Allison Gill’s Epstein Training Video Lawsuit: MSW Media v. DOJ
Snapshot
MSW Media v. Department of Justice is the federal Freedom of Information Act case behind Allison Gill’s effort to obtain FBI videos used to train personnel to review Jeffrey Epstein records. The named plaintiff is Gill’s media company, MSW Media, Inc. The case is before Judge Beryl A. Howell in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
DOJ’s October 2, 2026 filing asks the court to uphold the FBI’s search and its withholding of the recordings. An accompanying declaration identifies nine videos totaling one hour, thirteen minutes and fourteen seconds, describes their subjects, and maintains that all nine should remain withheld in full.
Gill’s October 4 broadcast on MeidasTouch covers those newly available descriptions. The underlying recordings have not been released through the materials documented here. The October 2 submission is the government’s request for judgment, and the declaration is the FBI’s evidentiary explanation. Neither is a judicial ruling approving the withholding.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | MSW Media, Inc. v. Department of Justice |
| Case number | 1:25-cv-02518-BAH |
| Court | United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Judge | Beryl A. Howell |
| Filed | August 2, 2025 |
| Plaintiff | MSW Media, Inc. |
| Defendant | Department of Justice, including the FBI component handling the request |
| Plaintiff’s counsel | Kelly Brian “Kel” McClanahan, National Security Counselors |
| FBI request | 1675664-000, submitted July 22, 2025 |
| Principal law | Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 |
| Records identified | Nine videos, with a combined duration of 1:13:14 |
| Decided issue | Expedited processing denied July 1, 2026, ECF 15 |
| Latest substantive filing reviewed | DOJ motion for summary judgment and supporting materials, October 2, 2026, ECF 21 |
| Article updated | October 4, 2026 |
Who Is Bringing the Case?
The amended complaint identifies MSW Media as a California media company operating podcasts and blogs about federal government activity. Gill is the journalist whose reporting and public updates explain the litigation. McClanahan is the lawyer representing the company.
DOJ is the defendant. The FBI received the training video request, while DOJ’s Office of Information Policy handled the appeal concerning MSW Media’s classification for fees. The case does not name Gill as an individual plaintiff or seek a criminal conviction of anyone appearing in the Epstein files.
The October 2 filing identifies James D. Todd, Jr. and Isaac C. Belfer of DOJ’s Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, as government counsel. Shannon R. Hammer, an FBI Assistant Section Chief serving as Acting Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section, supplies the declaration explaining the search and withholdings.
How Gill’s Reporting Led to the Request
Gill’s July 20, 2025 reporting described accounts from anonymous sources about the FBI’s review of Epstein records. She reported changing instructions, training sessions circulated inside the bureau, and a process for identifying and recording references to Donald Trump. These were her sources’ accounts, rather than findings by a court.
Her July 22 follow-up reported that training videos were embedded in PowerPoint materials on an internal shared system. The complaint later cited that reporting as part of the background for seeking the videos.
The distinction between the reporting and the subsequent records is important. Gill’s reporting supplied the initial lead. The FBI’s later response and sworn declaration confirm that responsive training videos exist. Determining precisely what those videos instruct personnel to do requires the recordings themselves, sufficiently detailed descriptions, or other authenticated records describing the instructions.
What MSW Media Requested
The July 22 request sought videos created or used to train FBI personnel in reviewing Epstein records that were stored on the identified unclassified SharePoint system or classified SharePoint or BuTube systems. It requested electronic copies, expedited processing, news media fee status, and a public interest fee waiver.
The request targeted the government’s review process. It was narrower than a request for every Epstein investigative record and did not itself establish the number, content, or location of all responsive videos.
The original August 2 complaint also included a separate July 17 request to DOJ’s Office of Information Policy for grand jury testimony in the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell criminal cases. That additional request explains why the earliest pleading discusses grand jury material alongside training videos.
The September 4 amended complaint states that counsel withdrew the grand jury request on August 20 after the relevant New York courts rejected the government’s unsealing applications. It preserved an empty Count I to retain the pleading’s numbering. The operative dispute continued through Counts II through V concerning the FBI request.
Claims and Relief Sought
The operative pleading alleged failures to make timely decisions on expedited processing, news media classification, the fee waiver, and the request for records. It treated the delays as constructive denials under FOIA.
| Claim | What MSW Media alleged | Subsequent development documented here |
|---|---|---|
| Count I | Originally concerned expedited treatment of the grand jury request | Withdrawn in the amended complaint |
| Count II | FBI failed to make a timely determination on expedited processing | Howell denied MSW Media’s partial summary judgment motion on July 1, 2026 |
| Count III | Improper denial or delayed recognition of news media status | OIP’s September 5, 2025 letter reported that FBI changed the fee category to representative of the news media |
| Count IV | Failure to decide the public interest fee waiver request | Pleaded claim; no separate final fee waiver disposition is established by the records summarized here |
| Count V | Failure to decide and provide the requested records | FBI issued a June 30, 2026 response withholding the responsive videos, leading to litigation over search adequacy and exemptions |
The requested relief included an order for expedited processing, recognition of news media status, a fee waiver, release of responsive information, appropriate injunctive or declaratory relief, and costs and attorney fees. These are the plaintiff’s requested remedies. They should not be described as orders already entered.
The news media classification letter resolved the administrative appeal concerning the fee category. Recognition of that category, a public interest fee waiver, expedited processing, and release of records are distinct issues.
Case Timeline
The pleadings, July 1 order, and October 2 declaration establish the following principal events. Court filing dates are distinguished from the later dates on which Gill discussed them publicly.
| Date | Event | Record and significance |
|---|---|---|
| July 17, 2025 | MSW Media submits the separate grand jury testimony request to OIP | ECF 1, original complaint |
| July 22, 2025 | Training video FOIA request submitted to FBI | ECF 11-1, request |
| July 29, 2025 | FBI acknowledges the request, invokes unusual circumstances, and assigns a general requester fee category | Hammer declaration, paragraphs 5 and 6 |
| July 30 and 31, 2025 | MSW appeals the news media classification denial; OIP acknowledges the appeal | Hammer declaration, paragraphs 7 and 8 |
| August 2, 2025 | Lawsuit filed | ECF 1 |
| August 20, 2025 | Grand jury request withdrawn | ECF 7, paragraphs 21 through 23 |
| September 4 and 5, 2025 | Amended complaint filed; OIP then confirms the news media fee category | ECF 7 and Hammer declaration, paragraph 11 |
| September 16 and 17, 2025 | Court enters a briefing schedule; MSW files its partial summary judgment motion for expedited processing | ECF 8 and ECF 9 |
| December 7, 2025 | MSW’s counsel sends clarification and search leads concerning embedded videos, updated materials, and workflow guidance | ECF 21-4 |
| December 9, 2025 | DOJ opposes expedited processing | ECF 11 |
| December 30, 2025 | MSW files its reply supporting expedition | ECF 12 |
| June 30, 2026 | FBI issues a response withholding the videos in full | Hammer declaration, paragraph 13 |
| July 1, 2026 | Howell denies the partial summary judgment motion for expedited processing | ECF 15 |
| July 12, 2026 | Gill publicly discusses FBI’s acknowledgment of the videos | Gill’s report |
| August 4 through 7, 2026 | Missed litigation deadlines lead to a show cause order, an unopposed extension request, and DOJ’s answer | ECF 16 and ECF 17 |
| August 20 and 21, 2026 | FBI supplies the combined video duration; parties dispute the scope of the request and proposed briefing timetable | ECF 18 |
| August 24 and September 3, 2026 | Court sets merits briefing; DOJ subsequently requests a one week extension with MSW’s consent | ECF 19 reproduces the original schedule |
| October 2, 2026 | DOJ files its merits summary judgment motion, memorandum, Hammer declaration, and exhibits | ECF 21 |
| October 4, 2026 | Gill covers the nine video descriptions on MeidasTouch | The Breakdown broadcast |
The August 6 extension motion explains that DOJ counsel overlooked the July 1 order and its answer and status report deadlines. Counsel accepted responsibility and sought retroactive extensions, which MSW did not oppose. The filing reports that the August 4 order asked the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. DOJ filed its answer on August 7, and the parties filed their joint status report on August 21. This episode does not establish that the case was dismissed or that anyone was held in contempt.
What Judge Howell Actually Decided
The July 1 memorandum and order denied MSW Media’s motion for partial summary judgment on expedited processing. The ruling addressed the showing supporting expedition, rather than the eventual merits of withholding the nine videos.
Under FOIA’s statutory compelling need standard, Howell found that MSW had not identified an imminent event or particular time limit that would make the records significantly less useful if obtained through ordinary processing. Public interest in the subject, by itself, did not satisfy that requirement.
Under DOJ’s regulation for exceptional media interest and possible government integrity concerns affecting public confidence, Howell found the record presented with the expedition request insufficient. She emphasized its brief, conclusory justification and the absence of supporting material demonstrating the relevant media coverage. She rejected the argument that common knowledge of the Epstein controversy supplied the necessary administrative record.
The opinion expressly recognized that adequately supported requests about the FBI’s handling of Epstein records could qualify for expedited processing. Its result turned on this request and the record submitted to the agency.
The earlier September 2025 order concerned a briefing schedule. It did not award expedited record processing. Howell’s July opinion also criticized the decision to stay DOJ’s answer while litigating the narrow expedition motion, explaining that this delayed the start of court supervised production procedures.
The July 1 order required DOJ to answer the amended complaint and the parties to submit a status report. It did not order immediate publication of the recordings or determine that their withholding was lawful.
The Nine Videos Identified by the FBI
Hammer’s October 2 declaration provides the government’s descriptions on pages 8 and 9. Paragraph 45 gives their combined duration as 1:13:14. Eight are described as screen recordings of live demonstrations. Video 7 contains training slides.
| Video | FBI’s description, paraphrased | Exemptions assigned in the declaration |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Assigning work for final review | 6 and 7(C) |
| 2 | Beginning work at the final review stage | 6 and 7(C) |
| 3 | Accessing investigative files | 6, 7(C), and 7(E) |
| 4 | Accessing DOJ’s list of victim names | 6, 7(C), and 7(E) |
| 5 | Flagging a document in FBI SharePoint for a supervisor’s further review | 6 and 7(C) |
| 6 | Another demonstration of flagging a document in FBI SharePoint for supervisory review | 6 and 7(C) |
| 7 | Slide based training on reviewing Epstein records to comply with legal obligations under DOJ’s direction | 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E) |
| 8 | Final review guidance | 6, 7(C), and 7(E) |
| 9 | Importing and exporting redacted investigative files | 6, 7(C), and 7(E) |
The declaration confirms the existence of specific recordings and the FBI’s explanation of their subjects. Its descriptions of Videos 5 and 6 refer to supervisory flagging without naming Trump. Those descriptions alone therefore do not independently establish the Trump specific instruction asserted in the broadcast’s description or Gill’s earlier source reporting.
Paragraph 45 says the FBI concluded that every video should be withheld in full. A published description of a withheld recording is not a release of the recording, and identification of nine responsive videos does not by itself resolve whether the search located everything the request covered.
Why DOJ Says the Videos Can Be Withheld
DOJ’s October 2 memorandum seeks summary judgment on search adequacy, the claimed exemptions, foreseeable harm, and segregability. These are the government’s positions awaiting judicial evaluation in the materials reviewed here.
| Issue | Government’s stated rationale | What remains to be decided |
|---|---|---|
| Exemption 5 | Video 7 reflects confidential legal advice from DOJ attorneys to FBI personnel about lawful review and redactions | Whether the asserted privilege protects the withheld material |
| Exemptions 6 and 7(C) | The recordings display identifying information concerning FBI personnel, third parties, and victims | Whether the privacy claims justify each withholding and its breadth |
| Exemption 7(E) | Certain videos expose nonpublic system details, internal communications identifiers, investigative databases, or search results | Whether the claimed law enforcement protection and risk explanations are sufficient |
| Foreseeable harm | Disclosure would harm protected legal communications, privacy, or law enforcement interests | Whether the declaration adequately connects the asserted harms to the information withheld |
| Segregability | Removing protected content would leave fragmented material with little meaningful informational content | Whether useful nonexempt portions can reasonably be released |
Hammer’s privilege explanation specifically invokes attorney client privilege for Video 7. Earlier commentary sometimes described Exemption 5 generally in terms of deliberative process. The current filing should be described according to the particular privilege it actually asserts.
The declaration also offers a law enforcement explanation for the recordings, including reviewing the files for potential grounds to investigate uncharged third parties and carrying out the Attorney General’s directive. Whether those explanations support the asserted exemptions is part of the legal dispute. The article does not adopt them as court findings.
The Dispute Over Search Scope
The December 7, 2025 email asked DOJ counsel to pass along clarification that responsive material included training videos embedded in PowerPoint decks, updated materials, and guidance about access, marking, prioritization, and workflow. It also identified the Epstein Transparency Project and Special Redaction Project as useful search leads.
MSW’s position in the August 21 status report was that the FBI had not disclosed for eight months that it would disregard that clarification. MSW argued that clarification received before a search should inform that search and sought faster merits briefing. Its concern about records potentially being destroyed was an argument for prompt action, not a finding that destruction had occurred.
DOJ’s August 21 email expressly states that the FBI treated the December email as an improper expansion of the request during litigation and did not use it to define the search. DOJ’s October motion maintains that the original request sought videos, while later demands for other materials required a new request. More specifically, it argues that neither the original request nor the December email expressly requested entire PowerPoint decks, and that the demand for complete decks appeared in August 2026. It also raises standing and administrative exhaustion objections to demands outside the original request.
Hammer’s search account adds an important fact to that dispute. She says the FBI had already gathered the responsive recordings in Administrative File 62F-HQ-A4051821, had located all nine during a July 29, 2025 search for another requester, and concluded that further searches or additional search terms were unnecessary for MSW’s request.
That declaration supplies the government’s answer to MSW’s earlier assertion that the FBI had not demonstrated a search before December 7. It leaves the court to evaluate whether relying on the existing administrative collection was reasonable and sufficient and whether the rejected clarification should have affected the search.
Released Slides and the EFTA Connection
Footnote 6 of Hammer’s declaration identifies public versions of nonexempt training slides shown in Video 7. It points to pages 26 through 50 of the FBI Vault’s first release concerning review of the Epstein investigative holdings and gives two corresponding EFTA ranges.
| Record location | Identifier or range | What the declaration says it represents |
|---|---|---|
| FBI Vault, investigative holdings review, Part 01 | Pages 26 through 50, as cited by Hammer | Publicly disclosed nonexempt training slides from Video 7 |
| EFTA00172446 | EFTA00172446 through EFTA00172470 | One EFTA range identified in the declaration |
| EFTA00172329 | EFTA00172329 through EFTA00172353 | A second EFTA range identified in the declaration |
The released slides give researchers a documentary comparison point. The FBI’s reference to them does not establish that the complete recorded presentation, spoken instructions, demonstrations, or every associated file has been disclosed.
MSW’s August status report also invokes the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It argues that the Act’s publication requirements cover these materials, particularly Section 2(a)(8), which concerns records about destruction, alteration, concealment, and related handling of Epstein material.
The Act’s text is a separate statutory source. MSW filed this lawsuit and its amended complaint before the Act was enacted on November 19, 2025. The later EFTA argument should therefore be distinguished from the FOIA claims pleaded in this case. The filings described here do not establish a ruling that EFTA requires production of these particular nine recordings.
Allison Gill’s October 4 Video
“LIVE: FBI’s Trump-Epstein Training Videos Finally DISCOVERED…” is a MeidasTouch broadcast featuring Gill’s coverage of the training video case. YouTube identifies the date as October 4, 2026; the live broadcast began at 19:00 UTC, or 3:00 p.m. Eastern time.
The public description says Gill has obtained descriptions of nine redaction training videos and that DOJ continues to withhold the original recordings. It also characterizes the training as directing agents to flag documents containing Trump’s name for supervisory review.
The first part is supported by the October 2 declaration: nine recordings are described and withheld. The Trump specific characterization requires separate attribution because the declaration’s descriptions of the two supervisory flagging videos do not name him.
The broadcast was live when its metadata was first checked on October 4. Its replay subsequently showed a duration of 23 minutes and 1 second, but no transcript was available at the final source check. This section documents the verified title, channel, date, and public description. It does not purport to summarize every spoken claim or quote an unreviewed transcript.
Related EpsteinWiki Coverage
EpsteinWiki’s earlier article on material withheld from the FBI’s review discusses reporting about the internal review and training materials. It supplies background for why obtaining the recordings matters, while the filings in MSW Media provide the primary record of this litigation.
The FOIA and government releases guide provides broader context for reading government disclosures and distinguishing released pages from records that remain withheld.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act article covers the statutory disclosure framework invoked in MSW’s later arguments.
Democracy Defenders Fund v. DOJ concerns a separate set of requests and a September 30, 2026 expedited processing ruling by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Its outcome should not be substituted for Howell’s July 1 ruling in MSW Media.
Phang v. Blanche coverage concerns another case, before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Gill has discussed that litigation with Katie Phang, but its requests for FBI notes and redaction explanations are separate from MSW’s request for training videos.
Current Status and Evidentiary Limits
DOJ’s October 2 motion is the latest substantive filing reviewed for this article. It requests judgment for the government. No later merits decision is established by the sources cited here, and no release of the nine recordings is documented.
The September 3 scheduling motion reproduces the court’s original August 24 briefing schedule and requests a one week extension with MSW’s consent. The later minute order’s full text should be consulted before relying on any remaining filing deadline. A requested extension and an inferred deadline are not substitutes for the operative order.
The evidence supports a precise account: the FBI acknowledges nine responsive training videos, identifies their subjects and combined duration, and defends withholding them. MSW disputes the search and the refusal to release the material. Howell has decided the expedition motion, while the October merits filing presents issues for further adjudication.
The available descriptions do not establish the full contents of the recordings, every person mentioned in them, or the reason for every redaction in the underlying Epstein files. A name in an investigative record does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing. Victims’ identities and other protected information remain separate from the public interest in understanding the government’s handling of the records.
Questions That Remain Open
- Will the court accept the FBI’s reliance on its existing administrative file as an adequate search for MSW’s request?
- How will the court distinguish a clarification of the original request from a demand for additional records?
- Will DOJ establish each exemption and the foreseeable harm claimed for the information in each video?
- Can voices, names, screen details, or other protected information be removed while leaving useful portions available for release?
- What do the recordings themselves say about supervisory flagging, including any instructions concerning Trump or other named people?
- How closely do the publicly released slides correspond to Video 7 and any updated training or workflow guidance?
- What effect, if any, will the EFTA argument have on the court’s resolution of this FOIA dispute?
- What do MSW’s next merits filing and the court’s subsequent orders establish about release, further searches, and the remaining timetable?
Sources
- Original complaint, ECF 1, August 2, 2025. Includes the original grand jury and training video requests.
- Amended complaint, ECF 7, September 4, 2025. Operative claims, withdrawal of Count I, and requested relief.
- Motion for a briefing schedule, ECF 8, partial summary judgment motion, ECF 9, DOJ opposition, ECF 11, and MSW reply, ECF 12. Expedition briefing.
- Memorandum and order, ECF 15, July 1, 2026. Judicial denial of the expedition motion; analysis at pages 5 through 11 and operative order at page 12.
- DOJ extension motion, ECF 16, August 6, 2026 and answer, ECF 17, August 7, 2026. Missed deadlines, proposed relief, and response to the amended complaint.
- Joint status report, ECF 18, August 21, 2026. Separate plaintiff and government positions on scope and scheduling.
- Consent extension motion, ECF 19, September 3, 2026. Quotes the August 24 briefing schedule and seeks a one week extension.
- DOJ summary judgment motion, ECF 21 and supporting memorandum, ECF 21-1, October 2, 2026. Government’s merits arguments.
- Shannon R. Hammer declaration, ECF 21-2. Search account at pages 5 and 6; video descriptions at pages 8 and 9; released slide references at page 9, footnote 6; total duration and segregability at page 21.
- December clarification email, ECF 21-4, August email exhibits, ECF 21-5, ECF 21-6, and ECF 21-7. Filed correspondence underlying the scope dispute.
- FBI Vault, review of Epstein investigative holdings, Part 01. Government release referenced in the declaration.
- Epstein Files Transparency Act, official text. Separate statutory framework cited by MSW in the August status report.
- Gill’s July 20, 2025 reporting, July 22 follow-up, July 12, 2026 update, and August 23, 2026 update. Gill’s reporting and public account of the litigation.
- MeidasTouch broadcast, October 4, 2026. Verified public video metadata and description; transcript unavailable at the final source check.