A federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to release previously withheld handwritten FBI interview notes involving a woman’s allegations that Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and others sexually abused and physically assaulted her when she was a minor.
The ruling is a major development in a lawsuit brought by MeidasTouch host Katie Phang, who has been fighting to force the Trump administration to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And it comes as the Justice Department continues to face questions about why certain records have remained out of public view nearly a year after Congress ordered their release.
Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued three separate orders on November 9, putting Attorney General Todd Blanche under renewed pressure to turn over records and explain how the department handled the files.
One order specifically directs the DOJ to publish the handwritten FBI notes. Another rejects Blanche’s attempt to delay producing the records behind the department’s disclosure decisions. A third requires a sworn accounting of the review of foreign-language documents.
In other words, the judge isn’t simply accepting the department’s assurances that it has fulfilled its obligations. He wants to see the documents and the evidence supporting the DOJ’s claims.
And the handwritten notes are particularly significant.
The most explosive part of Sullivan’s latest rulings concerns handwritten FBI interview notes that the Justice Department has never made public.
The notes were used to prepare FBI Form 302 reports documenting interviews conducted in 2019 with a woman who alleges that Trump, Epstein and others sexually abused and physically assaulted her when she was between 13 and 15 years old.
These are serious allegations, and it’s important to be clear: They have not been established as fact in this court proceeding. Sullivan’s order does not determine whether the alleged abuse occurred. It addresses whether the underlying FBI interview notes must be released under the transparency law.
The judge personally reviewed the handwritten notes, including unredacted versions and the redactions proposed by the Justice Department, before ordering their publication.
Blanche must make the notes available in the DOJ’s online Epstein Library within 14 days of the November 9 order, setting a November 23 deadline. The attorney general must also notify the court within 24 hours after publication.
There is one important wrinkle: Sullivan temporarily stayed the order to give Blanche an opportunity to seek relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit before the deadline expires. So the DOJ could still attempt to delay or block the release through another legal challenge.
But the judge’s decision puts the department’s handling of these records squarely back under scrutiny.
And the dispute over why the notes were withheld raises some obvious questions.
According to Phang, the Justice Department argued that the handwritten material was too difficult to redact because it was written by hand.
Phang challenged that explanation by pointing out that the department had already released more than 100 handwritten documents with redactions in its own Epstein Library.
So if the DOJ could redact and publish those documents, why couldn’t it do the same with these FBI notes?
Sullivan rejected the department’s argument that the notes could be withheld simply because they were substantially similar to the typed interview reports. The judge found that the handwritten notes were not duplicates of those reports and that the department’s own review protocol did not authorize withholding documents on that basis.
The distinction matters because the handwritten notes have never been publicly released. Until Sullivan reviewed them, their contents remained outside public view.
Judge Rejects Blanche’s Attempt to Delay Producing DOJ Records
Sullivan also rejected another attempt by Blanche to postpone a key requirement in Phang’s lawsuit.
This dispute involves something called the administrative record — essentially, the documents and information the Justice Department relied on when deciding which Epstein files to release, redact, withhold or leave unreviewed.
Phang filed her lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows courts to examine whether federal agencies acted lawfully.
To do that, the court needs the records showing how the agency reached its decisions.
But Blanche wanted Sullivan to postpone the deadline for submitting a certified list of those records until after the judge ruled on the DOJ’s request for judgment on the pleadings.
In plain English, the attorney general wanted the court to consider his arguments for ending the case before producing the complete record needed to evaluate the department’s actions.
Sullivan wasn’t persuaded.
The judge found that Blanche had offered no legal authority for the idea that making some documents publicly available excused the department from identifying the specific records it relied on.
And the judge made clear that it wasn’t Phang’s responsibility — or the court’s — to dig through government websites and piece together the DOJ’s decision-making process.
That responsibility belongs to the department.
Without the certified administrative record, Sullivan explained, the court cannot properly evaluate whether additional documents informed the government’s decisions about compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The judge therefore rejected Blanche’s request to delay the filing requirement and gave Phang additional time to respond to the DOJ’s motion once the record is produced.
The message is straightforward: If the Justice Department wants the court to accept its claim that it followed the law, it needs to produce the records showing how it got there.
Sullivan’s third order addresses another major gap in the department’s handling of the Epstein files: foreign-language documents.
The Justice Department previously said it had not reviewed certain foreign-language materials because it was not practical for first-level reviewers to determine whether those documents were relevant.
Phang challenged that position, arguing that the department cannot simply leave potentially responsive records unreviewed and still claim full compliance with the law.
Sullivan ordered the DOJ to provide a status report supported by a sworn declaration from someone with personal knowledge of the review and production process.
That means the department must provide more than a vague assurance that the work is underway. The court wants an accounting from an official who actually knows what has been done.
The order adds another layer of scrutiny to a disclosure process that has already been the subject of repeated court disputes.
Nearly a Year Later, the Epstein Files Fight Continues
The Epstein Files Transparency Act was signed into law on November 19, 2025. It required the attorney general to make covered, unclassified Justice Department records publicly available within 30 days.
But on January 30, the Justice Department announced that it had completed its production obligations after releasing approximately 3.5 million pages.
Phang has continued arguing that the department failed to release all the material required by the law, improperly withheld certain records and failed to adequately explain its redactions.
Sullivan has already found that Phang was likely to prevail on key claims involving material the department allegedly failed to review or unlawfully withheld.
Now, with three new orders, the judge is demanding the handwritten FBI notes, the records behind the DOJ’s disclosure decisions and a sworn accounting of foreign-language documents.
Blanche can continue challenging the requirements through the courts. But the administration can no longer treat its January declaration that the files were released as the end of the matter.
Nearly 11 months after the transparency law was signed, the public is still waiting for answers about what the government has withheld, why it withheld it.
