Last month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) released millions of files related to the crimes of disgraced financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, sending shockwaves across the world.
Public figures scrambled as Epstein’s relationships with politicians, tech giants, and academics came to light. Among those endangered by connections to Epstein was Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Yet he and Epstein never met.
The difference in reaction between the countries has been widely observed. On the Pod Save America podcast, Alex Wagner questioned why the UK has had such a different reaction to Epstein.
“Is it just that they have higher standards?” said Wagner.
What did the Epstein files reveal?
In September, Keir Starmer sacked Ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson after files released revealed an extensive relationship with Epstein. Evidence included a birthday card referring to Epstein as Mandelson’s “best pal.” Other evidence suggested Mandelson sent supportive emails after authorities charged Epstein with sex offences.
Documents in January’s release suggest that Mandelson shared government information with Epstein while he was business secretary under Gordon Brown in 2009.
Police are currently investigating Mandelson on charges related to misconduct in a public office.
Why does this involve the Prime Minister?
Though Mandelson left the government months ago, the recent release has reignited criticisms of the prime minister.
Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch claims that Starmer should have known about Mandelson’s conduct before he appointed him. Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was publicly documented.
“Come and see my whips and let’s talk seriously about a vote of no confidence,” Badenoch said in a press conference.
During Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer was forced to admit that the initial vetting process did reveal Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Epstein. However, he has maintained that Mandelson lied to him repeatedly, failing to disclose the extent of the relationship.
Significant pressure also came from within. Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, called for the prime minister’s resignation.
When Conservatives tabled a humble address motion to release what some have dubbed the Mandelson files, Starmer was unable to oppose it. The motion to release documents related to Mandelson’s security vetting received government support with an amendment, but many saw this as another of Starmer’s failures .
What do the files say about Trump and his allies?
President Trump’s name is mentioned thousands of times throughout the files. Multiple mentions come from Epstein communicating with other people about Trump. Reports show no direct contact between the two. The recent release also contains unverified claims against Trump. In an email, an FBI official said a woman had claimed abuse but “ultimately refused to cooperate.” The DOJ has said all allegations against Trump are false.
The files also mention the president’s allies. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick came under fire for his relationship with Epstein after documents suggested he had cut ties with Epstein later than he first claimed. On a podcast, Lutnick made powerful claims that he had refused to associate with Epstein after an interaction in 2005.
“My wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again, so I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even for philanthropy,” Lutnick said.
Documents showed that Lutnick met with Epstein in 2012 with his family. Lutnick later confirmed this in a recent Senate hearing.
The White House has defended Lutnick, and he hasn’t faced much scrutiny from congressional Republicans either. Though he faced questions from the Senate, only Rep.Thomas Massie, R-Ky., from the House has called for his resignation.
What’s the difference?
The Democrats have condemned the administration’s handling of the situation, highlighting prominent members’ ties to the files.
The administration’s steadfast and relatively unchallenged support of its staff is a sharp contrast to Starmer’s precarious position. The prime minister’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who helped Starmer win the 2024 election, resigned due to his close relationship with Mandelson. McSweeney was a strong advocate for Mandelson’s appointment. Starmer’s director of communications, Tim Allan, another close ally of Mandelson, faced the same fate.
Why is there such a difference?
According to Dr. Thomas Caygill, a lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, a number of features make accountability a prominent part of the U.K’s parliamentary system. The existence of a sitting opposition and the prime minister’s obligation to face questions from the House of Commons every week are examples.
Caygill points to a lack of rigid rules in the British system, incentivising politicians to act based on their understanding of the political climate.
Dr Martin Farr, a senior lecturer at Newcastle University, added that the prime minister’s job is to command a majority in the House of Commons, including maintaining control of backbenchers. Losing control is more likely if members believe their leader to be an electoral liability.
Members of the Cabinet and the prime minister don’t have a separate mandate that protects them in the constitution like the president does. MPs are more reactive to public opinion and scrutinize the PM when he reflects poorly on them.
“The survival instinct is what MPs are guided by,” Farr said.
Currently, public opinion doesn’t favor the prime minister. According to a YouGov poll in January 2026, 75% of the public had an unfavorable view of the prime minister. Almost half felt that he bore responsibility for appointing Lord Mandelson, while only 9% thought it was Morgan McSweeney.
“In the U.K., it’s just about the politics of it, and the narrative, that really matters ultimately,” said Dr. Caygill.
Caygill revisited recent government U-turns and other decisions the prime minister made that were unpopular. He added that the Mandelson situation “brings into question the prime minister’s judgement.”
Farr underscored several current scandals taking place within the Labour government.
“For most voters who don’t follow these things closely, they just get a vibe, a sense that this is a really dysfunctional corrupt government no different from the previous government,” Farr said.
He argued these scandals are pushing people to smaller parties like Reform and the Green Party.
What next?
Though Starmer lives to see another day, his position remains weak. Though Republicans haven’t made moves to investigate Trump or other members of the administration with ties to Epstein, lawmakers voted to subpoena Attorney General Pam Bondi over the DOJ’s handling of the files. With hyperpartisanship and contrasting systems, the differences remain significant.
For now, politicians involved in scandals may want to look to American soil for the same reason Thomas Massie gave when talking about Secretary Lutnick on CNN:
“If this were Great Britain, he’d already be gone.”
