Meet Andrew J. Block
The DOJ Lawyer Standing Between Epstein Survivors and a Full Accounting
Andrew J. Block moved from America First Legal into CBP’s chief counsel office, was described as a close Stephen Miller ally, and then resurfaced inside DOJ. Now he is helping Todd Blanche resist an Epstein transparency lawsuit while survivors continue waiting for justice.
Most people have never heard of Andrew J. Block.
They should learn his name.
On August 12, 2026, Block entered an appearance for Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in Phang v. Blanche, the federal lawsuit seeking to force the Justice Department to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Block did not enter the case at the beginning.
He arrived after Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Katie Phang a preliminary injunction and found that Blanche had conceded the government was violating the Act.
That alone deserves scrutiny.
But newly identified records reveal a much more significant career path than we previously understood.
Block moved from Stephen Miller’s America First Legal into the position of chief counsel at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Atlantic later described him as a close Miller ally and reported that he was removed during a Department of Homeland Security leadership change.
Within weeks, Block resurfaced at the Justice Department as senior counsel to Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr.
Then he entered the Epstein files case.
What the Government Is Still Fighting Over
The EpsteinWiki account of Katie Phang’s lawsuit explains that the dispute involves far more than a few clerical redactions.
The contested material includes:
Names removed from communications involving Jeffrey Epstein
Names of alleged co-conspirators
Underlying FBI interview notes
Foreign language records DOJ did not review
Information involving government officials and politically exposed people
The redaction log that DOJ was legally required to publish
Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. The law required the covered records to be released by December 19, 2025, subject to protections that include safeguarding survivors’ identities.
The EpsteinWiki archive of Transparency Act files documents the materials released, referenced, and sought under the law.
On June 25, Judge Sullivan granted Phang’s preliminary injunction.
In the court’s memorandum opinion, Sullivan found that Phang was likely to succeed on the relevant Administrative Procedure Act claims.
The opinion states that the attorney general had conceded he was violating the Act.
The judge also found that complying with the law would not harm the attorney general and rejected the government’s request for a stay.
According to the federal docket, Block entered the case approximately seven weeks later.
The docket does not explain why he was added. It does establish that senior counsel from the Office of the Associate Attorney General became involved after the government suffered a major adverse ruling.
Who Is Andrew J. Block?
The lawyer in this case is Andrew J. Block, Virginia State Bar number 91537.
That number confirms his identity across America First Legal and Justice Department filings.
Block worked for Republican Representative Mike Bishop of Michigan before serving as counsel at the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s first administration.
By early 2022, he was appearing in court for America First Legal.
AFL was founded by former Trump administration officials, including Stephen Miller. It became a powerful legal operation challenging Biden administration policies involving immigration, diversity programs, education, federal records, and administrative authority.
Block was not an occasional outside lawyer.
America First Legal’s 2024 Form 990 identifies him as a lawyer and reports $207,369 in compensation from the organization.
By March 2025, AFL publicly identified him as senior counsel and sent him to testify before Congress about Biden administration immigration policies.
The Heritage and Project 2025 Connections
The LegiStorm profile for Andrew J. Block reports that he served as a Heritage Foundation legal intern in 2014.
That entry appears in the correct Andrew J. Block profile, alongside his later congressional employment. It does not belong to economist Michael Block, whose work appeared in older Heritage publications.
However, no surviving Heritage directory, internship announcement, or other primary Heritage document has been located to confirm the internship independently.
The Project 2025 connection is institutional and better documented.
The official Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership lists America First Legal Foundation as an Advisory Board organization.
Gene Hamilton, a senior AFL official while Block worked there, wrote Project 2025’s Justice Department chapter. The chapter gives special recognition to AFL staff for assistance.
Andrew Block is not named as a Project 2025 contributor.
There is no public evidence that Block personally wrote or edited the project. What is confirmed is that he worked at an organization formally involved in Project 2025 while one of his senior colleagues wrote its DOJ blueprint.
The Missing CBP Chapter
After America First Legal, Block became chief counsel of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
A federal complaint states that CBP Chief Counsel Andrew J. Block issued a letter on February 26, 2026.
That independently establishes that Block held the position.
A CBP headquarters directory has also listed him as chief counsel, although government directories can remain online after personnel changes.
EpsteinWiki has not located an appointment announcement identifying who selected Block for the job.
Then came the most revealing report.
On May 11, The Atlantic described Block as a close Stephen Miller ally and reported that he had been “shown the door” during a DHS leadership realignment.
The publication attributed the personnel information to two people briefed on the change. Block reportedly did not respond to its request for comment.
The report did not say Block was removed for misconduct or deficient performance. It placed his removal within a broader shift in personnel and immigration enforcement tactics.
We do not know whether Miller arranged Block’s CBP appointment. We also do not know whether Miller played any role in what happened next.
From CBP to Stanley Woodward’s DOJ Office
By June 19, Block was signing Justice Department court papers as Senior Counsel to Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr.
That produces a remarkable sequence:
America First Legal → CBP chief counsel → reported removal from CBP → senior counsel in the Office of the Associate Attorney General → Todd Blanche’s Epstein files defense
The public record does not identify who recruited Block to DOJ or when the decision was made.
No evidence currently establishes that Woodward knew Block before the appointment.
The transition itself is confirmed. Within weeks of his reported removal from one powerful government position, Block appeared in another.
The Red Flags
A Reported Stephen Miller Alliance
The Atlantic’s description of Block as a close Miller ally moves the relationship beyond the simple fact that Block worked for an organization Miller founded.
The claim must remain attributed. No public document shows Miller personally arranging Block’s federal appointments.
The Conservative Personnel Pipeline
Block moved from AFL into CBP’s senior legal office and then into the Office of the Associate Attorney General.
That does not prove one person controlled his career. It demonstrates how lawyers from outside ideological organizations can move into positions where they exercise federal power.
His Rapid Move After CBP
The Atlantic reported Block’s removal from CBP in May. A June filing placed him directly under Stanley Woodward at DOJ.
Who facilitated that transition remains unknown.
His Politically Sensitive DOJ Assignments
Before entering Phang v. Blanche, Block helped defend the government in litigation involving the proposed $1.776 billion Anti Weaponization Fund.
When a judge sought sworn declarations from senior officials confirming that the fund would not proceed, Block argued that the declarations were unnecessary and raised separation of powers concerns.
The fund litigation and the Epstein case are separate matters.
Together, they show Block representing the government when judges seek evidence, assurances, or transparency from senior administration officials.
The Effect of His Work on Survivors
This is the most important flag.
Block is helping defend the government in litigation intended to enforce a federal disclosure law.
That does not make him an Epstein associate. It makes him one of the government attorneys helping maintain resistance to disclosure.
Whatever his personal motives, the practical effect is continued delay.
What Was Not Found
There is no verified evidence that Andrew J. Block knew Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.
There is no verified evidence that he visited an Epstein property, traveled on an Epstein aircraft, appears in authenticated Epstein address books, or participated in Epstein’s crimes.
There is also no evidence that Block donated to an Epstein related person or organization.
A Federal Election Commission record matching his name, Virginia location, AFL employer, and occupation reports a $43 contribution through WinRed in 2024. The available record does not reliably identify the ultimate recipient.
Block is not accused of personally participating in Epstein’s trafficking operation.
His connection is professional, political, and institutional.
The Survivors Are the Point
The government often invokes survivor privacy when defending redactions and withholding.
But protecting survivors does not require concealing alleged perpetrators, facilitators, co-conspirators, government officials, or politically exposed people.
It does not require leaving foreign language evidence unreviewed.
It does not justify withholding the redaction log that Congress ordered DOJ to publish.
The EpsteinWiki survivor interview archive preserves survivor testimony while respecting consent and responsible redaction.
The survivors’ demands for DOJ accountability make clear that they want meetings, honest answers, meaningful review, and full lawful transparency.
Survivors have spent decades watching institutions delay, deflect, negotiate, redact, and promise accountability later.
Many may never receive complete justice through criminal prosecutions. Government records cannot undo their abuse, but those records can help reveal who enabled Epstein, what investigators knew, who received protection, and why institutions repeatedly failed.
Every unnecessary delay protects the existing system more than it protects survivors.
Accountability Is Not an Accusation
Andrew J. Block did not create the Epstein scandal, and there is no evidence that he personally knew Epstein.
But he occupies a position of public power.
The EpsteinWiki dossier on Todd Blanche documents the broader controversy surrounding the Justice Department’s handling of the records.
Block has now joined Blanche’s defense after a judge found that the attorney general conceded a violation of the transparency law.
Block is entitled to make lawful arguments for his client.
The public is equally entitled to examine those arguments, the institutional pipeline behind the lawyers making them, and the consequences for survivors.
The question is not whether Andrew Block attended Epstein’s parties. There is no evidence that he did.
The question is why a lawyer described as a close Stephen Miller ally moved from America First Legal to CBP, from CBP to Stanley Woodward’s DOJ office, and then into the legal battle over records Congress ordered released.
In the Epstein story, delay has consistently served powerful people and institutions better than it has served survivors.
That is the red flag that matters most.
Final RK Thoughts
He is yet again another pedophile enabling kunt creating chaos in the Department of Injustice. This is another example of why EpsteinWiki and the Sleuths exist. It may take us time, but justice WILL happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqdo7JB_jMA
Katie Phang's update