Justice Department Reviewing FBI/DOJ Epstein Records for Possible Release

Judicial Watch filed a “joint status report” on July 7 in federal court reporting that the Justice Department and the FBI continue to search for and review records in response to our FOIA lawsuit for records regarding Jeffrey Epstein.

The lawsuit requests any records on the identities of Epstein clients or associates. The Justice Department’s disclosure is at odds with the leaked, unsigned and undated Justice Department/FBI memo that suggests no more Epstein records would be disclosed to the American public. The memo was first disclosed late on July 6.

Judicial Watch sued the Justice Department and FBI in April 2025 after they failed to adequately respond to separate FOIA requests for records filed in February 2025 concerning Epstein, including a specific request for records “depicting the identities of clients or associates of Epstein.” Epstein document requests were sent to the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy, the Criminal Division, and two separate requests were sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-01056)).

The joint status report states:

Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. and Defendant U.S. Department of Justice, by counsel and pursuant to the Court’s June 12, 2025, order, respectfully submit this joint status report:

***

(2)(3) the anticipated number of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request, and the anticipated date(s) for release of the documents requested by Plaintiff

Federal Bureau of Investigation

• For 1662669-0 (any/all Epstein records), the FBI has run its initial searches and is in the process of reviewing those search results.
• For 1662711-0 (Communications of Director Patel’s regarding Epstein client list), the FBI’s search efforts are ongoing.
• The FBI does not yet have an anticipated number of documents or anticipated dates for release.

Executive Office of United States Attorneys

• EOUSA’s initial search efforts are ongoing.
• EOUSA does not yet have an anticipated number of documents or anticipated dates for release.

Office of Information Policy

• OIP issued a final response to FOIA-2025-02863 on April 15, 2025, informing Plaintiff that no responsive to its request were located. [Available here]

The government has yet to turn over one document, nor has it disclosed when any documents might be released.

Our complaint references a February 24, 2025, Fox News report, which states that President Trump’s “return to the Oval Office came with the prospect of the public finally being able to see Epstein's long-awaited ‘black book’ amid inquiries into the deceased financier and sex trafficker.”

Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

The Justice Department on February 27, 2025, released a long-awaited trove of documents related to Epstein. As stated by the New York Post: “But the much-hyped, roughly 200-page document dump provided no big revelations, instead listing celebrities and politicians who were already known to have palled around with the notorious pedophile.”

But the recent Justice Department memo suggests there will be no more public disclosures:

To that end, while we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in the government’s possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.

The Justice Department and FBI are sending out contradictory messages: telling the American people that no more Epstein material will be released, while telling the federal court in our case that the Epstein FOIA review is proceeding. But no matter, our FOIA lawsuit for the Epstein material continues. We will be relentless in demanding transparency under law.

Judicial Watch Sues for FBI Records on Biden Scheme to Jail Trump

Judicial Watch is after the full truth of the Biden administration’s abuse of our judicial system in its zeal to stop Donald Trump.

Our legal team filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records about the FBI’s investigation of Trump codenamed “Arctic Frost,” which was part of an unprecedented effort by the Biden administration to prosecute and jail President Trump for disputing Biden’s controversial election victory (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-02011)).

Judicial Watch sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the FBI, a component of the Justice Department, failed to respond to a January 30, 2025, FOIA request for:

All reports, notes, summaries, interview transcripts, or similar records pertaining to the FBI investigation Arctic Frost.

In January 2025, U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) publicized records about the targeting of Trump:

Internal FBI emails and predicating documents provided to Grassley and released jointly by the two senators show Timothy Thibault, a former FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) who was forced to retire from the Bureau after Grassley exposed his public anti-Trump bias, authored the initial language for what ultimately became Jack Smith’s federal case against Trump regarding the 2020 presidential election. Records show Thibault essentially opened and approved his own investigation. The FBI titled the ensuing investigation “Arctic Frost.”

Records further reveal Richard Pilger, an official in the Justice Department (DOJ)’s Public Integrity Section, reviewed and approved the FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation, authorizing DOJ to move forward with a full field criminal and Grand Jury investigation that ultimately transformed into the Trump elector case. Grassley published a 2021 report that raised concerns regarding Pilger’s troubling record at DOJ.

 Judicial Watch shouldn’t have to sue to get these records about how the Biden gang at the FBI and DOJ tried to rig an election by jailing Trump for disputing the 2020 election. Attorney General Bondi and FBI Director Patel should focus on transparency under law so the American people can know the full truth of this law attack on Trump – and our constitutional republic.

Judicial Watch Sues for FBI Records on Epstein Victim Virginia Giuffre

Our Epstein investigation is expanding.  Judicial Watch just filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all interviews, conversations and other records provided to the FIBI by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Louise Giuffre (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-02191)).

We sued the FBI after it failed to respond to an April 26, 2025 FOIA request for all records regarding:

A deceased individual named Virginia Louise Giuffre, née Virginia Louise Roberts. For purposes of identification, Ms. Giuffre was born on August 9, 1983, in Sacramento, California and died on April 25, 2025, in Neergabby, Australia….

This request includes, but is not limited to, all reports, transcripts, summaries, or similar records documenting any interviews of or other conversations with Ms. Giuffre, as well as all records she provided to the FBI. In addition, this request includes, but is not limited to, all records of communication between any official or employee of the FBI and any official or employee of any other federal, state, or local government agency or office regarding or mentioning Ms. Giuffre.

Giuffre reportedly committed suicide on April 25, 2025:

Virginia Giuffre, one of the most prominent survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse, has died by suicide, her family said Friday.

Giuffre, 41, died in Neergabby, Australia, where she had been living for several years.

Giuffre was one of the earliest and loudest voices calling for criminal charges against Epstein and his enablers. Other Epstein abuse survivors later credited her with giving them the courage to speak out.

In 2015, Giuffre, who held U.S. citizenship at birth, was among the first Epstein victims to go public. She was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre reported years of sexual abuse and alleged she was trafficked to prominent individuals, including Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom. She filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew, which was settled out of court in 2022 for an estimated £12 million (approximately $15 million).

Earlier this week, in our FOIA lawsuit for records regarding Epstein, the Justice Department confirmed to a federal court that it and the FBI continue to search for and review records for potential disclosure (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-01056)).

Given the Justice Department and FBI’s decision to abandon the Epstein investigation, we will step into the gap and provide leadership. Our FOIA lawsuit for records about Epstein’s most well-known victim is an important next step for accountability.

Federal Court Hearing in Lawsuit for Joe Biden’s Family Business Records

Judicial Watch’s legal team was in court on July 8 for a hearing before U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan in our FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for Biden family records and communications regarding travel and finance transactions, as well as communications between the Bidens and several known business associates.

Judicial Watch filed the May 2023 lawsuit after the National Archives failed to respond to a February 2023 FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Archives (No. 1:23-cv-01432)).

This lawsuit forced the release of records revealing emails sent by Joe Biden using alias accounts during his vice presidency, in which he communicated with family members, including his son Hunter and brother James. The records also showed that in August 2016, Biden approved ending Secret Service protection for both Hunter Biden and Beau Biden’s daughter, Natalie, during a trip to Kosovo.

The emails included messages to Jim and Hunter Biden regarding the then-vice president’s schedule and meetings. Some emails showed Joe Biden using the alias: [email protected].

The emails also showed that Hunter and Jim Biden accompanied Joe Biden on taxpayer-funded trips; and then-Vice President Biden in December 2009 emailing an aide after he forgot the password to his West Wing computer.

The records showed that Hunter Biden used an email address ([email protected]) from his now-dissolved firm Rosemont Seneca Partners and that James Biden used an email address ([email protected]) tied to his consulting firm Lion Hall, which had been the subject of an FBI bribery investigation in the 1990s.

The lawsuit also forced the release of records showing then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter received a May 26, 2016, email detailing a scheduled “8:45 am prep for a 9 am phone call with Pres Poroshenko,” who was the president of Ukraine. (Hunter Biden was on the board of the controversial Ukrainian firm Burisma at the time.)

This lawsuit is an opportunity for the Trump team to stop the Deep State’s slow-walking of the release of Biden family corruption records.

A Missed Opportunity to Uphold the First Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Judicial Watch’s petition challenging a lower court decision against Kari MacRae, a Massachusetts high school teacher who was fired in retaliation for social media posts, which decried woke values such as critical race theory being taught in schools.

The posts predated her employment at Hanover High School in Massachusetts. We argued that the Supreme Court should take up the case as the lower courts misapplied the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.

MacRae was fired because she spoke out against critical race theory before she was hired. The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up her case is a missed opportunity to uphold the First Amendment.

Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion raised significant concerns about what happened to MacRae:

The First Circuit’s analysis strikes me as deeply flawed. To start, I do not see how the tone of MacRae’s posts can bear on the weight of her First Amendment interest. “Speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection.” … And, “[t]he inappropriate or controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.” … “[H]umor, satire, and even personal invective can make a point about a matter of public concern.”

***

It undermines core First Amendment values to allow a government employer to adopt an institutional viewpoint on the issues of the day and then, when faced with a dissenting employee, portray this disagreement as evidence of disruption. And, the problem is exacerbated in the case of an employee such as MacRae, who expressed her views only outside the workplace and before her employment

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit for MacRae against Hanover High School Principal Matthew Mattos and Hanover School Superintendent Matthew Ferron in November 2021, asserting a claim for First Amendment retaliation (MacRae v. Matthew Mattos et al. (No. 21-cv-11917, 23-1817)).

MacRae was hired as a Hanover High School teacher on August 31, 2021, but was fired on September 29, 2021, over several TikTok posts that were made months prior to her hiring at the school. MacRae, who in May of 2021 was elected to the Bourne School Committee, made the posts in her personal capacity as a citizen and candidate for public office.

Until next week,