Judge blasts Trump as he refuses to release Epstein grand jury files

U.S. District Court Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, appointed by former President Barack Obama, denied an effort by President Donald Trump's Justice Department to release secret grand jury materials related to Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

The move to release the grand jury materials came after Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel faced backlash for refusing additional Epstein files.

Engelmayer questioned the government's claim that there were "special circumstances" that allowed for the materials to be unsealed.

"It does not argue that these materials would aid federal, state, military, tribal, or foreign law enforcement; or would be relevant to national security officials, another grand jury, or another judicial proceeding," the judge wrote in a 31-page opinion on Monday. "The Government's invocation of special circumstances, however, fails at the threshold. Its entire premise—that the Maxwell grand jury materials would bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes, or the Government's investigation into them—is demonstrably false."

According to Engelmayer, the grand jury materials in Maxwell's case were already a "matter of public record" with "only very minor exceptions."

"The Court's review confirmed that unsealing the grand jury materials would not reveal new information of any consequence," the judge determined. "They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein's or Maxwell's crimes. They do not reveal new venues at which their crimes occurred. They do not reveal new sources of their wealth. They do not explore the circumstances of Epstein's death."

"The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government's public explanations for moving to unseal," he added. "A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at 'transparency' but at diversion—aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such."