a sense, this is the other shoe dropping. The authors of the Epstein Transparency Act, Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, tried to get a judge<\/a> to recognize the DOJ\u2019s contemptuous approach to the Epstein files and to secure an independent monitor to complete the orderly release of the remaining documents, but Judge Paul Engelmayer turned away the request as outside the purview of the Maxwell criminal case he oversees. Still, Judge Engelmayer explained that they were free to bring a new lawsuit to seek compliance. Phang just did it. <\/p>\n

After months of stonewalling, public pressure overwhelmed the Trump administration\u2019s effort to sweep the matter under the rug and the Transparency Act became law. The Act gave DOJ 30 days to produce documents. The full production was due December 19 and the DOJ\u2026 did not comply. Blanche promised \u201cseveral hundred thousand\u201d more \u201cover the next couple weeks\u201d \u2014 a number, the complaint dryly notes, that \u201cwas several orders of magnitude\u201d higher than what actually came out. By February 2, Blanche wrote Congress to declare that \u201c[t]oday\u2019s production marks the Department\u2019s compliance with its production obligations under the Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

It did not mark that.<\/p>\n

Documents could be withheld in only five enumerated circumstances: victim PII, child sexual abuse material, narrowly tailored and temporary withholding to protect active investigations, images of injury or abuse, and properly classified national security material. Critically,\u00a0the Act explicitly forbids redactions based on\u00a0\u201cpolitical sensitivity, or because of the embarrassment or reputational harm\u201d to government officials, public figures, or foreign dignitaries. Congress wrote that with intent.<\/p>\n

DOJ\u2019s response was to redact things that fall into none of the permitted categories and several of the prohibited ones while pumping out clearly irrelevant material like the Above the Law<\/em> newsletter written after Epstein\u2019s death.<\/p>\n

The complaint catalogs the kind of redactions that DOJ apparently believes are statutorily authorized. The identities of people in a draft indictment who allegedly conspired with Epstein \u201cto persuade, induce, and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution.\u201d The identity of whoever wrote Epstein in 2014 to thank him for \u201ca fun night\u201d and praise his \u201clittlest girl\u201d for being \u201ca little naughty.\u201d The identity of the person who in 2017 told Epstein, \u201cI met [REDACTED] today. She is like Lolita from Nabokov, femme miniature.\u201d The person who told Epstein in 2018 about three \u201cvery good young poor\u201d girls. And \u2014 because apparently the limiting principle here is \u201canything Trump\u2019s friends might find awkward\u201d \u2014 the identity of whoever Epstein wrote to in 2009 saying, \u201cwhere are you? are you ok I loved the torture video.\u201d<\/p>\n

These are, as the complaint correctly notes, names of potential co-conspirators. That\u2019s not victim PII, CSAM, or national security. The only conceivable hook is \u201cactive federal investigation,\u201d which Blanche himself foreclosed when he announced\u00a0the investigation \u201cis over.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

Which, as an aside, was an amateurish own goal. The DOJ has a lot of latitude to pretend they\u2019re investigating something. They only needed to say \u201cwe\u2019re taking this seriously [wink, wink]\u201d and held onto a colorable excuse for years. But they didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The complaint points to the DOJ failure to produce, retracted, or improperly redacted multiple categories of material referencing the President, including the accusation from a woman that the FBI interviewed four times who said Trump forced her to perform oral sex when she was a minor, a document describing Epstein introducing a 13-year-old girl to Trump at Mar-a-Lago with the line \u201cthis is a good one, huh,\u201d and an email in which Epstein contradicted Trump\u2019s later public claims about being kicked out of Mar-a-Lago. Some of these documents were produced to Maxwell\u2019s defense team during her prosecution. They appeared briefly on DOJ\u2019s website before disappearing. Sometimes they came back. Sometimes they didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

Phang and her attorneys from the Public Integrity Project<\/a> argue that the DOJ has a \u201cnondiscretionary duty\u201d \u2014 a phrase that does a lot of work in APA litigation \u2014 to produce the materials. <\/p>\n

The two big questions going forward are standing and remedy. On standing, Phang\u2019s contention is that she\u2019s a journalist who has covered the Epstein matter\u00a0for years across MSNBC, her YouTube channel, and Substack<\/a>, and the complaint maps the harm with the kind of specificity that survives a 12(b)(1) motion: she can\u2019t report on documents that don\u2019t exist, can\u2019t analyze redactions that aren\u2019t explained, can\u2019t assess scope when DOJ keeps unringing the bell. Whether that\u2019s enough informational injury will be the first real fight.<\/p>\n

But whatever happens, Blanche is back to talking about the Epstein files, the one topic his boss never wants to hear about again.<\/p>\n

(Check out the complaint on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Todd Blanche wants to talk about the White House ballroom. Or the Southern Poverty Law Center. Or how to transfer taxpayer dollars into Donald Trump\u2019s personal account. But he definitely does NOT want to talk about the Epstein files, a subject of inquiry that he\u2019s bent over backward to obfuscate, frustrate, and affirmatively conceal from […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149743","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149743","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149743"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149743\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149743"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149743"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149743"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}