A federal judge has lost all patience with a Justice Department that keeps missing deadlines to release files the public was legally promised.

"That's not a threat. That's a promise."

— Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, warning the DOJ he will hold them in contempt again

The Justice Department missed another court order on Thursday, and this time the judge told them exactly what comes next.

Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered DOJ attorney Todd Blanche to appear in court on August 13 with two things: a redaction log explaining why names were scrubbed from the Jeffrey Epstein files, and handwritten FBI notes from interviews with a woman who says she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump at age 13. The files are supposed to be released under the Epstein Transparency Act, which Congress passed to force the government's hand after years of stonewalling.

Blanche did not show up.

Instead, the DOJ sent Andrew Block, a lawyer who spent four years at Stephen Miller's America First Legal before joining the government. Block arrived visibly unprepared. He repeated the same excuses Blanche had already made. When Sullivan asked how the court could verify that the FBI notes were genuinely duplicative of the final report, Block essentially said, "Trust us." His voice shook. His face flushed. He said "I don't know" repeatedly when pressed on when the documents would actually be produced.

Translation: whoever is managing this case at the DOJ either doesn't understand what the court ordered, or doesn't care.

Sullivan was not having it. "I've already done that! Do you want me to issue another order saying I really mean it this time?" the judge asked, visibly exasperated.

The courtroom scene played out in front of Katie Phang, the plaintiff who brought the successful lawsuit demanding the release of the files under the Transparency Act. Phang was present. The DOJ lawyer who was actually ordered to appear was not. According to journalist Scott MacFarland, who was reporting from the courtroom, Block was "visibly flustered" throughout the proceedings and struggled to explain why Blanche was still protecting the documents that Phang had been fighting to obtain.

Phang's attorneys noted that Blanche is now past two court orders and called for sanctions. Sullivan responded with a story about a previous case where he did hold DOJ lawyers in contempt for withholding files. "That's not a threat," he said. "That's a promise."

The redaction issue is not a minor procedural dispute. Blanche originally told the court that the redacted names in the Epstein files belonged to victims. Under pressure, he shifted his position: attorneys for people named in the files contacted the DOJ and requested that their clients be treated as victims. This includes at least one individual whose name was redacted from an email in which the sender complains that he is being called a "sexual pervert" because he said 14 and 15 year old girls are "fair game."

The DOJ's own lawyer is arguing that this person, who defended underage sex, is a victim entitled to redaction.

The Epstein Transparency Act was not some obscure legislative afterthought. It was passed to force the Justice Department to release files that had been sitting in government custody for years, files that Congress itself mandated be made public. The law was designed precisely because the executive branch had proven unwilling to do it voluntarily.

What has happened since is textbook obstruction. The DOJ has delayed, deflected, and now defied direct court orders. Blanche has appeared before Sullivan multiple times with explanations that grow thinner each hearing. The agency's lead attorney on the case has effectively gone dark, leaving an unprepared replacement to face a judge who has already lost patience.

The handwritten FBI notes are particularly significant. They come from four interviews with a woman who alleges Trump sexually assaulted her as a minor. The DOJ claims these notes are duplicative of the final FBI report, meaning the information is already in a public document. But Sullivan rejected that argument last week, telling Blanche directly that the attorney does not get to decide what is duplicative and exempt from the court order. The notes were ordered. The notes were not produced.

The redaction logs are equally important. Without them, the public has no way to understand the scale of what is being withheld, or the rationale behind each decision to scrub a name. The DOJ has offered no comprehensive accounting.

Katie Phang posted a 13 minute video late Thursday night walking through the hearing in detail. "None of these lawyers for the DOJ knew what the hell was going on," she said. The video has already drawn significant attention, as has the broader story. Phang's lawsuit was one of the few clear victories for transparency in a file that has been shrouded in secrecy since Epstein's death.

The Epstein files are not just about one disgraced financier. They connect to powerful people, political figures, and institutions that have spent years working to keep the full scope of Epstein's network hidden. The Transparency Act was the public's answer to that effort. The DOJ's response to the law has been to treat it as a suggestion.

Sullivan's contempt warning is real. He has done this before. If Blanche does not comply with the order to produce the documents, the consequences for the attorneys involved could be severe. But the pattern of the last several months suggests compliance is not a priority for the department currently running the case.

Phang took on the Justice Department as an individual plaintiff. She won. And the department's response to losing has been to keep dragging its feet in front of a judge who now looks ready to make it hurt.

The question is not whether the DOJ will eventually comply. The question is how many more court orders it will take before they bother.

epstein, doj, transparency, epstein files