NEED TO KNOW

• Federal judges have rejected Justice Department attempts to strike factual statements about Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein from FOIA case records
• The “motions to strike” targeted public statements including a 2002 Trump quote praising Epstein and a Truth Social post from the president himself
• Legal experts characterize the tactic as an unusual stalling maneuver designed to delay transparency and avoid acknowledging inconvenient facts

WASHINGTON (TDR) — Federal judges are pushing back against the Trump administration’s attempts to remove factual statements about President Donald Trump‘s relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein from public court records, rejecting Justice Department “motions to strike” that legal experts describe as irregular delay tactics. The administration has employed the procedural maneuver in multiple Freedom of Information Act cases seeking records about Trump’s potential interviews with law enforcement during the 2005-2008 Epstein investigation and documents related to alleged interference by Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.

The Department of Justice has filed motions to strike in at least four high-profile FOIA cases in recent months, including two involving Epstein records, one regarding a $400 million Qatari jet gifted to Trump, and another concerning deportations to El Salvador. In the legal context, a motion to strike typically seeks to remove evidence considered redundant, immaterial, or prejudicial. However, the DOJ’s recent filings have targeted factual statements long established in the public record, including direct quotes from the president himself.

“Motions to strike irrelevant, prejudicial or scandalous matters are almost never made, and when made, almost never granted. So that tells you the odds here.” — Richard Swanson

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Richard Swanson, president of the New York County Lawyers Association, told Salon that the administration’s approach represents an extreme departure from standard legal practice. The tactic has proven successful in generating delays even when rejected—one motion filed December 17 was not denied until February 9, creating weeks of procedural stall.

The administration’s targets include a now-infamous 2002 statement Trump made about Epstein to New York Magazine. The quote, which the DOJ sought to strike from one case, reads:

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. … He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” — Donald Trump (2002)

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

In another case, the Justice Department attempted to strike a statement Trump posted on his own Truth Social account from the public record. Judges overseeing two of the Epstein-related cases have denied the government’s motions, while decisions remain pending in the other matters.

Legal Experts Decry Transparency Evasion Tactics

Chioma Chukwu, executive director of the nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight, which brought the FOIA suits, characterized the administration’s strategy as an unprecedented attempt to obscure established facts.

“Motions to strike are one of the most extreme tools in litigation, reserved for rare and extraordinary situations. In this context, they serve a clear purpose: to delay accountability, to obscure facts already before the public, and to shield those in power from scrutiny.” — Chioma Chukwu

The legal maneuvering comes as the administration faces mounting pressure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandates disclosure of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents by December 19. The legislation, signed by Trump last month, overrides previous legal barriers to releasing grand jury materials and other records related to the Epstein investigation.

The FOIA cases targeted by the DOJ’s motions seek to uncover potential political interference in the document review process. One lawsuit specifically probes whether Attorney General Bondi and Director Patel intervened in the Epstein file review, while another aims to reveal any interviews Trump may have provided to law enforcement during the original 2005-2008 investigation into Epstein’s activities in Florida.

Pattern of Delay and Obstruction

The administration’s handling of Epstein-related transparency requests has faced consistent judicial pushback throughout 2025. In August, three separate federal judges rejected DOJ requests to unseal grand jury materials from the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases, with one judge calling the government’s motion a “diversion” from the extensive files already in its possession.

U.S. District Judge Richard Berman, who denied one such request in August, noted that the government possessed roughly 100,000 pages of Epstein files compared to the approximately 70 pages of grand jury materials it sought to unseal through the courts.

“The instant grand jury motion appears to be a ‘diversion’ from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession.” — Judge Richard Berman

The administration initially promised comprehensive transparency regarding the Epstein files during Trump’s presidential campaign, with supporters demanding release of so-called “client lists” and other materials. However, the Justice Department reversed course in July, issuing an unsigned memo stating that “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted” and acknowledging that Epstein did not maintain a formal client list.

That reversal triggered the current wave of FOIA litigation and congressional scrutiny. In November, Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the DOJ to expedite processing of a FOIA request specifically seeking records about whether the department reversed its disclosure position after Bondi allegedly informed Trump that his name appeared multiple times in the files.

Congressional Pressure Mounts

Lawmakers from both parties have pressed the administration for compliance with transparency mandates. Republican senators including Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, and John Kennedy warned Bondi in November against withholding files, with Murkowski stating Americans would feel “duped” if documents remained concealed.

The House Oversight Committee has issued subpoenas for Epstein files and for Maxwell to testify, while the full Congress established the December 19 deadline through the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Despite this, reports indicate the DOJ continues searching for additional documents, with internal emails revealing leadership requested holiday volunteers to assist with review efforts as the deadline approached.

The administration’s recent pivot to motions to strike represents a new front in its apparent effort to control the narrative surrounding Trump’s documented social ties to Epstein, which included appearances together at Mar-a-Lago events and mutual associations with prominent figures in business and politics before their reported falling out years prior to Epstein’s 2019 arrest.

If federal courts continue rejecting these procedural maneuvers, will the administration comply with transparency mandates or escalate its efforts to keep presidential records sealed?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from Salon’s investigation of DOJ motions to strike, CNN’s reporting on grand jury document denials, PBS NewsHour’s coverage of Florida transcript requests, NPR’s reporting on Maxwell case denials, ABC News coverage of Judge Chutkan’s expedited processing order, and the Wikipedia entry on the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10