American Oversight v. DOJ and FBI — Trump Interviews in Epstein Investigation

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, 1030 15th Street NW, B255 Washington, DC 20005 Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) v. ) Case No. 25-cv-3597 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20535 and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT 1. The Trump Administration has obfuscated and refused to provide transparency into Donald Trump’s connections with convicted sex offenders Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including whether Trump was ever interviewed by federal agents during the investigation into their criminal activity. Despite widespread public interest and continued revelations that the relationship between Epstein and President Trump was more robust than has been acknowledged, the Administration has largely stonewalled efforts to uncover the truth. 2. During Trump’s first term as President, it was already widely known that he had connections to Epstein and Maxwell. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 1 of 11 2 3. Following Maxwell’s arrest in 2020 on charges that she had aided Epstein’s exploitation of children, Trump stated that “I wish her well, frankly. I’ve met her numerous times over the years . . . .”1 4. Trump subsequently defended this statement, stating in an interview, “Her friend or boyfriend was either killed or committed suicide in jail. . . . She’s now in jail. Yeah, I wish her well. I’d wish you well. I’d wish a lot of people well. Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty.”2 5. The reference to a “friend or boyfriend” was a reference to Epstein. 6. It was also reported in 2020 that Epstein had been a member of Trump’s club, Mar￾a-Lago, until a falling out in 2007.3 7. A 2002 feature on Epstein quoted Trump as saying, “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.”4 1 Colby Itkowitz & John Wagner, Trump Says of Jeffrey Epstein’s Partner, Ghislaine Maxwell: ‘I Wish Her Well,’ Wash. Post (July 22, 2020, 8:16 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-of-jeffrey-epsteins-partner-ghislaine￾maxwell-i-wish-her-well/2020/07/21/dbc8df84-cba3-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html. 2 Trump Defends Wishing Ghislaine Maxwell ‘Good Luck’ in Prison, Axios (Aug. 4, 2020), https://www.axios.com/2020/08/04/trump-ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein. 3 Kevin G. Hall, Trump Says Epstein Was Never a Mar-A-Lago Member. He Was. New Book Tells What Got Him Exiled, Miami Herald (originally published Aug. 4, 2020, updated Jan. 21, 2021, 1:46 PM), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article244689497.html. 4 Landon Thomas, Jr., Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery, N.Y. Magazine (Oct. 28, 2002), https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/#print. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 2 of 11 3 8. Throughout the 2024 Presidential campaign, Trump continued to comment publicly on the Epstein case, suggesting that he might release investigative files if elected. 5 9. At the start of Trump’s second term as President, Administration officials repeatedly stated their intention to be transparent about the Epstein investigation. 10. For example, Attorney General Bondi has stated that releasing the Epstein files is part of the Trump Administration’s “commitment to transparency and lifting the veil on the disgusting actions of Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators.”6 11. Similarly, on February 27, 2025, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that: “The FBI is entering a new era—one that will be defined by integrity, accountability, and the unwavering pursuit of justice. There will be no cover￾ups, no missing documents, and no stone left unturned . . . . If there are gaps, we will find them. If records have been hidden, we will uncover them. And we will bring everything we find to the [Department of Justice] to be fully assessed and transparently disseminated to the American people as it should be.”7 12. However, since then, the Administration’s conduct belies its stated commitment to transparency. 5 Luke Broadwater, A Timeline of What We Know About Trump and Epstein, N.Y. Times (updated Sept. 8, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/17/us/politics/timeline-trump￾epstein.html. 6 Ryan Lucas, DOJ Says No Evidence Jeffrey Epstein Had a ‘Client List’ or Blackmailed Associates, NPR (July 7, 2025, 2:28 PM), https://www.npr.org/2025/07/07/g-s1-76367/doj￾jeffrey-epstein-memo. 7 Kash Patel (@Kash_Patel), X (formerly Twitter) (Feb. 27, 2025, 6:20 pm), https://x.com/Kash_Patel/status/1895252771370344590?lang=en. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 3 of 11 4 13. In May 2025, Trump was told by Attorney General Pam Bondi that his name appeared in the Epstein files multiple times.8 14. On July 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI released a two￾page, unsigned memo (the “Epstein Memo”) stating that the agencies had “conducted an exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein.”9 15. This was a new effort initiated after the current Administration took office. 16. The Epstein Memo stated that DOJ and FBI had found no “client list,” no “credible evidence” that Epstein had “blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions,” nor any “evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”10 17. The review was conducted by approximately 1,000 FBI personnel, who spent tens of thousands of hours on this effort.11 18. The personnel conducting this review were instructed to “flag” any records mentioning Donald Trump.12 19. However, despite this extensive review and the instructions to flag records mentioning Trump, the Administration has still failed to release records to shed light on whether Trump was ever interviewed by FBI as part of the investigation into Epstein and Maxwell. 8 Sadie Gurman et al., Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name is Among Many in the Epstein Files, Wall Street J. (July 23, 2025, 3:08 PM), https://www.wsj.com/politics/justice￾department-told-trump-name-in-epstein-files-727a8038. 9 U.S. Dep’t of Just. & Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Memorandum (July 7, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?inline [hereinafter “Epstein Memo”]; see also, e.g., Lucas, supra note 1. 10 Id. 11 See Letter from Richard J. Durbin, U.S. Senator, to Pam Bondi, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Just., at 2 (July 18, 2025), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2025-07- 18%20RJD%20Letter%20to%20AG%20Bondi%20re%20Epstein.pdf [hereinafter “Durbin Letter”]. 12 Id. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 4 of 11 5 20. Meanwhile, in July 2025, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had written and signed a letter to Epstein for inclusion in a book given to Epstein for his birthday in 2003.13 21. The letter was a suggestive poem written on a hand-drawn illustration of a naked woman.14 22. The poem closes with Trump’s wish to Epstein: “may every day be another wonderful secret.” 23. Trump signed the letter “Donald.” 24. Trump has denied writing the letter. 25. In September 2025, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson claimed that Trump “was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down,” referring to FBI’s investigation of Epstein, though Johnson’s office later walked that back.15 26. The American people have a right to know whether the president was questioned by FBI in connection with the investigation into a convicted sexual predator, and what information regarding Epstein’s crimes the President knew at the time. 27. As a prominent public official, Trump has a diminished privacy interest compared with other individuals. 13 Khadeeja Safdar & Joe Palazzolo, Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump., Wall Street J. (July 17, 2025, 6:45 PM), https://www.wsj.com/politics/trump-jeffrey-epstein-birthday-letter-we-have-certain-things-in￾common-f918d796?mod=article_inline. 14 Khadeeja Safdar et al., A Visual Breakdown of the Trump Birthday Letter to Epstein, Wall Street J. (updated Sept. 8, 2025, 4:34 PM), https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trump-jeffrey￾epstein-letter-birthday-book-analysis-0bbeeaf6. 15 Sam Levine, Mike Johnson Claimed Trump was Anti-Epstein Informant, Then Retreated Amid Criticism, The Guardian (Sept. 8, 2025, 9:34 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/us￾news/2025/sep/08/mike-johnson-trump-epstein-fbi-informant. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 5 of 11 6 28. On July 8, 2020, during the first Trump Administration, American Oversight sent a FOIA request to the FBI seeking records with the potential to shed light on whether Donald Trump was interviewed during the FBI’s initial investigations into Epstein between 2006 and 2008. 29. The FBI refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records. 30. In light of the need to inform the public about this matter, Plaintiff American Oversight now brings this action against DOJ and the FBI under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel compliance with the requirements of FOIA and the release of records responsive to American Oversight’s FOIA request. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 31. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, and 2202. 32. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). 33. American Oversight has exhausted its administrative remedies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i) and is now entitled to judicial action enjoining Defendants from continuing to withhold department or agency records and ordering the production of department or agency records improperly withheld. PARTIES 34. Plaintiff American Oversight is a nonpartisan, non-profit section 501(c)(3) organization primarily engaged in disseminating information to the public. American Oversight is committed to promoting transparency in government, educating the public about government Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 6 of 11 7 activities, and ensuring the accountability of government officials. Through research and FOIA requests, American Oversight uses the information it gathers, and its analysis of it, to educate the public about the activities and operations of the federal government through reports, published analyses, press releases, and other media. The organization is incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia. 35. Defendant FBI is a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government headquartered in Washington, DC, a component of DOJ, and an agency of the federal government within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). FBI has possession, custody, and control of records that American Oversight seeks. 36. Defendant DOJ is a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government headquartered in Washington, D.C., and an agency of the federal government within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). DOJ has possession, custody, and control of records that American Oversight seeks. STATEMENT OF FACTS 37. On July 8, 2020, American Oversight sent a FOIA request to the FBI16 bearing internal tracking number DOJ-20-1710, seeking the following records from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008: 1. All FBI form 302s reflecting the content of any and all interviews of Donald J. Trump conducted as a part of the government’s investigation of potential sexual abuse of minors, human trafficking, and related crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and/or their associates during the period of 2006 through 2008. Specifically, this request seeks 302s from the investigation that led the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to enter a non￾prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein following extensive plea negotiations and in exchange for his offer to plead guilty to the Florida offenses 16 American Oversight also sent this request to DOJ’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys, which informed American Oversight that it had no responsive records. That request and determination is not at issue in this lawsuit. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 7 of 11 8 of solicitation of prosecution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. See Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1002 (11th Cir. 2014) (explanation of the background of the Epstein investigation, plea negotiations, and non-prosecution agreement). 2. All other records intended to summarize, memorialize, or record witness interviews or witness statements of Donald J. Trump collected or used in the investigation(s) described in Item 1, including written proffers, written summaries of oral proffers, transcripts or recordings of any witness interviews or statements, and any other record summarizing, memorializing, or reproducing the content of witness interviews or statements collected or used in connection with the above-described investigation. See Ex. A. 38. On July 23, 2020, the FBI responded with what is commonly known as a Glomar letter, stating that “the FBI [would] neither confirm nor deny the existence of such records . . . .” Ex. B. 39. The FBI made this determination “pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(c),” because “[t]he mere acknowledgment of the existence of FBI records on third party individuals could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. 40. American Oversight appealed this determination on August 12, 2020, to DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”), pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Part 16.8, on the grounds that the public interest in disclosure of the existence of the records outweighed the private interest in non￾disclosure where the privacy interest was significantly diminished because Trump was the President at the time and his connections with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were already a matter of public record. See Ex. C. 41. On November 10, 2020, OIP’s FOIA Appeals officer affirmed the FBI’s action on American Oversight’s FOIA request. See Ex. D. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 8 of 11 9 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 42. By filing an administrative appeal pursuant to agency regulations, American Oversight has exhausted its administrative remedies and seeks immediate judicial review. COUNT I Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 Failure to Conduct Adequate Searches for Responsive Records 43. American Oversight repeats the allegations in each of the foregoing paragraphs and incorporates them as though fully set forth herein. 44. American Oversight properly requested records within Defendants’ possession, custody, and control. 45. Defendants are agencies subject to and within the meaning of FOIA, and they must therefore make reasonable efforts to search for requested records. 46. Defendants have failed to promptly and adequately search for agency records that are responsive to American Oversight’s FOIA request. 47. The failure of Defendants to conduct adequate searches for responsive records violates FOIA. 48. Plaintiff American Oversight is therefore entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Defendants to promptly make reasonable efforts to search for records responsive to American Oversight’s FOIA request. COUNT II Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 Wrongful Withholding of Non-Exempt Responsive Records 49. American Oversight repeats the allegations in each of the foregoing paragraphs and incorporates them as though fully set forth herein. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 9 of 11 10 50. American Oversight properly requested records within Defendants’ possession, custody, and control. 51. Defendants are agencies subject to FOIA and must therefore release in response to FOIA requests any non-exempt records and provide lawful reasons for withholding any materials. 52. Defendants are wrongfully withholding non-exempt agency records requested by American Oversight by failing to produce non-exempt records responsive to its FOIA request. 53. Defendants are wrongfully withholding non-exempt agency records requested by American Oversight by failing to segregate exempt information in otherwise non-exempt records responsive to American Oversight’s FOIA request. 54. Defendants’ failure to provide all non-exempt responsive records violates FOIA and applicable regulations. 55. Plaintiff American Oversight is therefore entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Defendants to promptly produce all non-exempt records responsive to its FOIA request and provide indexes justifying the withholding of any responsive records withheld under claim of exemption. REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, American Oversight respectfully requests the Court to: (1) Order Defendants to conduct a search or searches reasonably calculated to uncover all records responsive to American Oversight’s FOIA request; (2) Order Defendants to produce, within 20 days of the Court’s order, or by such other date as the Court deems appropriate, any and all non-exempt records responsive to American Oversight’s FOIA request with indexes justifying the withholding of any responsive records withheld under claim of exemption; Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 10 of 11 11 (3) Enjoin Defendants from continuing to withhold any and all non-exempt records responsive to American Oversight’s FOIA request; (4) Award American Oversight the costs of this proceeding, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and (5) Grant American Oversight such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: October 7, 2025 Respectfully submitted, /s/ David Kronig David Kronig D.C. Bar No. 1030649 AMERICAN OVERSIGHT 1030 15th Street NW, B255 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 897-3915 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT A Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 1 of 7 1030 15th Street NW, Suite B255, Washington, DC 20005 | AmericanOversight.org July 8, 2020 VIA ONLINE PORTAL & FOIAONLINE David M. Hardy Chief, Record/Information Dissemination Section Records Management Division Federal Bureau of Investigation 170 Marcel Drive Winchester, VA 22602-4843 Via Online Portal Kevin Krebs Assistant Director, FOIA/Privacy Staff Executive Office for United States Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice 175 N Street NE Suite 5.400 Washington, DC 20530-0001 Via FOIAOnline Re: Freedom of Information Act Request Dear FOIA Officers: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the implementing regulations of your agency, American Oversight makes the following request for records. Requested Records American Oversight requests that your agency produce the following records within twenty business days: 1. All FBI form 302s reflecting the content of any and all interviews of Donald J. Trump conducted as a part of the government’s investigation of potential sexual abuse of minors, human trafficking, and related crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and/or their associates during the period of 2006 through 2008. Specifically, this request seeks 302s from the investigation that led the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to enter a non￾prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein following extensive plea negotiations and in exchange for his offer to plead guilty to the Florida offenses of solicitation of prosecution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. See Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1002 (11th Cir. 2014) (explanation of the background of the Epstein investigation, plea negotiations, and non-prosecution agreement). 2. All other records intended to summarize, memorialize, or record witness interviews or witness statements of Donald J. Trump collected or used in the investigation(s) described in Item 1, including written proffers, written summaries Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 2 of 7 DOJ-20-1710 - 2 - of oral proffers, transcripts or recordings of any witness interviews or statements, and any other record summarizing, memorializing, or reproducing the content of witness interviews or statements collected or used in connection with the above￾described investigation. Please provide all responsive records from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008. Fee Waiver Request In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and your agency’s regulations, American Oversight requests a waiver of fees associated with processing this request for records. The subject of this request concerns the operations of the federal government, and the disclosures will likely contribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by the general public in a significant way. Moreover, the request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. American Oversight requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested information is “in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government.”1 The public has a significant interest in understanding how an investigation into serious crimes committed by a wealthy individual were investigated, particularly given that individual’s associations with powerful people, including now-President Trump, and the light sentence he received for very serious misconduct. 2 Records with the potential to shed light on this matter would contribute significantly to public understanding of operations of the federal government, including the thoroughness of an important investigation and whether powerful individuals have been investigated in the same manner as other citizens. American Oversight is committed to transparency and makes the responses agencies provide to FOIA requests publicly available, and the public’s understanding of the government’s activities would be enhanced through American Oversight’s analysis and publication of these records. This request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes.3 As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, American Oversight does not have a commercial purpose and the release of the information requested is not in American Oversight’s financial interest. American Oversight’s mission is to promote transparency in government, to educate the public about government activities, and to ensure the accountability of government officials. American Oversight uses the information gathered, and its analysis of it, to educate the public through reports, press releases, or other media. American Oversight also makes 1 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). 2 Andrew Prokop, Jeffrey Epstein’s Connections to Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, Explained, Vox (Aug. 10, 2019, 10:27 AM), https://www.vox.com/2019/7/9/20686347/jeffrey-epstein￾trump-bill-clinton. 3 See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 3 of 7 DOJ-20-1710 - 3 - materials it gathers available on its public website and promotes their availability on social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter. 4 American Oversight has also demonstrated its commitment to the public disclosure of documents and creation of editorial content through numerous substantive analyses posted to its website. 5 Examples reflecting this commitment to the public disclosure of documents and the creation of editorial content include the posting of records related to an ethics waiver received by a senior Department of Justice attorney and an analysis of what those records demonstrated regarding the Department’s process for issuing such waivers;6 posting records received as part of American Oversight’s “Audit the Wall” project to gather and analyze information related to the administration’s proposed construction of a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, and analyses of what those records reveal;7 posting records regarding potential self-dealing at the Department of Housing & Urban Development and related analysis;8 posting records and analysis relating to the federal government’s efforts to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia;9 and posting records and analysis regarding the Department of Justice’s decision in response to demands from Congress to direct a U.S. Attorney to undertake a wide-ranging review and make recommendations regarding criminal investigations relating to the President’s political opponents and allegations of misconduct by the Department of Justice itself and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.10 4 American Oversight currently has approximately 15,500 page likes on Facebook and 104,200 followers on Twitter. American Oversight, FACEBOOK, https://www.facebook.com/weareoversight/ (last visited July 8, 2020); American Oversight (@weareoversight), TWITTER, https://twitter.com/weareoversight (last visited July 8, 2020). 5 News, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/blog. 6 DOJ Records Relating to Solicitor General Noel Francisco’s Recusal, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/document/doj-civil-division-response-noel-francisco￾compliance; Francisco & the Travel Ban: What We Learned from the DOJ Documents, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/francisco-the-travel-ban-what-we￾learned-from-the-doj-documents. 7 See generally Audit the Wall, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/investigation/audit-the-wall; see, e.g., Border Wall Investigation Report: No Plans, No Funding, No Timeline, No Wall, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/border-wall-investigation-report-no-plans-no￾funding-no-timeline-no-wall. 8 Documents Reveal Ben Carson Jr.’s Attempts to Use His Influence at HUD to Help His Business, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/documents-reveal-ben-carson￾jr-s-attempts-to-use-his-influence-at-hud-to-help-his-business. 9 Investigating the Trump Administration’s Efforts to Sell Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/investigating-the-trump￾administrations-efforts-to-sell-nuclear-technology-to-saudi-arabia. 10 Sessions’ Letter Shows DOJ Acted on Trump’s Authoritarian Demand to Investigate Clinton, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/sessions-letter. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 4 of 7 DOJ-20-1710 - 4 - Accordingly, American Oversight qualifies for a fee waiver. Guidance Regarding the Search & Processing of Requested Records In connection with its request for records, American Oversight provides the following guidance regarding the scope of the records sought and the search and processing of records: § Please search all locations and systems likely to have responsive records, regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics. § In conducting your search, please understand the terms “record,” “document,” and “information” in their broadest sense, to include any written, typed, recorded, graphic, printed, or audio material of any kind. We seek records of any kind, including electronic records, audiotapes, videotapes, and photographs, as well as letters, emails, facsimiles, telephone messages, voice mail messages and transcripts, notes, or minutes of any meetings, telephone conversations or discussions. § Our request for records includes any attachments to those records or other materials enclosed with those records when they were previously transmitted. To the extent that an email is responsive to our request, our request includes all prior messages sent or received in that email chain, as well as any attachments to the email. § Please search all relevant records or systems containing records regarding agency business. Do not exclude records regarding agency business contained in files, email accounts, or devices in the personal custody of your officials, such as personal email accounts or text messages. Records of official business conducted using unofficial systems or stored outside of official files are subject to the Federal Records Act and FOIA.11 It is not adequate to rely on policies and procedures that require officials to move such information to official systems within a certain period of time; American Oversight has a right to records contained in those files even if material has not yet been moved to official systems or if officials have, by intent or through negligence, failed to meet their obligations.12 § Please use all tools available to your agency to conduct a complete and efficient search for potentially responsive records. Agencies are subject to government-wide 11 See Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Office of Sci. & Tech. Policy, 827 F.3d 145, 149–50 (D.C. Cir. 2016); cf. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Kerry, 844 F.3d 952, 955–56 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 12 See Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Office of Sci. & Tech. Policy, No. 14-cv-765, slip op. at 8 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2016). Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 5 of 7 DOJ-20-1710 - 5 - requirements to manage agency information electronically,13 and many agencies have adopted the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Capstone program, or similar policies. These systems provide options for searching emails and other electronic records in a manner that is reasonably likely to be more complete than just searching individual custodian files. For example, a custodian may have deleted a responsive email from his or her email program, but your agency’s archiving tools may capture that email under Capstone. At the same time, custodian searches are still necessary; agencies may not have direct access to files stored in .PST files, outside of network drives, in paper format, or in personal email accounts. § In the event some portions of the requested records are properly exempt from disclosure, please disclose any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the requested records. If a request is denied in whole, please state specifically why it is not reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release. § Please take appropriate steps to ensure that records responsive to this request are not deleted by the agency before the completion of processing for this request. If records potentially responsive to this request are likely to be located on systems where they are subject to potential deletion, including on a scheduled basis, please take steps to prevent that deletion, including, as appropriate, by instituting a litigation hold on those records. Conclusion If you have any questions regarding how to construe this request for records or believe that further discussions regarding search and processing would facilitate a more efficient production of records of interest to American Oversight, please do not hesitate to contact American Oversight to discuss this request. American Oversight welcomes an opportunity to discuss its request with you before you undertake your search or incur search or duplication costs. By working together at the outset, American Oversight and your agency can decrease the likelihood of costly and time-consuming litigation in the future. Where possible, please provide responsive material in an electronic format by email. Alternatively, please provide responsive material in native format or in PDF format on a USB drive. Please send any responsive material being sent by mail to American Oversight, 1030 15th Street NW, Suite B255, Washington, DC 20005. If it will accelerate release of 13 Presidential Memorandum—Managing Government Records, 76 Fed. Reg. 75,423 (Nov. 28, 2011), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press￾office/2011/11/28/presidential-memorandum-managing-government-records; Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments & Independent Agencies, “Managing Government Records Directive,” M-12-18 (Aug. 24, 2012), https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/m-12-18.pdf. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 6 of 7 DOJ-20-1710 - 6 - responsive records to American Oversight, please also provide responsive material on a rolling basis. We share a common mission to promote transparency in government. American Oversight looks forward to working with your agency on this request. If you do not understand any part of this request, please contact Dan McGrath at [email protected] or 202.897.4213. Also, if American Oversight’s request for a fee waiver is not granted in full, please contact us immediately upon making such a determination. Sincerely, Austin R. Evers Executive Director American Oversight Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-1 Filed 10/07/25 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT B Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-2 Filed 10/07/25 Page 1 of 4 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, D.C. 20535 July 23, 2020 MR. AUSTIN R. EVERS AMERICAN OVERSIGHT SUITE B255 1030 15TH STREET NW WASHINGTON, DC 20005 Request No.: 1470524-000 Subject: Interviews of Donald J. Trump Conducted as Part of the Investigation of Human Trafficking and Related Crimes Committed by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2008) Dear Mr. Evers: This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FBI. The FOIPA Request Number listed above has been assigned to your request. Below you will find information relevant to your request. Please read each paragraph carefully. You have requested records on one or more third party individuals. Please be advised the FBI will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such records pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). The mere acknowledgement of the existence of FBI records on third party individuals could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This is our standard response to such requests and should not be taken to mean that records do, or do not, exist. As a result, your request has been closed. Please visit www.fbi.gov, select “Services,” “Information Management,” and “Freedom of Information/Privacy Act” for more information about making requests for records on third party individuals (living or deceased). If you submitted your request through the FBI’s eFOIPA portal and you are receiving correspondence through standard mail, it was determined your request did not meet the eFOIPA terms of service. For questions regarding our determinations, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.” The FOIPA Request number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all correspondence concerning your request. If you are not satisfied with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s determination in response to this request, you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice, 441 G Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20530, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIA STAR portal by creating an account following the instructions on OIP’s website: https://www.justice.gov/oip/submit-and-track-request-or-appeal. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within ninety (90) days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified. You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at [email protected]; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison by emailing [email protected]. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the subject heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-2 Filed 10/07/25 Page 2 of 4 Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Explanation of Exemptions. Sincerely, Michael G. Seidel Acting Section Chief, Record/Information Dissemination Section Information Management Division Enclosure Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-2 Filed 10/07/25 Page 3 of 4 EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552 (b)(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order; (b)(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency; (b)(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; (b)(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; (b)(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; (b)(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D ) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; (b)(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or (b)(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells. SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a (d)(5) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding; (j)(2) material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or apprehend criminals; (k)(1) information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy, for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods; (k)(2) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or privilege under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence; (k)(3) material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056; (k)(4) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records; (k)(5) investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence; (k)(6) testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service the release of which would compromise the testing or examination process; (k)(7) material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence. FBI/DOJ Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-2 Filed 10/07/25 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT C Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 1 of 17 1030 15th Street NW, Suite B255, Washington, DC 20005 | AmericanOversight.org August 12, 2020 VIA FOIA STAR Office of Information Policy (OIP) U.S. Department of Justice 6th Floor 441 G Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Via FOIA STAR Re: Freedom of Information Act Appeal – Reference No. 1470524-000 Dear FOIA Appeals Officer: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 16, American Oversight submits the following administrative appeal. On July 8, 2020, American Oversight submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seeking: 1. All FBI form 302s reflecting the content of any and all interviews of Donald J. Trump conducted as a part of the government's investigation of potential sexual abuse of minors, human trafficking, and related crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and/or their associates during the period of 2006 through 2008. Specifically, this request seeks 302s from the investigation that led the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to enter a non- prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein following extensive plea negotiations and in exchange for his offer to plead guilty to the Florida offenses of solicitation of prosecution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. See Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1002 (11th Cir. 2014) (explanation of the background of the Epstein investigation, plea negotiations, and non-prosecution agreement). 2. All other records intended to summarize, memorialize, or record witness interviews or witness statements of Donald J. Trump collected or used in the investigation(s) described in Item 1, including written proffers, written summaries of oral proffers, transcripts or recordings of any witness interviews or statements, and any other record summarizing, memorializing, or reproducing the content of witness interviews or statements collected or used in connection with the above- described investigation. Ex. A. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 2 of 17 2 DOJ-20-1710 American Oversight asked for “all responsive records from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008.” Id. In a letter dated July 23, 2020, FBI, a component of DOJ, issued what is commonly called a “Glomar” response to American Oversight’s request, stating that because American Oversight “requested records on one or more third party individuals. . . the FBI will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such records pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C).” Ex. B. FBI further asserted that “[t]he mere acknowledgement of the existence of FBI records on third party individuals could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. Consistent with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 16.8, American Oversight appeals FBI’s improper invocation of a Glomar response to this records request. Confirming or denying the existence of the records in question would not cause harm under the FOIA exemptions that FBI relies on in attempting to justify its denial. Appeal of the FBI’s Glomar Response The D.C. Circuit has explained that because Glomar responses constitute an exception to the normal disclosure requirements of FOIA, “they are permitted only when confirming or denying the existence of records would itself cause harm cognizable under an FOIA exception.” Roth v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The burden to show that the exemptions apply to the acknowledgment of the records is on the agency. Agility Public Warehousing Co. K.S.C. v. National Sec. Agency, 113 F. Supp.3d 313, 325–26 (D.D.C. 2015). To contest a Glomar response, an individual “may challenge the agency's assertion that confirming or denying the existence of any records would result in a cognizable harm under a FOIA exemption.” Id. at 326. As such, American Oversight contests that the FOIA exemptions FBI invokes, Exemption 6 and Exemption 7(C) (under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), respectively), apply to the disclosure of the existence or non-existence of the records requested. The Public Interest in Disclosure of the Existence of the Records Outweighs the Private Interest in Non-disclosure When “determining whether the existence of agency records vel non fits a FOIA exemption, courts apply the general exemption review standards established in non-Glomar cases.” Wolf, 473 F.3d at 374. In order to normally justify the withholdings under Exemption 6 and 7(C), a court must “balance the . . . privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure.” National Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 171 (2004). See also American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (explaining that when both Exemption 6 and 7(C) are invoked, the court evaluates both under the Exemption 7(C) standard). In this circumstance, any privacy interests involved are significantly diminished. American Oversight has requested records reflecting interviews with the President of the United States. What Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 3 of 17 3 DOJ-20-1710 would be an inappropriate invasion of privacy for a private individual would not necessarily be so when the individual is a government official. See Quinon v. FBI, 86 F.2d 1222, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (noting that “it is true that Government officials may have a somewhat diminished privacy interest”). This consideration applies even more so when the government official is a high-level employee. In this case, the President is arguably the highest-level government official in the land as the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. See Kimberlin v. Dep’t of Justice, 139 F.3d 944, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting that “the rank of the public official involved” is relevant to the balancing analysis). The typical desire to avoid connecting an individual to a criminal investigation is inapposite here. It is already well-known that President Trump frequently associated with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell,1 who were heavily investigated for their sexual abuse and trafficking of minors.2 This acknowledged association greatly reduces his privacy interest in disclosure of information that would suggest he was associated with those individuals. The President has, further, recently commented on Epstein and Maxwell several times, including comments regarding investigations of their alleged crimes and incarceration,3 demonstrating his open willingness to tie himself to the investigation and its public discussion. There is also reason to believe he may have had knowledge or suspicions of Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors. It was also recently reported that President Trump had permanently banned Epstein from Trump’s club, Mar-a-Lago, after harassing a club member’s daughter who was a minor at the time.4 In 2002, President Trump said in an interview to 1 Colby Itkowitz & John Wagner, Trump Says of Jeffrey Epstein’s Partner, Ghislaine Maxwell: ‘I Wish Her Well,’ Wash. Post (July 22, 2020, 8:16 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says￾of-jeffrey-epsteins-partner-ghislaine-maxwell-i-wish-her-well/2020/07/21/dbc8df84-cba3-11ea￾91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html; Lisette Voytko, Here’s Every Time Donald Trump and Ghislaine Maxwell Have Been Photographed Together, Forbes (July 21, 2020, 6:56 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/07/21/heres-every-time-donald-trump-and￾ghislaine-maxwell-have-been-photographed-together/#8bbf1d183dd1. 2 Shayna Jacobs and Devlin Barrett, Ghislaine Maxwell, Longtime Associate of Jeffrey Epstein, Charged in Sex Abuse Case, Wash. Post (July 2, 2020, 5:14 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national￾security/ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-jeffrey-epstein/2020/07/02/20c74502-bc69-11ea-8cf5- 9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html. Epstein died by suicide while awaiting trial in 2019 while Maxwell was arrested in July of this year. Id. 3 See Itkowitz & Wagner, supra note 1 (“‘I wish her well, frankly. I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, and I guess they lived in Palm Beach,’ Trump said. ‘But I wish her well, whatever it is.’”); Trump Defends Wishing Ghislaine Maxwell “Good Luck” In Prison, Axios (Aug. 4, 2020), https://www.axios.com/trump-ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-1b313a9d￾13c0-45f6-8975-26de2e1559aa.html (referring to Maxwell and Epstein, Trump stated: "Her friend or boyfriend was either killed or committed suicide in jail. . . She's now in jail. Yeah, I wish her well. I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well. Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty."). 4 Kevin G. Hall, Trump Says Epstein Was Never a Mar-A-Lago Member. He Was. New Book Tells What Got Him Exiled., Miami Herald (Aug. 4, 2020, last updated 4:04 PM), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article244689497.html?utm_source=pushly&a mp;intcid=pushly_625716. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 4 of 17 4 DOJ-20-1710 New York Magazine that “[i]t is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”5 Consequently, regardless of whether President Trump is revealed to have been interviewed by the FBI, he will be associated with criminal investigations of Epstein and Maxwell’s conduct and the privacy interests implicated by disclosing whether records of interviews with him exist in the course of such investigations are significantly diminished. On the other side of the balancing, the public interest in disclosure here is strong. The public interest here is “the extent to which disclosure would serve the ‘core purpose of the FOIA,’ which is ‘contribut[ing] significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.’” U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 495 (1994) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989)). The D.C. Circuit has particularly noted that “[m]atters of law enforcement policy . . . are properly the subject of public concern.” Citizens for Resp. and Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Gaining insight into how the FBI has handled an investigation into a prominent figures’ sexual abuse of minors is of the utmost importance to the public. Knowledge of whether President Trump was interviewed for the investigation can help determine whether the government official with ultimate control over the federal government’s law enforcement apparatus may have a personal stake in the outcome of ongoing matters which might affect “the diligence of the FBI’s investigation[s]” into Epstein and Maxwell’s conduct. Id. Additionally, confirming the existence or non-existence of the records requested may shed light on the decision-making process of Alex Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney and, later, cabinet member, who approved a plea deal with Epstein in 2008 whereby Epstein would not be federally prosecuted.6 As such, disclosure of information such as whether now President Trump was interviewed can shed light on the potential effect of influential individuals on the course of the investigation and demonstrate circumstances surrounding “DOJ’s exercise of its prosecutorial discretion” and “whether the government had the evidence but nevertheless pulled its punches.” Id. Further, it is particularly important for the public to understand President Trump’s level of involvement in the investigation. Knowing whether or not President Trump was interviewed in related investigations could help shed light on the prosecutorial activity that has taken place under his administration, including the more recent investigations of Epstein and Maxwell. It is crucial for the public to know whether President Trump had personal knowledge of facts relevant to investigations conducted under his tenure as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer in order to determine whether he has, or has sought to, improperly influence those investigations. 5 Landon Thomas, Jr., Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery, N.Y. Magazine (Oct. 28, 2002), https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/#print. 6 Curt Anderson, 1 Justice Department, 2 Views on Sex Charges Against Epstein, AP (July 9, 2019), https://apnews.com/9054a8384520479aa3c36454b00cdf06. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 5 of 17 5 DOJ-20-1710 Consequently, the public interest in disclosing the existence or non-existence of the records far outweighs any private interests involved.7 This same analysis also applies to the disclosure of the content of those records. Conclusion American Oversight appeals FBI’s denial in full of its FOIA request. The Glomar response FBI has put forward is inappropriate here due to the failure to cause a cognizable harm under the FOIA exemptions cited and the significant public interest involved in the disclosure of the existence of the records. As such, FBI should confirm or deny the existence of the requested records, and if they do exist, should produce them to American Oversight. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. As provided in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), we look forward to your determination on our appeal within twenty working days. For questions regarding any part of this appeal or the underlying request for records, please contact Dan McGrath at [email protected] or 202.897.4213. Sincerely, Austin R. Evers Executive Director American Oversight 7 Judge Loretta Preska made a similar determination when balancing public and private interests in deciding to release documents from a 2015 lawsuit that would provide more information on Epstein and Maxwell’s abuse. Kevin G. Hall & Ben Wieder, Judge Orders Release of Jeffrey Epstein Records in Response to Miami Herald Litigation, Miami Herald (July 23, 2020, last updated 7:41 PM). The Miami Herald reported her ruling that “the public interest in the matter outweighed Maxwell’s claims that the documents, including depositions of central players in the Epstein saga, would prove embarrassing or interfere with ongoing legal matters.” Id. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 6 of 17 EXHIBIT A Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 7 of 17 1030 15th Street NW, Suite B255, Washington, DC 20005 | AmericanOversight.org July 8, 2020 VIA ONLINE PORTAL & FOIAONLINE David M. Hardy Chief, Record/Information Dissemination Section Records Management Division Federal Bureau of Investigation 170 Marcel Drive Winchester, VA 22602-4843 Via Online Portal Kevin Krebs Assistant Director, FOIA/Privacy Staff Executive Office for United States Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice 175 N Street NE Suite 5.400 Washington, DC 20530-0001 Via FOIAOnline Re: Freedom of Information Act Request Dear FOIA Officers: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the implementing regulations of your agency, American Oversight makes the following request for records. Requested Records American Oversight requests that your agency produce the following records within twenty business days: 1. All FBI form 302s reflecting the content of any and all interviews of Donald J. Trump conducted as a part of the government’s investigation of potential sexual abuse of minors, human trafficking, and related crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and/or their associates during the period of 2006 through 2008. Specifically, this request seeks 302s from the investigation that led the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to enter a non￾prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein following extensive plea negotiations and in exchange for his offer to plead guilty to the Florida offenses of solicitation of prosecution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. See Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1002 (11th Cir. 2014) (explanation of the background of the Epstein investigation, plea negotiations, and non-prosecution agreement). 2. All other records intended to summarize, memorialize, or record witness interviews or witness statements of Donald J. Trump collected or used in the investigation(s) described in Item 1, including written proffers, written summaries Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 8 of 17 DOJ-20-1710 - 2 - of oral proffers, transcripts or recordings of any witness interviews or statements, and any other record summarizing, memorializing, or reproducing the content of witness interviews or statements collected or used in connection with the above￾described investigation. Please provide all responsive records from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008. Fee Waiver Request In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and your agency’s regulations, American Oversight requests a waiver of fees associated with processing this request for records. The subject of this request concerns the operations of the federal government, and the disclosures will likely contribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by the general public in a significant way. Moreover, the request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. American Oversight requests a waiver of fees because disclosure of the requested information is “in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government.”1 The public has a significant interest in understanding how an investigation into serious crimes committed by a wealthy individual were investigated, particularly given that individual’s associations with powerful people, including now-President Trump, and the light sentence he received for very serious misconduct. 2 Records with the potential to shed light on this matter would contribute significantly to public understanding of operations of the federal government, including the thoroughness of an important investigation and whether powerful individuals have been investigated in the same manner as other citizens. American Oversight is committed to transparency and makes the responses agencies provide to FOIA requests publicly available, and the public’s understanding of the government’s activities would be enhanced through American Oversight’s analysis and publication of these records. This request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes.3 As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, American Oversight does not have a commercial purpose and the release of the information requested is not in American Oversight’s financial interest. American Oversight’s mission is to promote transparency in government, to educate the public about government activities, and to ensure the accountability of government officials. American Oversight uses the information gathered, and its analysis of it, to educate the public through reports, press releases, or other media. American Oversight also makes 1 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). 2 Andrew Prokop, Jeffrey Epstein’s Connections to Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, Explained, Vox (Aug. 10, 2019, 10:27 AM), https://www.vox.com/2019/7/9/20686347/jeffrey-epstein￾trump-bill-clinton. 3 See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 9 of 17 DOJ-20-1710 - 3 - materials it gathers available on its public website and promotes their availability on social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter. 4 American Oversight has also demonstrated its commitment to the public disclosure of documents and creation of editorial content through numerous substantive analyses posted to its website. 5 Examples reflecting this commitment to the public disclosure of documents and the creation of editorial content include the posting of records related to an ethics waiver received by a senior Department of Justice attorney and an analysis of what those records demonstrated regarding the Department’s process for issuing such waivers;6 posting records received as part of American Oversight’s “Audit the Wall” project to gather and analyze information related to the administration’s proposed construction of a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, and analyses of what those records reveal;7 posting records regarding potential self-dealing at the Department of Housing & Urban Development and related analysis;8 posting records and analysis relating to the federal government’s efforts to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia;9 and posting records and analysis regarding the Department of Justice’s decision in response to demands from Congress to direct a U.S. Attorney to undertake a wide-ranging review and make recommendations regarding criminal investigations relating to the President’s political opponents and allegations of misconduct by the Department of Justice itself and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.10 4 American Oversight currently has approximately 15,500 page likes on Facebook and 104,200 followers on Twitter. American Oversight, FACEBOOK, https://www.facebook.com/weareoversight/ (last visited July 8, 2020); American Oversight (@weareoversight), TWITTER, https://twitter.com/weareoversight (last visited July 8, 2020). 5 News, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/blog. 6 DOJ Records Relating to Solicitor General Noel Francisco’s Recusal, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/document/doj-civil-division-response-noel-francisco￾compliance; Francisco & the Travel Ban: What We Learned from the DOJ Documents, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/francisco-the-travel-ban-what-we￾learned-from-the-doj-documents. 7 See generally Audit the Wall, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/investigation/audit-the-wall; see, e.g., Border Wall Investigation Report: No Plans, No Funding, No Timeline, No Wall, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/border-wall-investigation-report-no-plans-no￾funding-no-timeline-no-wall. 8 Documents Reveal Ben Carson Jr.’s Attempts to Use His Influence at HUD to Help His Business, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/documents-reveal-ben-carson￾jr-s-attempts-to-use-his-influence-at-hud-to-help-his-business. 9 Investigating the Trump Administration’s Efforts to Sell Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/investigating-the-trump￾administrations-efforts-to-sell-nuclear-technology-to-saudi-arabia. 10 Sessions’ Letter Shows DOJ Acted on Trump’s Authoritarian Demand to Investigate Clinton, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/sessions-letter. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 10 of 17 DOJ-20-1710 - 4 - Accordingly, American Oversight qualifies for a fee waiver. Guidance Regarding the Search & Processing of Requested Records In connection with its request for records, American Oversight provides the following guidance regarding the scope of the records sought and the search and processing of records: § Please search all locations and systems likely to have responsive records, regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics. § In conducting your search, please understand the terms “record,” “document,” and “information” in their broadest sense, to include any written, typed, recorded, graphic, printed, or audio material of any kind. We seek records of any kind, including electronic records, audiotapes, videotapes, and photographs, as well as letters, emails, facsimiles, telephone messages, voice mail messages and transcripts, notes, or minutes of any meetings, telephone conversations or discussions. § Our request for records includes any attachments to those records or other materials enclosed with those records when they were previously transmitted. To the extent that an email is responsive to our request, our request includes all prior messages sent or received in that email chain, as well as any attachments to the email. § Please search all relevant records or systems containing records regarding agency business. Do not exclude records regarding agency business contained in files, email accounts, or devices in the personal custody of your officials, such as personal email accounts or text messages. Records of official business conducted using unofficial systems or stored outside of official files are subject to the Federal Records Act and FOIA.11 It is not adequate to rely on policies and procedures that require officials to move such information to official systems within a certain period of time; American Oversight has a right to records contained in those files even if material has not yet been moved to official systems or if officials have, by intent or through negligence, failed to meet their obligations.12 § Please use all tools available to your agency to conduct a complete and efficient search for potentially responsive records. Agencies are subject to government-wide 11 See Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Office of Sci. & Tech. Policy, 827 F.3d 145, 149–50 (D.C. Cir. 2016); cf. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Kerry, 844 F.3d 952, 955–56 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 12 See Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Office of Sci. & Tech. Policy, No. 14-cv-765, slip op. at 8 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2016). Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 11 of 17 DOJ-20-1710 - 5 - requirements to manage agency information electronically,13 and many agencies have adopted the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Capstone program, or similar policies. These systems provide options for searching emails and other electronic records in a manner that is reasonably likely to be more complete than just searching individual custodian files. For example, a custodian may have deleted a responsive email from his or her email program, but your agency’s archiving tools may capture that email under Capstone. At the same time, custodian searches are still necessary; agencies may not have direct access to files stored in .PST files, outside of network drives, in paper format, or in personal email accounts. § In the event some portions of the requested records are properly exempt from disclosure, please disclose any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the requested records. If a request is denied in whole, please state specifically why it is not reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release. § Please take appropriate steps to ensure that records responsive to this request are not deleted by the agency before the completion of processing for this request. If records potentially responsive to this request are likely to be located on systems where they are subject to potential deletion, including on a scheduled basis, please take steps to prevent that deletion, including, as appropriate, by instituting a litigation hold on those records. Conclusion If you have any questions regarding how to construe this request for records or believe that further discussions regarding search and processing would facilitate a more efficient production of records of interest to American Oversight, please do not hesitate to contact American Oversight to discuss this request. American Oversight welcomes an opportunity to discuss its request with you before you undertake your search or incur search or duplication costs. By working together at the outset, American Oversight and your agency can decrease the likelihood of costly and time-consuming litigation in the future. Where possible, please provide responsive material in an electronic format by email. Alternatively, please provide responsive material in native format or in PDF format on a USB drive. Please send any responsive material being sent by mail to American Oversight, 1030 15th Street NW, Suite B255, Washington, DC 20005. If it will accelerate release of 13 Presidential Memorandum—Managing Government Records, 76 Fed. Reg. 75,423 (Nov. 28, 2011), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press￾office/2011/11/28/presidential-memorandum-managing-government-records; Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments & Independent Agencies, “Managing Government Records Directive,” M-12-18 (Aug. 24, 2012), https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/m-12-18.pdf. Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 12 of 17 DOJ-20-1710 - 6 - responsive records to American Oversight, please also provide responsive material on a rolling basis. We share a common mission to promote transparency in government. American Oversight looks forward to working with your agency on this request. If you do not understand any part of this request, please contact Dan McGrath at [email protected] or 202.897.4213. Also, if American Oversight’s request for a fee waiver is not granted in full, please contact us immediately upon making such a determination. Sincerely, Austin R. Evers Executive Director American Oversight Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 13 of 17 EXHIBIT B Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 14 of 17 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, D.C. 20535 July 23, 2020 MR. AUSTIN R. EVERS AMERICAN OVERSIGHT SUITE B255 1030 15TH STREET NW WASHINGTON, DC 20005 Request No.: 1470524-000 Subject: Interviews of Donald J. Trump Conducted as Part of the Investigation of Human Trafficking and Related Crimes Committed by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2008) Dear Mr. Evers: This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FBI. The FOIPA Request Number listed above has been assigned to your request. Below you will find information relevant to your request. Please read each paragraph carefully. You have requested records on one or more third party individuals. Please be advised the FBI will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such records pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). The mere acknowledgement of the existence of FBI records on third party individuals could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This is our standard response to such requests and should not be taken to mean that records do, or do not, exist. As a result, your request has been closed. Please visit www.fbi.gov, select “Services,” “Information Management,” and “Freedom of Information/Privacy Act” for more information about making requests for records on third party individuals (living or deceased). If you submitted your request through the FBI’s eFOIPA portal and you are receiving correspondence through standard mail, it was determined your request did not meet the eFOIPA terms of service. For questions regarding our determinations, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.” The FOIPA Request number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all correspondence concerning your request. If you are not satisfied with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s determination in response to this request, you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice, 441 G Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20530, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIA STAR portal by creating an account following the instructions on OIP’s website: https://www.justice.gov/oip/submit-and-track-request-or-appeal. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within ninety (90) days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified. You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at [email protected]; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison by emailing [email protected]. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the subject heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified. VERSIGHT Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 15 of 17 Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Explanation of Exemptions. Sincerely, Michael G. Seidel Acting Section Chief, Record/Information Dissemination Section Information Management Division Enclosure VERSIGHT Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 16 of 17 EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552 (b)(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order; (b)(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency; (b)(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; (b)(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; (b)(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; (b)(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D ) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; (b)(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or (b)(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells. SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a (d)(5) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding; (j)(2) material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or apprehend criminals; (k)(1) information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy, for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods; (k)(2) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or privilege under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence; (k)(3) material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056; (k)(4) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records; (k)(5) investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence; (k)(6) testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service the release of which would compromise the testing or examination process; (k)(7) material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence. FBI/DOJ AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-3 Filed 10/07/25 Page 17 of 17 EXHIBIT D Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-4 Filed 10/07/25 Page 1 of 3 Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-4 Filed 10/07/25 Page 2 of 3 Case 1:25-cv-03597 Document 1-4 Filed 10/07/25 Page 3 of 3