The White House has criticized a federal judge’s decision to keep grand jury materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking case sealed, calling it ‘unfortunate.’ U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer denied the Justice Department’s motion to unseal the documents, stating they do not contain significant, undisclosed information about the crimes or the investigation. White House press secretary Karoline Leav, who made the remark after the judge’s decision, emphasized the administration’s support for releasing credible evidence, though the Department of Justice will handle the appeal process.
Last month, President Donald Trump expressed support for Attorney General Pam Bondi to release ‘credible’ files from Epstein’s sex trafficking case, noting that ‘She’s handled it very well, and it’s going to be up to her, whatever she thinks is credible she should release.’ This statement highlighted the administration’s ongoing interest in transparency during the legal proceedings.
Judge Engelmayer’s 31-page opinion outlined his reasoning, stating that only two ‘features’ of the grand jury evidence were noteworthy. He noted that the grand juries were not used for investigative purposes and did not hear testimony from any firsthand witness to any event at issue. The only witnesses were members of law enforcement, and each grand jury met for only one day, serving the quotidian purpose of returning an indictment.
The judge also pointed out that the evidence presented to the Maxwell grand juries is today, with minor exceptions, a matter of public record. The Government admitted this, further supporting the decision to keep the materials sealed. The Justice Department had sought to unseal additional evidence, including more names than have been publicly associated with Maxwell in criminal and civil proceedings, but the request was denied.
This ruling has sparked discussions about the necessity of transparency in legal proceedings, particularly in high-profile cases where public interest and accountability are paramount. The decision reflects the judge’s assessment that the documents do not contain information that would significantly contribute to the understanding of the case or its investigation.