Transcription
Well, as you may have heard, we got a
spectacular ruling from federal judge
EMTT Sullivan in the district court in
DC late yesterday. It came on the heels
of a little bit of a nailbiter in the
afternoon. Would the DOJ respond by 100
p.m. as Judge Sullivan ordered them to
do to be able to finally brief
everything that was going on in my case?
the DOJ, unsurprisingly, and yet in some
ways surprisingly because when a judge
orders you to do something, you do it.
Um, the DOJ didn't even bother to file a
single piece of paper. Clearly, Judge
Sullivan though was ready to go because
he ended up doing a 48page
order granting my motion for preliminary
injunction. I just want to get you very
quickly caught up to speed on the
procedural history of my lawsuit just so
you understand what this judge did with
the ass that we put in front of him and
then we can kind of unpack where it
goes. So on April 27th, 2026, I filed my
lawsuit against acting attorney general
Todd Blanch for his violations and
specifically the Trump DOJ of the
Epstein Files Transparency Act. Since
December 19th, 2025 and every day
thereafter, the Trump DOJ has been
breaking the law. The law being the
Epstein Files Transparency Act. in my
lawsuit states that I want a special
master appointed to be able to determine
whether the DOJ A has violated the
Transparency Act, B make them fix it,
and C make sure that it's done on a
rolling basis, meaning as soon as we
find the error, as soon as we find the
violation, it gets fixed.
In addition, I was not asking for the
Epstein Files Transparency Act for
myself. I wanted to make sure that they
were available obviously to the world
because ultimately transparency leads to
accountability and to justice. All
righty. So, I filed my lawsuit April
27th, 2026.
And then I ended up filing something
called a motion for preliminary
injunction. So, here's the nuance. My
lawsuit continues, but in the immediate
sense, I identified five areas that I
wanted the court to take immediate
action on because if it didn't, I would
be irreparably harmed. Meaning that the
harm that it would cause, my ability to
be able to report and investigate would
not be repaired or fixed. The biggest
challenge to my lawsuit has always been
something called standing. Standing is a
legal concept that stands for the
proposition, I guess pun intended, that
if you don't have any recognized injury
or harm, then you really should not be
bringing your suit in the first place.
Standing has done in many a
well-intentioned plaintiff. But look,
you know, at the end of the day, it's a
legal concept. And so in my lawsuit, I
said, "I have suffered something
calledformational harm." Meaning the
Epstein Files Transparency Act was
designed for people like me,
journalists, who if the law says you
have to publicly disseminate this
information and I am supposed to take
that information and I'm not getting it
publicly available because you're doing
illegal redactions, then I can't do my
job as a journalist. The second claim I
made is economic harm. And before
anybody gets worried, you've heard me
say this time and time again. I'm not
looking for money in this lawsuit. What
I'm looking for when it comes to
economic harm, though, is this. You and
I are interacting right now on YouTube.
When I do reporting on the Epstein
files, it leads to subscribers. It leads
to views, which leads to income. And if
I'm not allowed to fully fully explore
the Epstein files, either because they
have been improperly or illegally
withheld or they have been improperly or
illegally redacted,
I can't do my episodes. I can't do my
research. I can't do my reporting. And I
can't make money.
Judge Sullivan yesterday, straight out
of the gate said Katie Fang, independent
journalist, hasformational standing and
economic standing. Very big deal. It's
something that a lot of lawyers and
legal scholars have kind of been waiting
to see how this rolled out. So, it was
obviously a big win for the judge to say
that I have standing. Now, let's jump to
the 48page memorandum opinion that was
filed yesterday by the judge in this
case. I will remind you this judge Emtt
Sullivan was the judge who told Michael
Flynn that he is a traitor to America.
So, Judge Sullivan in his memorandum
opinion as a call as as it is called
goes through the history of the Epstein
Files Transparency Act. And then he also
goes through the fact that Todd Blanch
back in January made a big declaration
that the Department of Justice had
completed its review and release of the
Epstein files. But we all know, we all
know that's not true. We know that he's
sitting on at least 2 and a half million
files more. We also know that whatever
the hell he gave us was not done
properly. Either the identities or the
personal confidential information of
victims and survivors was improperly
released or there were illegal
redactions made of names, email
addresses, and other information that
should never have been done. But there
were also some other critical things
that were not been done by the DOJ that
were also clear violations of the
Epstein Files Transparency Act and that
was a part of my preliminary injunction.
So, let's get into the meat of this.
Like I said, the judge found that I can
bring my lawsuit pursuant to something
called the Administrative Procedure Act
and that because of that, I also have
the ability to allege that I have been
harmed. And as I just explained, Judge
Sullivan agreed that I haveformational
harm and I also have economic harm
already. So, a good portion of the
Department of Justice's response in
opposition to my preliminary injunction
request was Katie Fang. Katie Fang needs
to just get this stuff via FOYA, the
Freedom of Information Act. And look, a
lot of journalists, a lot of media, a
lot of just American plain public
citizens, what they do is they do file
foyer requests for information. But FOYA
as a federal statute has a lot of
limitations in terms of what can and
should be turned over pursuant to a
foyer request. Keep that in mind because
it becomes incredibly relevant in just a
few minutes. Judge Sullivan, this is
page 29 of his 48page memorandum order
says FOYA does not provide an adequate
remedy to Miss Fang to me. Why? Because
the court concludes that FOYA is a
fundamentally different disclosure law
as compared to the Epstein Files
Transparency Act. It doesn't give me an
adequate remedy for the reasons that he
sets forth below. Number one, for
example, I likely would not be able to
obtain the unredacted names of senders
and recipients in email exchanges with
Jeffrey Epstein because such information
would likely be redacted under a
specific FOYA exemption.
But under the Epstein Files Transparency
Act, they're not allowed to redact names
of senders and recipients and other
identifiers unless it's a victim or
survivor. Right. But the law, the
Transparency Act, made it clear I don't
have to spare somebody from
embarrassment or public shame or
publicity in any capacity. No. So, for
example, again, FOYA wouldn't help me.
One thing I've learned from covering
legal and political stories is that
important information rarely arrives in
a neat organized package. More often it
comes through conversations, interviews,
sources, you know, discussions, those
quick exchanges that happen throughout
the day. And sometimes the difference
between remembering a detail and
forgetting it can completely change how
you understand a story later. That's one
reason I've been using Plaude. Plot
creates AI powered wearable devices that
help capture and organize information
from realworld conversations. It's
designed for interviews, meetings,
discussions, calls, and all the moments
when you're processing a lot of
information and you don't want to lose
those important details. Plot
automatically turns conversations into
searchable notes, summaries, and action
items, making it easier to organize
information and to find what you need
later. So instead of focusing on the
documentation, you can focus on the
listening. And honestly, that's where
the value comes from. It's trusted by
over two million users worldwide,
supports transcription in 112 languages,
and is built with enterprisegrade
privacy and compliance standards. I have
the Plaude Notepin S. So whether I'm
preparing for my interviews, covering
legal political stories, or organizing
thoughts for my shows, this helps me
capture important details without
interrupting my workflow. And it's
great. I'm able to be put it on this
lanyard and it goes everywhere with me
or I can put it on a magnetic pin. It
just kind of works with everything that
I am doing. And so for anyone who spends
their day listening, researching,
interviewing, or analyzing information,
Plaude makes sure important details
don't slip through the cracks. Get up to
20% off with code fang at
plaude.ai/fang.
That's pl aud.ai/fang.
Here's another example. I also wanted
unredacted Department of Justice
internal charging documents or the notes
of the interviews done by the FBI of the
alleged victim of Donald Trump who
claims at the age of 13 years old she
was physically and sexually abused by
Trump. Foya I couldn't get those because
some except the same exemptions would
apply under FOYA. So these are just an
example that Judge Sullivan says shows
clearly that I under FOYA wouldn't be
able to get the same relief as I get
under the Epstein Files Transparency
Act. In addition, Judge Sullivan made it
clear that the Epstein Files
Transparency Act, EFTA, it is a
standalone piece of legislation. It does
not reference FOYA or modify FOYA in any
way. Now here's the thing. I identified
the five areas of the violations of the
Epstein Act that I wanted immediately.
And Judge Sullivan says this. He says,
"The attorney general, as in Todd
Blanch, does not respond substantively
to any of my arguments. Rather, Blanch
states that based on his jurisdictional
arguments, my APA, Administrative
Procedure Act claims fail as a matter of
law." But this is what Judge Sullivan
says. By not responding substantively,
the attorney general, Todd Blanch, has
conceded my merits, arguments in the
pending motion, meaning I am likely to
succeed on my claims. And that's very
important when we look at the bigger
picture, health, and success of my
lawsuit, which ultimately the goal is to
get all of the files in unredacted
fashion. of course accepting the
redactions to be able to protect the
victims and survivors of Epstein Maxwell
and others. Now, here's the other
portion that I wanted to tell you which
I thought was really important. When you
get a preliminary injunction entered in
your favor, the law requires that the
winning team be able to post a bond. The
bond is posted because in the event the
trial court got it wrong, it's kind of
like a safeguard of any financial harm
that came to the party that lost either
while the appeal is pending or while the
case is pending. In this instance, the
Department of Justice wanted little old
me to be able to post some huge bond,
right? But what does Judge Sullivan say?
The court agrees with me that anything
more than a nominal bond would prejudice
Miss Fang and potentially create a
chilling effect on other public law
plaintiffs.
Therefore, the court joins other judges
in this district and imposes a nominal
$1 bond. So, I have to post a $1 bond.
If you want to be a part of the $1 bond,
then I don't know. Let's figure
something out. Maybe send me a penny uh
at Substack. become a paying subscriber
and send me a penny. You can be part of
my $1 nominal bond. All righty. And then
here is the real kicker here. Not
only does Blanch not substantively
respond and therefore Judge Sullivan
says that he has conceded that he has
violated the Epstein Files Transparency
Act, but on the very last page of this
48page memorandum opinion, this is what
Judge Sullivan says. The attorney
general requests a stay, meaning a
pause, of seven days to determine
whether to seek emergency appallet
review. The attorney general also
requests a stay of 60 days to determine
whether further appellet review is
warranted. I mean, they just want to
delay, delay, delay. That's all they've
been doing since December 19th of 2025.
Judge Sullivan rules this court will not
issue a stay for the reasons stated in
this memorandum opinion. The attorney
general has conceded that he is in
violation of the act. Miss Fang is not
requesting the immediate production of
documents, but rather that the attorney
general show cause if he declines to do
so. For the foregoing reasons, the court
grants Miss Fang's motion for
preliminary injunction, and then he
enters an order. So, what does Judge
Sullivan tell Todd Blanch he has to do
on or before July 2nd, which is a week
from today? He has to be able to produce
unredacted emails that I have identified
in my motion for preliminary injunction.
For example, April 24th, 2009 from
Jeffrey Epste to a redacted recipient.
Blank subject, but this is what Epstein
says. Where are you? Are you okay? I
loved the torture video. Now, there is
some media reporting of the recipient of
this email was a specific sultan. But
you know what? I don't have to take
somebody else's word for it. I want the
unredacted version of the email. Here's
another critical example. From a
redacted sender to Jeffrey Epstein,
March 11th, 2014. Now, remember the
chronology of this. This is 5 years
before Epste is arrested by the feds for
the Southern District of New York
prosecution. But this is 6 years after
his sweetheart plea deal in Florida.
Okay. Thank you for a fun night. Your
littlest girl was a little naughty. Why
in the world would the Department of
Justice hide the identity of the sender
of this email to Jeffrey Epstein? Well,
I want to know, just like I'm sure you
do. How about this one? April 21st,
2014. Redacted sender to Jeffrey
Epstein. I can't take it anymore. I just
saw the most beautiful little girl on
Madison with long soft blonde hair.
It's distasteful.
February 2nd, 2015. From a redacted
sender to Jeffrey Epstein. Subject: PS.
Email says some stuff. And then quote,
"The key are the 14 to 15year-old girls.
I am a sexual pervert because I say they
are now of a reproductive age. Being
called a sexual pervert is no fun. less
so if you have served time for the
crime. My heart goes out to you,
brother.
We'll be back in touch. Hope you are
fine and more than well protected.
Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017. Redacted sender
to Jeffrey Epstein. Hey Jeffrey, I met
redacted today. She is like Lolita from
Nabacov femur. So now I should send you
her type of candidates only. Tomorrow we
travel to burn for visas. I mean, these
are the types of emails that I
identified for Judge Sullivan to have an
immediate release of the unredacted
version or for Todd Blanch to explain
why he can't. So, for example, he has to
be able to justify and explain why he
did those redactions. Now, that becomes
very relevant because another thing that
Judge Sullivan ordered him to do is he,
as in Todd Blanch, was supposed to file
something called a redaction log because
the law required him to do it. And that
redaction log was supposed to say of
this
redacted piece of paper or this redacted
item. The redaction log explains why the
redaction has happened. Todd Blanch has
never done that. It was due December
19th, 2025. He never did it. In fact,
even giving him grace on timing, he
should have done it in January of this
year. He never did it. So, the judge
told him, "You got to do it and you at
least got to get it started." The other
thing is Todd Blanch said, "Sorry, the
foreign language materials, we're not
even going to bother to translate them
because we just don't have the capacity
to do it." Judge Sullivan said, "Nope,
you better start cranking on that." And
of course, that's relevant. We know this
is an international sex trafficking
ring, was it not? So, why would you not
translate those documents if it could
lead to more leads to investigate to
find perpetrators?
In addition, and this is also very
important, two things. The Southern
District of Florida prepared a
60something page indictment that was
never presented to a grand jury. Why?
Because then US attorney Alex Aosta
said, "We will enter into a
nonprosecution agreement with you,
Jeffrey Epstein, and you will then take
a plea to state charges, and
that is your sweetheart plea deal."
They, as in the Department of Justice,
has inexplicably and illegally redacted
the names of the codefendants and the
co-conspirators in specific DOJ internal
documents. Judge Sullivan said, "I get
them."
And then finally, of I think of the
utmost public importance, as I mentioned
a few minutes ago, a 13-year-old girl,
excuse me, a young woman has alleged
that when she was 13 years old, she was
sexually abused, assaulted, and
physically battered by convicted felon
Donald Trump, who is currently the
president of the United States.
For some reason, the Department of
Justice has withheld from production the
interview notes by the FBI for the four
interviews that were conducted by the
FBI of this young victim.
Judge Sullivan said, "Why are the names
why are the underlying FBI interview
notes that formed the basis for the 302
interview reports not produced?"
You got to produce them. So this is
pretty much where we find ourselves. The
bigger case, this is what I wanted to
make sure was clear. The bigger case
continues right now against Todd Blanch
for the entirety of the Epstein files to
be produced with the assistance, fingers
crossed, of a special master. But the
biggest win here is one, I have standing
and two, I have a federal judge has now
entered an order that has a deadline of
next Friday of July second for Todd
Blanch to have to explain these
redactions and to produce the stuff that
must be produced. It is an absolute
fantastic next step towards justice and
accountability.
And for all of you naysayers out there
that are like, "Oh, he won't do it. Who
cares?" blah blah blah. Look, look, this
is a decidedly spectacular win because
this is the only lawsuit that has been
brought pursuant to the Epstein Files
Transparency Act to be able to get this
moving forward. I don't have to tell you
that since December 19th of 2025/January
of 2026, there has been nothing
additional given
that has been properly redacted.
And there are survivors not only of
Epstein Maxwell and others, but
survivors of other horrific abusers that
deserve
deserve to see that we fight for them
and we fight for justice. I couldn't do
it without all of you. If you haven't
subscribed, subscribe. Show me support.
It's the way that we get this message
spread far and wide. Like, subscribe,
share this episode. And as I always say,
be mad, be outraged, me accountability.
We us, we've done this. We've been
demanding accountability. Shout out to
my incredible lawyers, Brendan Belaloo
and Sam Ward Packard at the Public
Integrity Project for being on this
journey with me and for being the
brilliant legal minds that they are to
think outside of the box in this
incredibly creative legal strategic way.
I am off to rattle some more cages,
especially to Atlantis. Katie Fang here.
We launched the Katy Fang News Channel
in partnership with the Midas Touch
Network so we could bring you the latest
in legal and political news. Straight no
chaser. So, if you're a fellow trutht
teller, hit that subscribe button and
share the word about this channel so we
can build a highinformation America