WASHINGTON (AP) — Under significant pressure from President Donald Trump’s own allies, his administration on Friday requested a federal court to disclose sealed documents pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein’s case. This move aims to resolve a political predicament largely of its own making once and for all.

Yet, even if these records become public, it remains uncertain whether they will satisfy critics angered over the administration’s unfulfilled commitments to complete transparency about the evidence against the affluent financier. Simultaneously, the administration is still plagued by questions concerning its reluctance to release other documents it possesses, after fueling conspiracy theories and promising to expose government secrets tied to the “deep state.”

Here’s a look at the ongoing Epstein files controversy and what may happen next:

How the case got here

Trump is urgently attempting to move beyond a crisis that has engulfed his administration since the Justice Department announced last week that it would not disclose any additional evidence regarding the sex trafficking inquiry into Epstein, who died by suicide while in custody awaiting trial in 2019.

The latest development came Thursday when the Wall Street Journal described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump’s name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein’s 50th birthday. Trump denied writing the letter, calling it “false, malicious, and defamatory.”

Shortly after the story was published, Trump said he had directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval.”

“This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!” the president wrote on social media.

Bondi then announced that the Justice Department would move Friday to ask the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche filed the motion urging the court to release the transcripts.

Courts are typically reluctant to release grand jury materials

Grand juries decide whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment, or a formal criminal charge, and their proceedings are secret to protect the reputations of people who end up not being charged and to encourage reluctant witnesses to testify.

Grand jury transcripts — which could show the testimony of witnesses and other evidence presented by prosecutors — are rarely released by courts, unless they need to be disclosed in connection with a judicial proceeding. In fact, grand jury secrecy is such a sacrosanct principle under the law that government officials who improperly disclose testimony are subject to prosecution. Witnesses are not bound by those rules.

Even with the Justice Department endorsement, it could take weeks or months of legal wrangling to decide what can be released and how to protect witnesses and other sensitive victim information.

And it’s unlikely the transcripts would shed any light on a major fascination of conspiracy theorists obsessed with Epstein’s case: the financier’s connections to other powerful figures whom some believe were involved in Epstein’s sex trafficking scheme.

Court have blocked the release of grand jury materials in other high-profile investigations. House Democrats in 2019 sought grand jury testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation while Congress was conducting its impeachment inquiry into Trump. But the Justice Department successfully fought for years to keep the material secret.

The administration could release other records right now

The Justice Department’s decision to seek grand jury transcripts gives the administration a reason to point to the courts to explain why more material hasn’t yet been released. But the uproar over the Epstein files was never about the grand jury transcripts — it was about the thousands of other pages in the government’s possession that the administration now says it won’t release.

Facing outrage after the first release of Epstein files flopped in February, Bondi said officials were poring over a “truckload” of previously withheld evidence she said had been handed over by the FBI. But after a monthslong review of evidence in the government’s possession, the Justice Department determined that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

The Justice Department has yet to fully explain why none of that material could be released. It noted in its memo earlier this month that much of the material was placed under seal by a court to protect victims and “only a fraction” of it “would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial.”

Since then, Bondi has largely refused to answer questions from reporters about the matter.

Congress’ Epstein files resolution carries no legal weight

House Republicans may vote next week on a resolution that seeks to appease GOP demands for more transparency on the Epstein case. The resolution calls on the Justice Department to publicly release records, but it carries no legal force.

“The House Republicans are for transparency, and they’re looking for a way to say that they agree with the White House,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday. “We agree with the president. Everything he said about that, all the credible evidence should come out.”

Democrats, with the support of nine Republicans, have advanced their own legislation that would require the Justice Department to release more information about the case.

___

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.