Why the Epstein Scandal Is a Crisis for Keir Starmer but Not for Trump

The expanding fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein case is threatening political careers on both sides of the Atlantic, but the consequences are unfolding very differently in Britain and the United States. While UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer now faces the most serious crisis of his leadership despite having no personal connection to Epstein, US President Donald Trump appears largely insulated from the scandal, even though his name appears in parts of the released investigative files.

As political pressure intensifies in London, Starmer has been forced into public apologies and internal party damage control, while in Washington, efforts to reopen legal accountability for Epstein’s victims have stalled. The contrast highlights not only the imbalance in political power between the two leaders, but also the differences in how institutions of scrutiny operate in the UK and the US.

In Britain, accountability mechanisms are actively testing the prime minister’s judgment. In the United States, Trump’s grip over the Justice Department and Republican-controlled Congress has so far shielded him from sustained investigation. Meanwhile, newly released Epstein-related documents continue to widen the scope of the scandal, now touching figures and institutions in countries including Norway and Poland, nearly seven years after Epstein’s death in custody in 2019.

Public anger in the UK has reached such intensity that King Charles III stripped his brother, former Prince Andrew, of royal titles and removed him from his residence on the Windsor Castle estate. Andrew’s long-documented friendship with Epstein, coupled with his settlement with Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s victims, proved politically and morally untenable for the monarchy, even though Andrew admitted no legal wrongdoing.

No comparable reckoning has occurred in the United States. Although Epstein was accused of running a network that sexually exploited underage girls, few of his high-profile associates have faced lasting consequences. One exception was former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who stepped back from public engagements after emails revealed sexist remarks and personal correspondence with Epstein. More recently, Brad Karp, chairman of the prominent law firm Paul Weiss, resigned from his leadership role after emails showed he remained in contact with Epstein as late as 2019. The firm stated that Karp had no involvement in criminal conduct and expressed regret over the association.

Trump, by contrast, has sought to close the chapter entirely. The Department of Justice has indicated there will be no further prosecutions related to the Epstein files, and while some documents contain unverified allegations and references to Trump, authorities have found no evidence warranting charges. Trump himself dismissed the issue, telling CNN that the country should “get onto something else.”

Starmer has no such luxury. His leadership was pushed to the brink after Labour MPs openly rebelled, compounding an already fragile political position less than two years after his landslide election victory. The immediate trigger was his handling of former Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson, whom Starmer appointed as ambassador to Washington despite Mandelson’s known post-conviction friendship with Epstein.

Starmer initially told parliament that while Mandelson’s acquaintance with Epstein had been public knowledge, the full extent of the relationship was unknown. However, newly released documents suggested Mandelson may have passed confidential, market-sensitive information to Epstein during the 2008 financial crisis. Mandelson was dismissed last year, resigned from the House of Lords and Labour Party, and is now the subject of a criminal investigation.

Addressing parliament, Starmer accused Mandelson of betraying the country, the legislature and the Labour Party. A day later, he issued a direct apology to Epstein’s victims, acknowledging that his trust in Mandelson had been misplaced.

“I am sorry for what was done to you, sorry that powerful people failed you, and sorry that I believed lies and made an appointment I should not have,” Starmer said. He pledged that Britain would not turn away from uncomfortable truths and would pursue accountability regardless of status.

Mandelson has since apologized for maintaining ties with Epstein after his conviction, stating that he was wrong to do so and expressing remorse to the victims. He said he left Labour to prevent further damage to the party.

The scandal’s impact in Britain goes beyond Epstein himself. It has merged with three ongoing political dramas: Starmer’s precarious leadership, Mandelson’s long and turbulent political legacy, and renewed scrutiny of the royal family. Mandelson, once a key architect of Labour’s return to power alongside Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, has repeatedly seen his career undermined by his desire to move among elites, a pattern that ultimately led to his association with Epstein.

The crisis has also revived debate over the monarchy’s privileges and accountability. Prince Andrew’s fall from grace reinforced public resentment toward royal excess and forced decisive action to protect the institution’s legitimacy.

Trump, meanwhile, faces none of the immediate threats confronting Starmer. Despite lingering questions about his past social ties with Epstein, Trump has not been accused of crimes and remains politically secure. His presidency, marked by constant controversy, immigration crackdowns, and disputes over electoral integrity, has normalized crisis to the point where individual scandals struggle to gain traction.

Trump’s political strategy, flooding public discourse with overlapping conflicts, has diluted the impact of any single issue. Unlike Starmer, he does not endure hostile parliamentary questioning, and his control over Republican lawmakers ensures minimal internal resistance. Even congressional efforts that forced testimony from Bill and Hillary Clinton have conspicuously avoided targeting Trump himself.

While Trump expressed sympathy for the Clintons having to testify, the Epstein saga continues to simmer, unresolved and politically asymmetrical. In Britain, it threatens to end a premiership. In the United States, it remains another unresolved chapter in a long-running scandal that refuses to disappear, but so far has failed to shake the occupant of the White House.