Trump administration seeks release of Epstein grand jury records but not Justice Department files
By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER
Under intense pressure from President Donald Trump's own supporters, his administration now says it will push a court to unseal secret documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's case in an effort to put to rest for good a political crisis largely of its own making.
But even if those records become public, it's far from certain they will appease critics enraged over the administration's unfulfilled promises of full transparency about evidence against the wealthy financier. Meanwhile, the administration remains dogged by questions about its refusal to release other records in its possession after stoking conspiracy theories and pledging to uncover government secrets of the 'deep state.'
Here's a look at the ongoing Epstein files controversy and what may happen next:
Trump is desperately trying to turn the page on a crisis that has consumed his administration since the Justice Department announced last week that it would not release any more evidence about the sex trafficking investigation into Epstein, who killed himself behind bars while 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.
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 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.
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.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
Akazawa jets to Washington for tariff talks after historic election
Japan's chief tariff negotiator flew to Washington on Monday for an eighth round of trade talks, just a day after the ruling coalition suffered a dramatic defeat in an Upper House election and less than two weeks ahead of a key tariff deadline. While the political landscape was upended by Sunday's vote, Ryosei Akazawa stuck to the script and offered no indication that anything has changed in terms of Japan's stance, or that the United States is willing to back down in its demands. 'While protecting our national interests, I want to quickly find common ground where both Japan and the United States can agree,' he told reporters at Haneda Airport on Monday morning before his departure. The U.S. is set to impose a 25% "reciprocal" tariff on most goods from Japan on Aug. 1 — up from the current 10% — unless a deal is struck. On multiple occasions in recent weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump has openly complained about the lack of progress in negotiations with Japan. No tangible results have been achieved after months of talks. Trump has said he might just end negotiations and let the 25% rate go into effect, as outlined in a letter sent to Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on July 7. Separate sector-specific Trump tariffs are already in effect, including 25% on vehicles and auto parts and 50% on steel and aluminum. The U.S. president has said he will start imposing tariffs on pharmaceutical products as early as the end of July. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was appointed by Trump to lead negotiations with Japan in early April, visited Tokyo and Osaka before Sunday's vote. 'A good deal is more important than a rushed deal, and a mutually beneficial trade agreement between the United States and Japan remains within the realm of possibility,' Bessent wrote in a post on social media platform X after a brief meeting with Ishiba on Friday. "I look forward to continuing formal talks in the future,' he added. The election could change the calculus of negotiations as the Liberal Democratic Party-Komeito coalition, with less than a majority in both houses, is now greatly weakened. The prime minister could step down despite his insistence that he intends to stay on, while the coalition will have to incorporate another party or seek the cooperation of opposition parties on a case-by-case basis to effectively govern. In his first comments since the Sunday's vote, Ishiba shed no light on the implications of the historic loss on tariff talks, but he remained guardedly upbeat and said that he hopes to speak with Trump about the tariffs. "I also plan to talk with President Trump and present a visible outcome as early as possible," Ishiba said.
The Diplomat
4 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Could Thailand's Cash Handout Scheme Have Worked?
One of the consequences of the Pheu Thai party's implosion is that its signature cash handout scheme will go down with it. Granted, the program was already approaching rigor mortis before Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra got herself, her dynasty, and her party (and Thai politics) into a hot mess by running her mouth to a foreign leader. The first tranche was delivered to welfare cardholders and people with disabilities last September, and a second tranche to the elderly in January, but the bulk of the funds for most Thais has been scrapped, with Bangkok blaming Trump's tariffs, although more likely because the first two tranches did little to stimulate the economy through consumption, the entire point of the project. (Phase 3 would have given money to 16-20 year olds, and Phase 4 to 21-59 year olds). Personally, I always thought the handout scheme was a good idea, but one unlikely to work given the mechanism, timing, and who was in charge. I don't think it would be a particularly controversial statement to say that Pheu Thai, and especially prime ministers Srettha Thavisin and Paetongtarn Shinawatra, were woeful articulators who couldn't explain why the scheme was necessary and what it intended to achieve. Srettha might have been a competent bureaucrat, but he was an appalling salesman. Likewise, Paetongtarn inspired little trust that she knew what she was doing, let alone in managing an unprecedented redistribution of state money. Recent surveys suggest that most Thais would still prefer the Phase 3 and Phase 4 handouts to proceed, but this is only around the 60 percent mark, which one might have expected to be higher when essentially they're being given money for free. The biggest problem, though, involved the matter of distribution. The purpose of the scheme was essentially a stimulus package to promote consumption in the most immediate and (although never stated) frivolous ways. The government wanted people to spend it on washing machines, clothes, food, household repairs, etc. The sort of consumption you'd do if you won a small sum in the lottery, for instance. This was sensible. The Thai economy had been lagging behind for several years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and many sectors of the economy (mainly local businesses) needed an injection of capital. Moreover, domestic consumption rates have been worryingly low in Thailand for some time, and there will be an ever bigger need for domestic consumption as the population ages (for several complex reasons). While agnostic on ideas like Universal Basic Income, I am strongly in favor of a national dividend and have been since I first read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice (1797), which argues that all landowners should pay a ground rent that will be distributed as a dividend to each citizen upon reaching maturity. However, the mechanism for redistribution matters. It makes sense, for instance, that social benefits to the poor or unemployed are delivered in the form of cash or bank transfers (fiat currency, in other words), since, in an ideal world, while most of that money will be spent, a fraction of it will be saved. However, if you have a citizens' dividend scheme solely intended to boost consumption (like Thailand's), it makes less sense to deliver it in the form of hard currency. Firstly, that's because people could simply keep the money in their accounts, rather than spend it. Secondly, one of the obvious problems anyone could see before the scheme was enacted is that people could use the money to pay off debt. This meant the stimulus scheme largely became a transfer of wealth from the state to the banking sector. ('The impact of the handouts and the stimulus was less than we had expected,' central bank governor Sethaput Suthiwartnarueput told Reuters in January. 'The handouts that went out sometimes were used to pay down debt and whatnot, so you didn't see that translation into consumption.') Had the Pheu Thai party asked, I would have suggested they distribute the sums in the form of digital gift cards with relatively short expiration dates and which could only be spent at select shops. This would have required recipients to spend the money on consumption (rather than paying off debt or putting it into savings); it would have forced people to spend the money at specific places (local shops) that the government wanted to support; and it would have compelled people to spend the money relatively quickly (meaning central economists could see some bang for the buck, thus disproving the naysayers). Perhaps most importantly, a gift card would have had a novelty factor. It always seemed reductionist to have had the rather radical idea of transmitting $14 billion from the state to its citizens, yet to have decided that the mechanism by which this will be done is so utterly dull. People checked their phones and saw an extra 10,000 baht appear in their ledger or were simply given cash. In other words, like any other transaction. Ideally, the government should have made this dividend transfer as unlike a normal transaction as possible. Perhaps the government shouldn't have even given everyone the same amount of money! You could have randomly allocated payments of 8,000 baht, 9,000 baht, and 10,000 baht. If you only received 8,000 baht and were a little pissed off, maybe you'd have had more reason to go out that afternoon and splurge it on a purchase. And if you were lucky to get 10,000 baht, then spending 2,000 baht on something you might not have bought previously would have seemed like a free shot. In the end, the digital wallet mechanism was rational and relatively straightforward, as Pheu Thai would surely have been advised, yet sometimes an intuitive idea (giving people some money to spend) needs an unintuitive means of delivery.
The Mainichi
4 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Yoroku: Debate on regulations against foreigners in Japan should be conducted rationally
The term "xenophobia," derived from the Greek words "xenos" (meaning stranger) and "phobos" (meaning fear), was selected as one of the English-speaking world's "words of the year" in 2016. This came in response to the surge in online searches following the United Kingdom's move to leave the European Union due to a backlash against an influx of immigrants. In the United States, then-President Barack Obama used the term to criticize presidential candidate at the time Donald Trump's immigration policies. This was seen as a reaction against globalization, which had advanced after the Cold War's end and China's accession to the World Trade Organization. The trend continues, as evidenced by the anti-immigrant far-right's success in Germany's general election in February. Japan appears to have been no exception. In the July 20 House of Councillors election, "regulations on foreigners" became a more contested issue than measures to combat high prices. An American newspaper described the election strategy of the right-wing populist party Sanseito, which significantly increased its seats by promoting "Japanese First" policies, as Trump-style. Since the bubble economy era mainly in the late 1980s, Japan's society, once considered closed, has become more internationalized. The "alien" label disappeared from foreign entry counters at entry points to Japan in 1988. The following year saw the enactment of a revised immigration law, and in 1993, the Technical Intern Training Program for foreigners began. The rapid increase in foreign residents resulted from national policies addressing challenges like the declining birth rate and an aging population. The term "post-truth," where emotions have more influence than facts, was also named "word of the year" nine years ago. The lingering closed nature toward refugees remains, and "preferential treatment for foreigners" is far from reality. Seeking to vent dissatisfaction with foreigners and falling into exclusionary attitudes will lead to a dead end. Given the major setback of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner Komeito in the upper house election, political instability is inevitable, but it is hoped that the debate on regulations on foreigners will be conducted in a rational manner.
