Is the US Underreacting to the Epstein Files?
Different cultural, legal, and media landscapes have shaped calls for accountability
When the first batch of Jeffrey Epstein files surfaced in September, revealing that Peter Mandelson, then the British ambassador to the United States, had maintained his friendship with Epstein years after the financier’s 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution, the British government fired Mandelson from his post. Last week, as more revelations emerged from over three million newly released pages — appearing to show that Mandelson leaked market-sensitive government information and policy details to Epstein — Mandelson was forced to resign from the House of Lords. He now faces a criminal investigation.
That’s just one example of a wave of resignations, investigations, and public reckonings across Europe triggered by the release of the so-called Epstein files. But in the United States, where the documents originated, the official response has been virtually nonexistent — no Cabinet resignations, no criminal probes of sitting officials, and a Justice Department announcement that its review of the files “is over.” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche dismissed prospects for further investigations, saying, “It isn’t a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.”
Europe’s reckoning
The contrast between the fallout of the Epstein files in Europe and the fallout in America runs deeper than just political will. European investigations are focusing on substantive criminal and national security concerns, while American discourse has largely remained in the realm of reputation and partisan point-scoring.
In the UK, police are investigating whether Mandelson committed misconduct in public office by leaking sensitive government information to Epstein during the 2008 financial crisis — including advance notice of a €500 billion EU bailout, internal briefings about government-asset sales, and real-time updates on negotiations about taxing bankers’ bonuses. These revelations aren’t just demonstration of an embarrassing association; they’re potential violations of law, with large financial consequences.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer now faces questions about his judgment in appointing Mandelson as ambassador despite public knowledge of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein. Some observers suggest this is the most serious crisis of Starmer’s premiership. He publicly apologized to Epstein’s victims, stating: “I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him, and sorry that even now you’re forced to watch this story unfold in public once again.”
The British royal family has also faced consequences. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, brother of King Charles, was stripped of his military and royal titles and forced to vacate his taxpayer-funded residence. Andrew has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denies. In 2022, he settled a civil lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre without admitting liability. Giuffre alleged that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to Andrew on three separate occasions in 2001 when she was 17 years old. Andrew is now also being investigated for allegedly sharing confidential material with Epstein. And the charity of his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, announced it would shut down indefinitely after emails showed her calling Epstein a “legend” and “the brother I have always wished for.”
In Poland, Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced an investigation of potential abuse of Polish children as well as possible links between Epstein and Russian intelligence — treating this as a national security matter, not merely a sex crimes case.
French prosecutors opened an inquiry into former culture minister Jack Lang for suspected laundering of tax-fraud proceeds tied to Epstein. Lang has since resigned as president of the Arab World Institute.
Lithuania’s prosecutor general announced a human-trafficking investigation after the files revealed names of several Lithuanian models and arts figures, including a festival promoter who received payments from Epstein. Latvia initiated its own review to identify potential victims and examine institutional failures.
Slovakia’s national security adviser, Miroslav Lajčák, resigned after emails surfaced showing him discussing women with Epstein, including one message in which he told Epstein he would “take the ‘MI’ girl.” (It’s not clear what “MI” meant.) Sweden’s chair of the UN refugee agency fundraising foundation stepped down after revelations of a 2012 visit to Epstein’s private island.
Norway, a nation of fewer than 6 million, has been particularly roiled by the revelations. The country’s economic-crimes unit opened a corruption investigation into former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland over suspected gifts, loans, and travel benefits he may have received from Epstein. High-profile Norwegian diplomat couple Terje Rød-Larsen and Mona Juul are also under scrutiny; Juul has been suspended as Norway’s ambassador to Jordan after revelations including that Epstein left the couple’s children $10 million in a will drawn up shortly before his death.
Norwegian Crown Princess Mette-Marit issued a rare royal apology after the files revealed her extensive correspondence with Epstein years after his 2008 conviction. “I must take responsibility for not having investigated Epstein’s background more thoroughly, and for not realizing sooner what kind of person he was,” she said in a statement. Norway is also investigating former Foreign Minister Børge Brende, the current CEO of the World Economic Forum, over multiple business dinners and communications with Epstein.
None of these European figures except Prince Andrew face allegations of participating in Epstein’s sex crimes. They’re facing consequences for maintaining relationships with a convicted sex offender and, in some cases, for questionable judgment in handling sensitive information.
The American response
In the United States, by contrast, the conversation has remained focused on who attended which party, who flew on which plane — reputational damage rather than criminal accountability. Despite being mentioned roughly 38,000 times in the files, Donald Trump has faced no significant political consequences, and neither have most other prominent Americans named in the documents.
When asked about justice for Epstein’s survivors, President Trump responded: “I think it’s really time for the country to get on to something else, now that nothing came out about me.”
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick remains in his Cabinet position despite admitting before Congress that he visited Epstein’s Caribbean island with his wife, children, nannies, and friends — contradicting his previous claim that he hadn’t been in the same room as Epstein after 2005.
Steve Bannon, who exchanged hundreds of messages with Epstein about coordinating far-right movements in Europe and even recorded a documentary intended to rehabilitate Epstein’s image, continues his media activities unaffected.
Former President Bill Clinton has been compelled by Republicans to testify before Congress about his friendship with Epstein. And a few Americans who appear in the files have stepped back from their public roles. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers took a leave from Harvard after hundreds of messages over seven years between him and Epstein were released, saying he is “deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize[s] the pain they have caused.” Brad Karp stepped down as chair of prominent law firm Paul, Weiss over his frequent correspondence with Epstein spanning two years, which included legal advice during one of Epstein’s sex abuse investigations. But these are exceptions rather than the rule. (None of these men have been accused of criminal wrongdoing.)
Why the difference?
When evidence of questionable associations with a convicted sex offender produces swift consequences in parliamentary democracies but has minimal impact in the United States, it suggests institutional and cultural factors that go beyond the specifics of any individual case.
Part of the difference between European and American responses to the Epstein files comes from the nature of the allegations themselves. Many of the Europeans being investigated are accused of corruption or public misconduct; most of the attention on American figures centers on the basic fact of their association with Epstein. Yet European governments are investigating mere suggestions of impropriety, while the US government appears to consider cases against Epstein’s associates closed unless there is a smoking gun.
The divergent responses between the US and Europe also reflect fundamental differences in how democratic accountability operates across political systems and cultures. Parliamentary democracies, like those in the UK and several other European countries, require prime ministers to maintain the confidence of a majority in parliament. This creates faster accountability mechanisms when scandals emerge. Cabinet ministers can be removed swiftly, and the threat of no-confidence votes creates pressure for resignation.
Alex Thomas, executive director of the Institute for Government think tank, said, “There is something about parliamentary democracy… that I think does help drive accountability.”
European political culture also tends to treat the appearance of impropriety as disqualifying, even absent criminal wrongdoing. Maintaining relationships with a convicted sex offender has been viewed as a severe lapse in judgment that undermines public trust — a trust that European political systems appear to depend on more explicitly than America’s system.
Rob Ford, a professor of political science at the University of Manchester, observed that Britain still has “a degree of shame in politics, in terms of people will say: ‘This is just not acceptable, this is just not done.’” In American politics, political figures often circle the wagons around those in their party rather than demand that they step aside.
Media ecosystems play a role too. European media, particularly in smaller countries, tends toward more concentrated coverage of major scandals, creating sustained public pressure. In the United States, media fragmentation and partisan polarization mean stories get filtered through different ideological lenses, reducing consensus pressure for accountability.
What this means for democratic accountability
Accountability systems exist to maintain public trust in institutions. When powerful figures face no consequences for associations that would end careers elsewhere, it signals to citizens that different rules apply to elites — a perception that corrodes democratic legitimacy.
The European response demonstrates that holding powerful figures accountable for poor judgment is possible even without criminal charges. The American response suggests that such accountability is increasingly a choice rather than an inevitability — a choice that appears to depend heavily on partisan alignment and political calculation.
In democracies, consequences for those who abuse public trust aren’t automatic — they require institutions willing to enforce them, and citizens willing to demand that.
 | A guest post by
|
The most powerful person in the world has sexual encounters with a 21-year-old staffer on the job. That’s abuse — it’s the power dynamic. The president is impeached and his reputation is stained.
A scammer becomes wealthy and powerful, and to satisfy his sexual cravings, grooms and blackmails girls and women for his personal use and to gain power over his wealthy and powerful friends/associates. Evidence is discovered in Palm Beach, prosecutors have a solid case (not a small feat in child sexual abuse cases), yet he serves a ridiculously light sentence and has lots nice perks in prison thanks to friends. Boy, evidence is so vast that the court really doesn’t want this getting out. The man later sets up a “modeling business” bringing Eastern European and Russian girls/women to the US. He also spends years swindling exorbitant amounts of money from people and businesses yet he is never accused of crimes. Decades of heinous crimes yet only one person has been convicted.
Any person who had an intimate friendship (business dealings”) with this man over the last 25 years knew what was happening. Their careers must end and their reputations must be reduced to dirt. As Elise’s last sentence calls us to do.
It seems like the will from American voters is there across the political divide, demanding accountability, but the system is built to protect the powerful. This gives a lot to think about in terms of how our systems could be edited to force “shame” onto our leaders. Thanks Elise!
One addition, forgot to mention the richest man in the world. Elon Musk used the files as political mudslinging when he got upset with his pal Donald, and then emphatically claimed that he turned down all offers to Epstein Island when it was revealed Musk also had a friendly relationship with Epstein. And then we got emails from Musk to Epstein begging for a trip to the island and even phrased his desire as wanting to go on the wildest night for parties. Several years after Epstein had been sent to prison and been labeled a sex offender, so we know Musk was very aware what a wild party on the island would be. No consequence, seemingly not even in business.
One other note: kind of wild watching Pam Bondi demonstrate so much unprofessional behavior before congress yesterday, taking zero responsibility. But then I remembered… she was Trump’s second choice for AG. Remember who would have been overseeing the release of the Epstein Files if Trump had his first choice? Matt Pedo Gaetz. The guy who had to duck out of Congress to avoid consequences from an ethics report that was going to find he used venmo to traffic and abuse at least one underage girl. That’s the level of judgement we have from the man in charge of the whole country. Astounding that he still has 100% support from most Republicans in power. The midterms can’t come fast enough!!!