The British Prime Minister had no personal involvement with , however his political position is seriously at risk due to the revelations surrounding the notorious financier.
By contrast, he – whose name also appears in some Epstein files – faces no such concerns, demonstrating the difference in political power and institutional framework between the UK and the US.
In , the political crisis deepens as Labor MPs and the public put intense pressure on Starmer, while scrutiny and accountability institutions operate and investigate relations with Epstein. By contrast, in the US, Trump benefits from control of the Justice Department and dominance of the Republican Congress, which shields him from substantial political and judicial scrutiny.
The Epstein case has taken on a global dimension, with his files now reaching countries such as Norway and Poland, underscoring the huge footprint of a scandal that is still unfolding seven years after Epstein’s death.
In the United Kingdom, public outrage even led to drastic action: King Charles III stripped his brother, the former Prince Andrew, who was friendly with Epstein, of royal titles and banished him from his residence at Windsor Castle. In the US, however, there has been no similar impeachment for anyone associated with Epstein.
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers is among the most high-profile figures to have suffered consequences for his friendship with Epstein, forced to withdraw from public engagements over emails revealing sexist comments and requests for romantic advice.
Trump, on the other hand, is trying to put the turmoil behind him after the Justice Department clarified that there will be no further prosecutions. There is no evidence of criminal responsibility against him, and no charges have been brought against him or anyone else named in the newly released documents.
In the filings, some references to Trump are innocent, while others include vague allegations of sexual assault, as well as details of his interactions with Epstein’s victims. Trump himself recently declared that “it’s time for the country to do something else.”
MPs revolt against Starmer
The crisis for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is mounting as his political position hangs in the balance less than two years after his election victory.
His premiership was “hanging by a thread” after a rebellion by Labor MPs. Starmer knew of former minister Peter Mandelson’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, but appointed him ambassador to Washington anyway.
Mandelson had already caused political trouble. Last year, Starmer fired him after earlier Epstein records showed he continued to support his friend even after he was convicted of sex crimes in Florida in 2008.
But new documents have resurfaced the scandal, suggesting that Mandelson may have leaked confidential market-impacting information to Epstein at the height of the 2008 financial crisis — evidence invaluable to him and his Wall Street circle.
Mandelson now faces a criminal investigation and has resigned from the House of Lords and the Labor Party. “He betrayed the country, Parliament and his party,” Starmer said.
Mandelson apologized for his relationship with Epstein, admitting that he was wrong to believe him after his conviction and that his continued relationship caused pain to Epstein’s victims. He resigned from the Labor Party to avoid further embarrassment.
The Starmer crisis and royal unrest
The tension surrounding Starmer and the Epstein case in Britain is not limited to the sexual exploitation case itself. The crisis is intensified by three long-standing political and social “drama stories”, which link the prime minister, the Labor Party and public life in the country. Starmer is seen as a leader “on the brink”, with rumors growing of a potential challenge to his leadership from within his own party.
Political tension in the UK is hard to compare with the US, where presidents serve fixed terms and the rumor of prime ministerial length doesn’t carry the same weight. Over the past 11 years, Britain has experienced great political instability, with five prime ministers before Starmer.
The Epstein case is the latest twist in the 30-year political tragedy of Mandelsohn, known as the “Prince of Darkness”, a politician of extraordinary ability but repeated public failures. Along with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Mandelson resurrected the Labor Party in the 1990s, but his ambition to be among the rich and famous led to a friendship with Epstein and scandals that led to cabinet resignations.
Finally, the Epstein scandal reignites the enduring British tragedy surrounding the royal family. Prince Andrew’s friendship with Epstein has repeatedly made scandalous headlines, partly because of his false statements. The deal with Virginia Guiffre, who accused him of abuse, was the final straw, leading to him being stripped of his royal titles and removed to a modest house at Sandringham as a measure to protect the institution of the monarchy.
Because Trump is not in danger
Donald Trump’s position on the Epstein case remains strong and relatively unaffected, unlike Keir Starmer, who faces a serious political crisis in the UK. Trump has not been charged with any crime, and his past friendship with Epstein does not appear to pose an immediate threat to his tenure. Despite his reduced political power compared to the past, he remains safe in the White House, while Starmer is in real danger of losing his seat.
Trump’s advantage comes from the US political structure: he does not face fierce criticism from lawmakers in a public “bear pit” like Starmer in the British parliament. Moreover, his tactic of “covering up” any political threat with excessive noise and turning the Republican Congress into a quiet approving body bolsters his security.
The Epstein files are being released only under pressure from Republican lawmakers, but there is no sign that a comparable political moment may be brewing as Trump checks his influence with GOP members facing tough primaries. House Republican leadership has put little pressure on the administration, with James Comer only succeeding in getting the Clintons to testify, without targeting Trump.
Overall, Trump seems almost immune to political character issues, with the Epstein case serving as just one of the many ongoing scandals and political episodes surrounding him. Even his superficial sympathy for the Clintons shows strategic insight: their testimony can trigger new episodes of scandals that he does not need to directly control.
