Attorney General Pam Bondi stirred controversy within President Trump’s supporters by promoting her examination of the Jeffrey Epstein documents on television and distributing “Phase 1” binders to conservative figures who visited the White House. However, she later dismissed several longstanding conspiracy theories. The Department of Justice (DOJ) acted rapidly to control the situation by initiating multiple legal actions to disclose grand jury details in court. A federal judge has criticized one unsealing request, claiming its fundamental assumption is “demonstrably false” by suggesting that no significant new information would emerge, questioning the purpose behind the attempt to obtain grand jury materials.

This situation should not be confused with a separate DOJ request for unsealing in Epstein’s long-inactive criminal case within the Southern District of New York. In that context, the DOJ was reminded to inform Epstein’s victims. The motion in question pertains to Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex-trafficking case, as Maxwell awaits a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether it will consider her appeal.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, now overseeing the case after Maxwell’s original trial judge was elevated to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed the government’s motion on Monday. In doing so, the judge implied that the DOJ’s actions seemed more like a public relations maneuver in the federal court rather than a sincere legal argument for public interest disclosure.

“The Government has not provided any precedent where such materials have been considered ‘special circumstances’ that warrant the rare unsealing of grand jury materials. There isn’t any. In fact, the one valid argument for unsealing in this context is that it would reveal the Government’s public justifications for unsealing as insincere,” Engelmayer stated. “An informed member of the public might conclude that the Maxwell grand jury materials add nothing new to public knowledge and that the Government’s motion was more about creating the appearance of transparency rather than achieving it.”

The Second Circuit has allowed for “disclosure of grand jury materials” under “special circumstances” despite Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which restricts those privy to grand jury matters, such as jurors and government attorneys, from disclosing them. However, the DOJ failed to demonstrate that these circumstances were “exceptional,” as noted by the judge.

“The doctrine is to be applied only in ‘exceptional circumstances,’ and it does not justify granting ‘garden variety’ petitions for disclosure unauthorized by Rule 6(e),” Engelmayer said. “The burden is on the requestor to demonstrate that disclosure is appropriate, and ‘the baseline presumption [is] against disclosure.'”

“The Government’s invocation of special circumstances, however, fails at the threshold,” the judge added later. “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.”

The Trump administration could try to shift blame to the judge, a Barack Obama appointee, for blocking further Epstein-related disclosures, but Engelmayer’s ruling was clear that there was just about “nothing new” for the public to learn about Epstein’s crimes from the release of Maxwell grand jury material and case exhibits, the overwhelming bulk of which is already a matter of “public record.”

The judge pointed out that he himself had been handed a “binder” from the DOJ that did not contain smoking guns.

“The Court’s review confirmed that unsealing the grand jury materials would not reveal new information of any consequence. In response to the Court’s order, the Government supplied the Court with a binder highlighting any information that the Government had been unable to determine is public. Only scattered words, clauses, and occasional sentences are highlighted. These items are few and far between,” Engelmayer said. “The highlighted snippets supply, at most, tertiary details about the same conduct that was the focus of Maxwell’s month-long trial. The same is so for the exhibits put before the grand juries. Save inconsequential portions of a few exhibits, these were received in evidence at Maxwell’s trial. Some were reproduced in the Maxwell indictments.”

Engelmayer went so far as to say a citizen well-educated on the ins and outs of the Epstein-Maxwell saga would “learn next to nothing new” from the grand jury materials the DOJ asked to unseal.

“Insofar as the motion to unseal implies that the grand jury materials are an untapped mine lode of undisclosed information about Epstein or Maxwell or confederates, they definitively are not that,” the judge said. “A ‘public official,’ ‘lawmaker,’ ‘pundit,’ or ‘ordinary citizen’ ‘deeply interested and concerned about the Epstein matter,’ and who reviewed these materials expecting, based on the Government’s representations, to learn new information about Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes and the investigation into them, would come away feeling disappointed and misled.”

In case there was room for misinterpretation, Engelmayer stated that when it comes to these documents, “There is no ‘there’ there.”

“The materials do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor. They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s crimes,” the denial said. “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. They do not reveal the path of the Government’s investigation.”

Recall that the DOJ’s court filings came amid intense criticism of the Trump administration’s widely perceived as unsatisfactory handling of the “Epstein files,” which many of his supporters believe contain dark truths about the government’s role in aiding and abetting — and covering up — global grooming and sex-trafficking of young girls for abuse by the political elite, the famous, and some of the wealthiest men on earth.

On the contrary, DOJ said on July 6 that its “systematic review” found “no incriminating” Epstein “client list” (though many believe one to exist), “no credible evidence […] that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions,” and no evidence that Epstein was killed in jail by anyone other than himself before he could face a federal sex-trafficking trial in New York, during Trump’s first term.

Trump, clearly frustrated by the backlash and “ridiculous amount of publicity given” to Epstein, his former longtime friend, and blaming Democrats for it all, posted on July 17 that he asked Bondi to “produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval.”

Just two minutes later, Bondi posted, “President Trump—we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts.” And that’s what the DOJ did, a week before Trump’s former criminal defense attorney turned Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed the incarcerated Maxwell. A prison move for Maxwell followed, and so did speculation about whether a pardon could be coming for someone the president has multiple times wished well.

Trump had also reportedly been briefed by Bondi in May about his name coming up in the Epstein files.