The question from the federal judge was direct, predictable and nearly impossible to misunderstand: How many pages were still waiting to be reviewed?

But according to an eyewitness account from the courtroom, the Justice Department attorney standing before him had no answer.

What followed was a tense confrontation that appeared to expose an extraordinary possibility—that nearly two months after a federal judge ordered the Justice Department to “immediately” begin reviewing and producing certain foreign-language materials connected to Jeffrey Epstein, the process may not have even started.

Former MSNBC host and attorney Katie Phang, who brought the lawsuit behind the order, described DOJ attorney Andrew Block as visibly rattled when Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan demanded an update during a hearing in Washington, D.C.

“Turning red, stammering, hemming and hawing,” Phang wrote, Block ultimately failed to provide the court with the information it wanted.

Follow @allchronology

For observers demanding greater transparency surrounding the Epstein files, the exchange immediately raised a disturbing question: Was the Justice Department struggling to comply with the judge’s order—or deliberately refusing to do so?

Phang sued Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, alleging that the Justice Department had failed to comply fully with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Her case became one of the few Epstein-related transparency lawsuits to make significant progress in federal court.

In June, she secured a preliminary injunction requiring the government to unredact key records. Sullivan’s June 26 order also directed Blanche to “immediately initiate review and production” of foreign-language materials that might fall under the transparency law.

Seven weeks later, Sullivan wanted specifics.

“How many pages” remained to be examined and prepared for possible public release, the judge asked.

“I don’t have a number,” Block replied, according to Phang’s account.

Sullivan did not let the answer pass.

“But you knew this was going to be discussed today,” he responded. “You’re at the podium as counsel for the Attorney General.”

The exchange placed Block in an increasingly uncomfortable position. He was not merely being asked an unexpected procedural question. He was appearing on behalf of the nation’s top law-enforcement official in a case involving a clear judicial instruction—and the judge wanted to know what had actually been done.

According to Phang, Block said the department’s position “hasn’t changed.”

Sullivan then delivered the question that appeared to capture the gravity of the confrontation.

“The Government’s position then is you’re just not going to comply [with my court order]?”

That question now hangs over the Justice Department.

The available account does not establish precisely what work, if any, officials performed behind the scenes. Block’s inability to provide a number is not, by itself, conclusive proof that no review occurred. But Phang argued that his response confirmed her suspicion that the department had not begun translating and examining the disputed documents.

Follow @allchronology

“As of today, August 15, 2026, that hasn’t happened,” she wrote.

For Phang, the wording of Sullivan’s June order leaves little room for ambiguity. The judge did not simply request that the Justice Department consider the documents at some undefined point in the future.

“The court didn’t give Blanche an ‘out’ to explain why he couldn’t do the translations,” she wrote. “The court ordered him to ‘immediately initiate review and production.’”

The foreign-language records represent only one portion of the enormous public battle over government material connected to Epstein, the convicted sex offender whose relationships with wealthy and powerful people have fueled years of suspicion.

Not every name or reference appearing in Epstein-related documents demonstrates criminal conduct. But the prolonged struggle over disclosure has intensified public distrust and created relentless pressure for the government to show exactly what it possesses—and why some information remains hidden.

That is what made the courtroom moment so striking.

The Justice Department knew the status of the review would be discussed. Its attorney appeared before the judge responsible for issuing the order. Yet when asked for the most basic measurement of progress—the number of pages remaining—he could not provide one.

No dramatic new name was revealed. No secret document was opened before the courtroom.

Instead, the most consequential revelation may have been the apparent absence of an answer.

Nearly two months after being told to act “immediately,” the Justice Department was confronted with a simple demand: Show the court what has been done.

What reportedly followed was a red face, a stammer—and a silence that may have spoken louder than any document released so far.