A federal judge ordered the Trump Justice Department to fast-track a watchdog group's request for Epstein files, including records mentioning President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the ruling in a memorandum opinion filed Wednesday. She granted in part a motion for summary judgment from Democracy Defenders Fund, finding the group is entitled to expedited processing of three Freedom of Information Act requests it submitted to DOJ in July 2025.
"BIG WIN for making the Epstein Files public," Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, celebrated in a post on X after the ruling. "Orders DOJ to get busy giving us the docs. We will hold their feet to the fire."
The group's July 2025 request to the DOJ's Criminal Division sought records from the department's investigations of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell that mention Trump or Mar-a-Lago. Its July 28 requests sought communications about the Epstein files involving top officials, including then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, FBI Director Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.
Kollar-Kotelly found the requests involved matters of "widespread and exceptional media interest" that raised "possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence," the standard under DOJ's own regulations.
"All in all, the coverage cited by DDF surfaced possible ethical issues that had the potential to reduce public confidence in governmental institutions," she wrote.
The judge pointed to a Reuters/Ipsos poll showing 69 percent of Americans believed the government was hiding details about Epstein's clients. She also cited reports that Bondi "had 'pressured' approximately 1,000 FBI personnel in 24-hour shifts to review an estimated 100,000 Epstein-related records and to 'flag' any records in which President Trump was mentioned."
The win was not total. Kollar-Kotelly narrowed parts of the July 28 requests to the officials named in them rather than "any [DOJ] official," finding the broader language overbroad. She also rejected the group's argument that it qualified for expedition under FOIA's "compelling need" provision, ruling it had not shown it is "primarily engaged in disseminating information."
She wrote, "Although it is a close call, the Court concludes that, on the present record, DDF has not established that it is primarily engaged in disseminating information."
The ruling moves the group's requests to the front of the line but does not set a production deadline. DOJ can still withhold material under FOIA exemptions.