It was a moment many had been waiting for - some with hope, others with fear. But when the ruling came, it was as clear as it was final: A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a request by the Trump administration to release the secret transcripts of the grand jury proceedings in the Jeffrey Epstein case from the early 2000s in Florida. The reasoning was brief and unequivocal: The legally prescribed exceptions that would allow the release of such documents were not met. The grand jury records thus remain sealed. For now. The decision comes amid a political constellation that could hardly be more dramatic: While President Trump publicly calls for total transparency in the Epstein complex - and in doing so deliberately fuels conspiracy theories about concealed evidence, allegedly missing surveillance videos, and a “perpetrator state Obama” - the judiciary insists on what it sees as the cornerstone of its work: the law. Grand jury records in the United States are subject to particularly strict protection. Only in narrowly defined exceptional cases - such as to prevent a miscarriage of justice - can they be released at all. The requested release, however, the judge said, was not in pursuit of truth, but rather driven by public sentiment. Well, now we’re really surprised – we definitely didn’t see that coming (sarcastically).
The latter has been more charged in recent weeks than ever. Trump-aligned circles speak of a massive cover-up, of “tapes” containing incriminating material against prominent figures, of hidden lists that would expose “the entire elite.” And it’s not just anonymous Telegram channels fueling these narratives. Signals are also coming from the center of power: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard appeared before the press almost simultaneously with the court's decision - not to comment on it, but to praise a House report that, in her view, “disproves the reality of Russian interference in 2016.” That the report is highly controversial among experts and based on dubious sources hardly seems to matter. For Gabbard and Trump, this is about a different story - their story. Because anyone speaking about Epstein these days is inevitably also talking about power, distraction, and the construction of public reality. While Trump's Department of Justice theatrically demands the release of long-past documents, it remains conspicuously silent on the hundreds of pages of new investigative records piling up in other states - such as in New York, where a parallel motion for disclosure is still pending. There, too, grand jury records remain sealed, and a legal tug-of-war continues between transparency and procedural protection. But while Florida is now drawing clear lines, New York remains uncertain for the time being. A case number was not cited in the reports currently available, but the motion concerns the release of transcripts from 2005 and 2007 at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division.
(“The government concedes this in its petition. It acknowledges that ‘the Department of Justice recognizes that this court is bound by the Pitch decision’ and that it ‘raises this argument due to the significance of the matter and to preserve it for any potential appeal.’” (Petition, Paragraph 6). In its supplemental briefing, the government further acknowledges that ‘the Eleventh Circuit precedent holds that no exception outside those expressly enumerated under Rule 6 authorizes a court to publicly disclose grand jury materials.’ (Supplemental Brief, p. 3). Finally, the government acknowledges that this court cannot override binding Eleventh Circuit case law. (Id.: ‘[The government also recognizes that, in this circuit, only an en banc decision or the Supreme Court may overrule that precedent.’) In accordance with Pitch - the name of a previous court case - and the government's concessions, the motion for disclosure is therefore denied.) Name eines früheren Gerichtsverfahrens, und den Zugeständnissen der Regierung wird der Antrag auf Offenlegung daher abgelehnt.)
For the victims of Jeffrey Epstein - many of them no longer young, some scarred by life - the decision is an ambivalent signal. The sealing protects their testimony, safeguards their anonymity, prevents media exploitation. Yet at the same time, another part of the system remains in the shadows, the system that for decades looked away, downplayed, covered up. The judiciary defends its integrity while politics throws smoke bombs. Perhaps that is the bitter irony of this day: That the American legal system, amid the shrillest calls for transparency, demonstrates strength precisely through restraint. And that behind all the noise generated by Trump, Gabbard, and their loyalists, an uncomfortable truth becomes visible: Justice follows no algorithm. It follows the law. And sometimes that means: waiting. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, appointed in 2014 by President Barack Obama, rejected the request to release the grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case in Florida.
Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.
English 
German 
