The Intersection with Michael Popok
Legal AF
Nov 25, 2025
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.283567/gov.uscourts.dcd.283567.17.0_1.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 25-cv-2597 (TSC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case, Democracy Forward seeks expedited review of FOIA requests regarding the Justice Department’s handling of files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. After the Department constructively denied its expedited review requests, Democracy Forward filed this lawsuit and moved for summary judgment. Because Democracy Forward has demonstrated that the Department’s handling of the Epstein files is a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence,” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv), its FOIA requests are largely entitled to expedited review. But because its requests are partially overbroad, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Democracy Forward’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
At the outset, the court notes that Plaintiff’s Notice of Recent Developments, ECF No. 16, does not affect the court’s review of the instant motion. In reviewing requests for expedited processing, the court is limited to “the record before the agency at the time” of the denial or constructive denial. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). Therefore, although recent Congressional activity and media coverage may support Democracy Forward’s claim regarding “the public’s urgent need for access” to the information Democracy Forward seeks, Pl.’s Notice at 3, the court cannot and will not consider it. Moreover, recent legislation concerning the release of the Epstein files does not moot this case because Democracy Forward seeks records concerning the Department’s handling of the files—records that are distinct from the files themselves.
Trump's former criminal judge, Judge Chutkan, has just granted summary judgment to force the IMMEDIATE release, among other things, of all Trump-Epstein correspondence. Popok explains what just happened and what happens next.
Transcript
When it rains for this corrupt
Department of Justice led by Attorney
General Pam Bondi and Donald Trump, it
tsunamis. And we just got another new
ruling from a federal judge. This time,
Judge Chutkan in the DC federal court
about the Epstein files, but more
importantly about the Department of
Justice's mishandling of the Epstein
files. And Judge Chutkan says because
and blames effectively Pam Bondi again
that Pam Bondi screwed it up because she
told the world in February that the
files were quote unquote on her desk
about the Epstein files. Then there's
reporting that in March and April the
files were completely reviewed top to
bottom by the FBI. Then in May, there's
reporting that Pam Bondi briefed Donald
Trump. And then by July, they're saying
nothing to see here. They close the file
and say we're not going to be releasing
the Epstein files, which leads to a
whirlwind, a tsunami led by MAGA
against the Trump administration. Well,
under the Freedom of Information Act,
that's just the type of "widespread
and exceptional media interest", which gives a group like
Democracy Forward the right for an
expedited document examination of
the documents that they're seeking,
which is not just the Epstein files.
It's the documents around the handling
of the Epstein files. Oh, it's the gift
that keeps on giving. And once again,
Pam Bondi, who is over her skis and
completely incompetent and should have
been fired already,
is at the heart of another Department of
Justice scandal. We need a
scandalometer. How many have there been?
The way the Alien Enemies Act was used
to abuse the due process rights of human
beings and migrants and immigrants. ago
Garcia. Uh the way that the federal
judges have been abused by her and by
others and lied to, you know, the
Lindsay Halligan affair and her just
getting fired and Lindsey Halligan's role
in that. I mean, it's just scandal after
scandal after scandal. Let me read to
you from the memorandum opinion of Judge
Chutkan. And I love the fact that it's
Judge Chutkan who was the judge
presiding over the election interference
case for Donald Trump. She knows Donald
Trump like the back of her hand. And
here's the memorandum opinion granting
the decision.
First, the judge says effectively
widespread and exceptional media
interest, which is a requirement under
the Freedom of Information Act was
created by Pam Bondi herself because
first she said, this is a judge. She
said in February, Pam Bondi told the
world she had the files. They were on
her desk. In fact, let's play the clip.
Q. The DOJ may be releasing the list of
Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that
really happen?
[Bondi] It's sitting on my desk right now to
review. Um that's been a directive um by
President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm
reviewing JFK files and MLK files.
That's all in the process of being
reviewed because that was done at the
directive of the president from all of
these agencies.
Sure. First to back up
on that, in February I did an interview
on Fox and it's been getting a lot of
attention because I said I was asked a
question about the client list and my
response was it's sitting on my desk to
be reviewed meaning the file along with
the JFK MLK files as well. That's what I
meant by that. Also to the tens of
thousands of video, they turned out to
be child porn downloaded by that
disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child porn
is what they were never going to be
released, never going to see the light
of day. To him being an agent, I have no
knowledge about that. We can get back to
you on that, and the minute missing from
the video. We released the video showing
definitively
the video was not conclusive, but the
evidence prior to it was showing he
committed suicide. And what was on that
there was a minute that was off the
counter. And what we learned from Bureau
of Prisons was every year, every um
night they redo that video. It's old
from like 1999. So every night the video
is reset and every night should have the
same minute missing. So we're looking
for that video to release that as well
showing that a minute is missing every
night and that's it on Epstein.
And the judge says there are others that
said that they were there was news
reporting that in March and April those
files were scoured by the FBI led by
Kash Patel top to bottom in searching
for Donald Trump's name and that it
was reported that Pam Bondi briefed
Donald Trump in May and said your name
is all over the files which is
consistent with David Schusters's recent
reporting that MAGA the right-wingers,
even like soon to be former
congressperson Marjorie Taylor Green,
were briefed that the files are worse
for Donald Trump than before.
Then you
had the closeout memo which was attempted a few
months later in which the FBI and the
Department of Justice did a two-page
memo that said, "Nothing to see here, no
crimes here. We're closing the file.
There's no client list." People were
like, "What?" again cited by Judge
Chutkan as a as a a basis for granting
on summary judgement the expedited uh
documents to be sent over to Democracy
Forward and the public about the
handling of the Epstein files caused by
their own their own behavior, their own
conduct.
Then you had the world explode after
Kash Patel
went on his Senate and House
oversight committees and he told a MAGA
senator that there was nothing in the
files and it was only Jeffrey Epstein who
was the criminal. Let's play that clip.
Q. I want to ask you about the Epstein
files. Have you seen the Epstein files?
[Kash Patel] I have not reviewed the entirety of it
myself, but a good amount.
Q. You've
seen most of the files.
Who, if anyone did Epstein traffic
these young women to besides himself?
[Kash Patel] Himself? There is no credible
information. None. If there were, I
would bring the case yesterday that he
trafficked to other individuals and the
information we have again is limited. So
the answer is no one
for the information that we have
in the files
in the case file.
And that led right-wing media including
on Fox and Laura Loomer to lose their
mind and start attacking Pam Bondi and
call for her ouster which was cited by
Judge Chutkan again as another grounds
to release the files about the handling
of the Epstein files. Let's play that
clip.
[Laura Loomer] Want to be Fox News Barbie? It's like
Fox News Barbie Blondie is what I have
to call this woman because she just
wants to go on Fox. And yeah, Sean, hi
Sean Hannity. My name is Pam Blondie and
I'm the attorney general of the United
States. And let me tell you, Aninsley,
let me tell you, Peter, those Epstein
files were delivered to my office in a
dump truck. In a big FBI dump truck. And
there's a lot of real powerful men on
those lists. And there's a lot of really
powerful people, I'll tell you, Sean,
who are about to take private jets out
of the out of our country. But I I'm Pam
Blondie, the best attorney general
you've ever seen in this country. And
I'm going to hold these people
accountable.
Oh, golly golly, Sean. I guess I
misspoke. I guess I misspoke when I said
the files were on my desk. I guess I
misspoke when I said that the files were
going to be delivered in a dump truck.
and Pam Blondie should not just resign
or be fired, but Kash Patel and Dan
Bongino should come out on the record and
call for her to be fired as well.
Now, if you were the
survivors of course also who have taken
to the airwaves and have given press
statements that if the files are not
released, if the files were not
released, they were going to start
releasing the client lists and the
client files themselves. And that
includes Lisa Phillips, one of the
survivors of Epstein, who said exactly
that in this clip. Let's play the clip.
In the year 2000, I was taken to Jeffrey
Epstein's island while on a photo shoot
on a nearby island.
Who I saw and what I experienced there
was a was a glimpse into a very dark and
disturbing world. For years after, I
tried to avoid Jeffrey, but he had
introduced me to Katie Ford, the owner
of the Ford Modeling Agency.
Epstein's reach went to the very top of
fashion, arts, and entertainment.
This did not just happen to underage
girls in Florida. In New York City,
hundreds of young, ambitious women were
abused by him. Epstein was not just a
serial predator. He was an international
human trafficker.
And many around him knew, many
participated,
and many profited.
And yet he was protected.
So I stand here today for every woman
who has been silenced, exploited, and
dismissed. We are not asking for pity.
We are here demanding accountability.
And I'm demanding justice.
Congress must choose. Will you continue
to protect predators or will you finally
protect survivors?
And also I would like to announce here
today us Epstein survivors have been
discussing creating our own list. We
know the names. Many of us were abused
by them. Now together as survivors we
will confidentially compile the names we
all know
who regularly in who are regularly in
the epstein world and it will be done by
survivors and for survivors.
No one else is involved. Stay tuned for
more details.
Now Lisa Phillips is going to join me
for an interview that we're going to put
up tomorrow. I think you're going to be
fascinated by what she says and on the
edge of your seat about what the
survivors are prepared to do about the
Epstein files if they don't get
released. Attention Pam Bondi.
Now, let
me read now from the memorandum opinion.
The what they're seeking and what the
judge has granted, and what now will be
coming out subject to an appeal by Pam
Bondi are the following.
All materials
prepared or compiled by the DOJ
officials for Attorney General Bondi's
review regarding the Epstein matter.
What did that document look like? All
briefing materials for Bondi for her
meeting with President Trump regarding
the Epstein matter in May of 2025.
All records reflecting communications
between the attorney general, the
deputy attorney general Todd
Blanche, the associate attorney general,
Stan Woodward, and/or Emil Bove,
and senior aids regarding the Jeffrey
Epstein matter. All records reflecting
communications between the FBI director
and those in his inner circle about the
Epstein matter. All records
reflecting directives, guidance, and
instructions provided by the FBI
leadership to FBI personnel who were
doing the review.
And all documents between
Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein are now,
even if they're going to somehow be withheld with the new bill that
just got signed into law, this judge has
ordered them to be produced to democracy
forward who will make them public.
Particularly, Judge Chutkan on page
12 says that there's a chance that the
Department of Justice has no integrity.
No shed, if you know what
I mean. Possible questions about the
government's integrity. Page 12.
Democracy Forward has also established
that this widespread media
coverage raises possible questions about
the government's integrity that affect
public confidence.
The primary way to determine whether
such possible questions exist is by
examining public coverage. Democracy
Forward is on page 13 has cleared this
bar. As its submission to the
justice department showed, prominent
outlets have reported that the
department's change in position has
generated widespread controversy
has generated widespread controversy
that has undermined public trust.
And it goes through all that coverage.
And the only thing that she's not
granting is flight logs. Other than flight logs,
everything that I just outlined is
being forced to compelled to be sent
over by the Department of Justice and
FBI over Democracy Forward.
On page 14,
the court summarizes it this way.
The court is largely satisfied that
Democracy Forward's FOIA requests are
closely related to the department's
handling of the Epstein files. The
request for records reflecting all
correspondence between Donald J. Trump
and Jeffrey Epstein is plainly tied to
the concern discussed in the media that
the Justice Department reversed its
position on the disclosure of the
documents only after Attorney General
Bondi reportedly informed the president
that his name appeared in the files.
So, you need to turn it over on a
summary judgement.
Now, what's the attorney general going
to do next? You know it. She's going to
claim there's an active investigation
going on that she started up in New York
with the Southern District of New York
acting US attorney Jay Clayton. She'd
love to release the files, but she can't
release them because there's an active
investigation. She'll also claim they're
privileged. She'll also claim their
attorney work product and litigation
privileged. And she will take this up on
appeal to the three judge panel of the
DC circuit court and ultimately to the
United States Supreme Court. But the
federal judges need to do their job the
way Judge Chutkan just did her job
there. If there's a summary judgment to
be granted, you grant it. You don't
worry about an appeal. You don't worry
about the summary judgment.You don't worry about the
Supreme Court. You do your job as a
trial judge.
And that's exactly what we just saw
Judge Chutkan do.
So the headline is
"Judge Chutkan has ordered that the
correspondence between Donald Trump and
Jeffrey Epstein be produced ASAP on a
summary judgment."
They can now take
their appeals. They can now argue which
they're going to do. They can now argue
that there's an active investigation, a
criminal investigation. Their hands are
tied. But let them make that argument to
the Court of Appeals. Make their record
and then take it up if they can on an
emergency application up to the United
States Supreme Court and let them weigh
in on the Epstein matter. They only
weigh in once. They denied the appeal
once and for all for Ghislaine Maxwell, the
convicted child sex trafficker, along
with Jeffrey Epstein. They're not even
putting their little toe into the water
related to the scandal. Yeah. Let's see
what happens next.
This is a pretty run-of-the-mill Freedom of
Information Act request by statute and
with findings made by this judge which I
think are unassailable including the
procedural history here.
We will follow
it all including any late breaking
developments right here on Legal AF.
Take a minute, hit the free subscribe
button, help us continue to grow this
prodemocracy channel.
******************************
Judge Chutkan Orders Expedited Process on Epstein Files
by Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
Newsweek
Published Nov 25, 2025 at 10:24 AM EST
Nov 25, 2025 at 10:56 AM EST
https://www.newsweek.com/judge-chutkan- ... s-11105315
A new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit is forcing the Justice Department to defend its handling of the so-called Epstein files, a sprawling set of records from the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.
The suit, brought by the Democracy Forward Foundation, argues that the government has sidestepped its legal obligations by delaying responses to requests that implicate both the administration's transparency promises and ongoing public concern about the extent of Epstein's ties to influential figures.
Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) for comment via email on Tuesday outside normal office hours.
Why It Matters
Despite being framed as a routine records dispute, the lawsuit over files related to Epstein—a financier and convicted sex offender who was federally charged with trafficking girls and died in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial—has become a test of the Trump administration's transparency pledges, the Justice Department's credibility and public confidence in the handling of one of the most politically charged investigations in recent memory.
Early in President Donald Trump's second term, officials publicly suggested a list of Epstein's clients existed, but the DOJ and FBI declared in July that an exhaustive review had found none. Democracy Forward's FOIA suit presses for disclosure of the government's internal communications to determine whether political considerations influenced the shift in the Justice Department's stance.
With reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump his name appears in the files, recent immunity-protected meetings with convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell and a DOJ memo asserting that no further releases were "appropriate or warranted," the case now carries stakes that reach far beyond paperwork. It touches victims' trust, the administration's accountability and the public's ability to understand how—and why—the government made its decisions.
A July 25, 2013, photo of Jeffrey Epstein provided by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. | Florida Department of Law Enforcement via AP
What To Know
Democracy Forward is a nonprofit legal organization in Washington, D.C., that litigates for government transparency and accountability, often using FOIA and administrative law challenges to scrutinize federal actions.
On August 8, it filed a complaint seeking the court-ordered expedited processing of several FOIA requests submitted to the DOJ and FBI.
The organization said in the suit that the requested records—which concern senior officials' communications about Epstein, agency review processes and references to Trump—must be released quickly because of "an extraordinary need to inform the public about the Trump Administration's handling of the Epstein matter."
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed that an expedited review was warranted in large part. In an opinion, she found that the subject met the regulatory standard for issues involving "widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence."
She ruled that most of Democracy Forward's requests qualified for accelerated processing, though portions were deemed overbroad.
The FOIA requests seek clarity on the Justice Department's shifting public posture toward the Epstein files.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump said he would "have no problem" releasing what many believed to be a list of Epstein's alleged clients.
In February, Bondi appeared to affirm those expectations, telling reporters that the list was "sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump."
Why the DOJ's Shift Sparked Scrutiny
In July, the Justice Department reversed course. The FBI and DOJ said in a memo that after a "systematic review" of the records—including searches uncovering "more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence"—they found "no incriminating 'client list'" and "no credible evidence" that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals.
The agencies concluded that "no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted."
This shift, Democracy Forward argues, intensified public scrutiny and raised concerns about political interference.
The organization's complaint cited reporting that Bondi briefed Trump in May that his name appeared in the files.
The Justice Department later met with Maxwell, Epstein's convicted co-conspirator, granting her what outlets described as "limited immunity" in exchange for discussions with senior officials.
Soon after, Maxwell was transferred to a lower-security facility.
Democracy Forward says these developments underscore the urgency of public access. The group argues that pending decisions affecting Maxwell's legal status could "permanently impact [her] willingness to publicly disclose information on the government's handling of the Epstein matter."
Chutkan emphasized that her ruling concerned only the process, not the content, of the records at issue. Still, her order ensures that the Justice Department cannot rely on administrative delay to avoid producing responsive documents.
The dispute reflects broader tensions between the public's demand for visibility into a high-profile investigation and the government's stated obligation to protect victim identities and sealed material.
The FBI memo underscored those concerns, noting that the files include "images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors," as well as extensive sealed evidence.
For now, the court's decision guarantees only that the FOIA requests move forward quickly.
But in a case shaped by political pressure, public distrust and long-standing speculation, transparency—or the lack thereof—may prove as consequential as any revelation contained within the files themselves.
Later on Tuesday, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, gave the following statement: “This is the first federal court ruling about the Trump-Vance administration’s cover up in handling the Epstein Files, and the court acknowledged what we have long known: the Trump-Vance administration has been stonewalling in providing the public with information about how it is handling the Epstein Files, including communications between Donald Trump and Epstein, as well as communications between federal agencies. We are pleased that the court granted our motion to expedite the production of records to the public and will continue to use the courts to shine a light on what the administration is doing.”
What People Are Saying
Judge Tanya Chutkan, discussing how big the matter had become publicly, wrote in her ruling: "The court is hard pressed to think of stronger evidence that this issue has attracted widespread and exceptional media interest."
She added, commenting on the DOJ's attempt to narrow the FOIA requests: "Government counsel slices Democracy Forward's requests too thin by attempting to depict different aspects of the same matter as separate matters."
What Happens Next
Chutkan's ruling means the Justice Department and FBI must fast-track Democracy Forward's FOIA requests, begin producing internal communications about the government's handling of the Epstein files and justify any redactions or withholding under FOIA.
The agencies must clarify which parts of the requests they consider overbroad, provide rolling releases of documents and report their progress to the court. If disputes arise over exemptions or delays, the judge can order further disclosures or conduct private review of contested records.
In effect, the case now moves from legal argument to forced transparency, with the court overseeing a rapid process that could clarify how and why the DOJ made its decisions about the Epstein files.
Update 11/25/25, 10:55 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward.
