The Two-Track Reckoning: Why Europe Fires People and America Shrugs

On February 7, 2026, Peter Mandelson was fired.

The former British cabinet minister, Labour Party grandee, and incoming UK Ambassador to the United States was removed from his ambassadorial appointment by Prime Minister Keir Starmer after newly released Epstein files revealed the extent of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Within days, Mandelson resigned from the Labour Party. Then he resigned from the House of Lords. London's Metropolitan Police opened a formal investigation into whether his sharing of classified government information with a convicted sex offender constituted misconduct in public office.

On the same day, across the Atlantic, Howard Lutnick continued serving as the United States Secretary of Commerce.

This is the central paradox of the Epstein files three weeks after their release: the same documents are producing dramatically different outcomes depending on which side of the ocean you are standing on. Europe is firing people. America is shrugging.

The European Reckoning

The pace of accountability in Europe has been unlike anything in the Epstein case's history. Consider what has happened in just three weeks:

United Kingdom

Peter Mandelson is the highest-profile political casualty of the file release. Emails revealed that while serving in Gordon Brown's cabinet, Mandelson shared market-sensitive EU and UK financial information with Epstein. Banking records indicate Epstein transferred approximately $75,000 to accounts linked to Mandelson between 2003 and 2004.

But it goes beyond Mandelson. King Charles ordered Prince Andrew evicted from the Royal Lodge at Windsor, a decision reportedly accelerated by the file release. The Metropolitan Police opened a formal investigation into whether Andrew shared confidential trade information with Epstein, a charge that carries potential criminal liability under UK law.

The British government did not wait for prosecutors to build a case. It acted on the political and institutional implications immediately.

Norway

Mona Juul, Norway's ambassador to Jordan and former UN ambassador, resigned within days of the release after the files revealed she was named as a beneficiary of a $10 million bequest in Epstein's will. She had previously denied any significant personal relationship with Epstein. The Norwegian government opened an investigation.

Crown Princess Mette-Marit also faced renewed scrutiny after the files documented multiple meetings with Epstein, including at his Manhattan townhouse. The palace issued a statement acknowledging the meetings while asserting the Crown Princess was unaware of Epstein's criminal conduct.

France

French authorities, who had already charged Jean-Luc Brunel with rape and sex trafficking before his death in custody in February 2022, expanded their investigation into money laundering connected to Epstein's financial network in France. The Paris prosecutor's office is examining bank transfers between Epstein-linked entities and French accounts.

Slovakia

Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak resigned after email exchanges surfaced in the files that investigators described as discussing arrangements involving Moldovan women.

Canada

CDPQ, Canada's second-largest pension fund, suspended all investments tied to DP World after the files revealed CEO Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem's extensive correspondence with Epstein. The UK's development finance institution, BII, halted future DP World investments and launched an internal review.

The American Non-Response

Now consider what has happened in the United States during the same three weeks.

Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce, acknowledged visiting Epstein's island in 2012 with his family. CBS News reported that Lutnick and Epstein were business partners through an ad-technology company called Adfin. Flight logs in our database place Lutnick on Epstein's aircraft. He kept his cabinet position. The White House said the visit was "a family trip" and expressed no concern.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the DOJ would not be pursuing new prosecutions related to the Epstein files. The co-conspirator investigation, transferred from the Southern District of New York to DOJ headquarters in January 2025, was quietly closed in July 2025. No public explanation was given for the closure.

Attorney General Pam Bondi was not present at the press conference announcing the file release. She delegated the announcement to Blanche. That same day, Bondi posted a social media video about the arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon.

The House Oversight Committee has conducted depositions, but congressional investigations cannot bring criminal charges. Only the Department of Justice can prosecute federal crimes. And the Department of Justice has said, in effect, that it is done.

Why the Gap Exists

The divergence between European accountability and American inaction is not primarily about political will, though that is part of it. It reflects structural differences in how the two systems handle cases that implicate powerful people.

Proximity to Power

In the UK, Mandelson was an incoming ambassador, not a sitting one. He had not yet assumed the post. Firing him carried minimal institutional cost. Prince Andrew had already been stripped of his royal duties and military titles in 2022. The additional step of eviction from the Royal Lodge was symbolically significant but practically modest.

In the United States, the people implicated by the Epstein files include a sitting cabinet secretary, two former presidents, and a network of donors, lawyers, and financial executives who remain embedded in the institutions that would need to investigate them. Accountability requires the DOJ to investigate its own failures, which is something the DOJ has never demonstrated a willingness to do.

Legal Architecture

European legal systems generally allow broader latitude for investigating public officials. UK misconduct-in-public-office statutes cover sharing confidential government information with unauthorized persons, a charge that maps directly onto what Mandelson is accused of. Norwegian conflict-of-interest laws are similarly expansive.

American federal law is more narrowly drawn. To prosecute Epstein's associates, the DOJ would need to prove specific criminal conduct, likely conspiracy charges or sex trafficking violations with sufficient evidence to survive a jury trial. The 2008 non-prosecution agreements, while widely condemned, created legal complications that prosecutors have used as reasons not to pursue cases.

Institutional Self-Interest

This is the factor that rarely gets discussed directly, but it is arguably the most important.

The DOJ's handling of the Epstein case is itself a potential scandal. The 2008 plea deal, negotiated by then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, has been called a "national disgrace" by a federal appeals court. The subsequent decision to transfer and then close the co-conspirator investigation raises questions about whether the DOJ is protecting its own institutional reputation by limiting the scope of accountability.

If a full prosecution of Epstein's co-conspirators were to proceed, it would inevitably expose the failures of the DOJ, the FBI, and federal law enforcement at every stage: the bungled 2005-2008 investigation, the sweetheart plea deal, the inadequate supervision during Epstein's Florida sentence, and the conditions at the Metropolitan Correctional Center that allowed him to die.

The Lutnick Test Case

Howard Lutnick is the clearest illustration of the double standard.

The facts as publicly reported: Lutnick visited Epstein's island. He was in business with Epstein through Adfin. His name appears in flight records. When asked about the relationship during his confirmation process, he described Epstein as someone he knew socially and said the island visit was a family trip.

In the UK, a relationship of equivalent depth and documentation cost Peter Mandelson an ambassadorship, his party membership, and his seat in the House of Lords, and opened a police investigation.

In the United States, the same category of evidence produced a brief news cycle and no consequences.

This is not about Lutnick specifically. It is about the standard being applied. If a cabinet-level official in the United Kingdom can be removed and investigated based on documented contact with Epstein, but a cabinet-level official in the United States cannot, then the two countries are operating under fundamentally different definitions of accountability.

What Our Database Reveals

The structural nature of this disparity becomes visible when you examine the data.

Our database tracks 1,505 persons of interest across the Epstein files. When you filter by nationality and cross-reference with known outcomes since the January 30 release, the pattern is stark:

European figures named in the files have faced consequences at a rate dramatically higher than their American counterparts. UK, Norwegian, Slovak, and French officials have resigned, been fired, or are under active police investigation. Among American officials, businesspeople, and attorneys named in the files with comparable levels of documented involvement, the consequence rate approaches zero.

The network graph makes this visible in a different way. Epstein's web extends across borders, but the response to unraveling it stops at the American coastline.

Browse the connections yourself. Search any name. Cross-reference the flight logs, the email archive, and the document library. The data is the same everywhere. The response to that data is not.

What Comes Next

Leslie Wexner is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee on February 18. He was labeled an FBI "co-conspirator" in the released files. His testimony could shift the dynamics if he provides substantive answers, or it could reinforce the pattern of American silence if he invokes privilege.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are scheduled for depositions on February 26 and 27, respectively. Both agreed to appear voluntarily, reportedly to avoid a contempt vote.

The question hovering over all of these proceedings is whether congressional testimony, no matter how revealing, can substitute for criminal prosecution. In Europe, the files triggered law enforcement action. In the United States, they have triggered hearings.

Hearings produce headlines. Only prosecutions produce accountability.