Todd Blanche is approaching confirmation as the permanent attorney general of the United States.

But in a lawsuit over the Jeffrey Epstein files, his lawyers failed to perform one of the most basic tasks in litigation:

Respond before the deadline.

Now attorney and journalist Katie Phang—who brought the lawsuit—says Blanche’s attempt to excuse the mistake should make senators question whether he is capable of managing the Justice Department.

“There, my friends, is the confession by Todd Blanche that he blew the deadline,” Phang said during an episode of her podcast.

The dispute centers on the Justice Department’s redactions in its release of Epstein-related records.

Phang is seeking less-redacted documents or a legally sufficient explanation for why specific material was withheld. Her lawsuit alleges that the department violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by concealing information the law required it to release.

Those allegations have not yet been resolved.

Blanche and the Justice Department may possess legitimate legal grounds for the redactions, including protections for victims, personal information, investigative methods or other material shielded by law.

But before the court can evaluate those arguments, the government must respond to the complaint.

Its deadline was June 29.

Blanche reportedly had 60 days to file an answer or another responsive motion. His side submitted nothing before that date and did not ask the court for an extension.

The government later filed a motion attempting to cure the default and obtain additional time.

Its explanation relied on “excusable neglect,” a legal doctrine that allows judges to forgive some missed deadlines after considering the reasons for the delay, its duration, possible prejudice to the opposing party and whether the mistake was made in good faith.

The phrase does not mean Blanche admitted Phang’s substantive allegations about the Epstein files.

It acknowledges a procedural failure while arguing that the failure should not produce severe consequences.

Phang seized on that distinction.

“Isn’t that an admission that you messed up, but you have an ‘excusable’ reason why you did?” she asked.

The Justice Department’s filing reportedly described the missed deadline as “regrettable” and “not intentional.”

That language may help demonstrate good faith, but it also confirms that the department did not deliberately choose to ignore the complaint as part of a considered litigation strategy.

Something went wrong.

Phang’s criticism went beyond the immediate case.

“Do you think somebody like that should be the Attorney General of the United States?” she asked. “If he can’t actually handle a basic deadline like responding to a lawsuit?”

She argued that the lapse raises questions about whether Blanche can competently represent the American public and supervise the vast institution he wants to lead.

That argument is politically powerful, although one missed deadline does not by itself prove professional incompetence.

Large legal organizations handle thousands of cases, and even experienced attorneys occasionally miss filing dates because of administrative failures, communication problems or docketing errors. Courts frequently receive motions based on excusable neglect and do not automatically treat them as evidence that the lawyer is unqualified.

The seriousness depends partly on the explanation—which was not fully detailed in the article provided—and whether the same problems recur.

But the Epstein context makes this mistake especially damaging.

The Justice Department is already facing intense suspicion about the pace, completeness and consistency of its disclosures. Trump supporters and critics alike have accused officials of withholding politically sensitive information.

A missed deadline in litigation demanding transparency reinforces the appearance of disorder.

It also gives Phang a strategic opening.

She can argue that the department had ample time, ignored the deadline and now wants special leniency while continuing to withhold records from the public.

Phang described the filing more bluntly.

“You’re being caught with your pants down,” she said, portraying the motion as a panicked effort to repair a preventable mistake.

The court must now decide whether to accept the government’s explanation and allow a late response.

Judges generally prefer resolving lawsuits on their merits rather than through procedural defaults, particularly when the delay is limited and does not seriously harm the opposing party. Blanche may therefore receive the additional time he requested.

That would save the government from the immediate consequences of its mistake.

It would not erase the optics.

The man seeking authority over federal prosecutors nationwide missed a deadline in one of the most politically sensitive transparency cases confronting the department.

His filing says the neglect was excusable.

Phang’s question is whether the public should excuse it too.