Epstein scandal: Why Starmer could fall while Trump survives

In a world saturated with scandal, The Atlantic highlights a striking paradox: an American president can weather connections to Jeffrey Epstein largely unscathed, while a British prime minister risks political ruin over an indirect link. The article examines how the same scandal—a web of Epstein’s influence—has drastically different consequences for leaders across the Atlantic, exposing the divergent mechanisms of accountability in parliamentary versus presidential systems.

The focus is on British Labour leader Keir Starmer, whose premiership is teetering under a mounting crisis. Starmer’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson—long known for his Epstein ties—as ambassador to the United States triggered political upheaval when further revelations emerged. Mandelson’s conduct, including private letters praising Epstein, alleged payments, and compromising photographs, forced his resignation and tarnished his career. Although Mandelson is now fully sidelined from British politics, the article argues that the scandal continues to imperil Starmer himself, who never met Epstein but is held politically responsible for the appointments under his watch. Compounded by prior policy reversals and cabinet resignations, Starmer faces plummeting approval ratings and a mounting risk of a leadership challenge.

By contrast, the American context is markedly different. President Donald Trump, despite extensive mentions in the latest tranche of 3.5 million Justice Department files related to Epstein, faces no comparable threat. Trump’s connections—including alleged entries in Epstein’s “birthday book”—have drawn scrutiny but not legal jeopardy or political fallout. Similarly, other American figures associated with Epstein, from Elon Musk to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, have faced minimal consequences. The article attributes this resilience to the structural insulation afforded to the U.S. presidency, where partisanship, executive discretion, and weak enforcement of congressional oversight limit the political costs of scandal. In effect, the American system has evolved toward an “imperial presidency,” one insulated from the immediate consequences that a British prime minister faces under parliamentary norms.

The Atlantic situates this disparity within broader institutional and cultural frameworks. In Britain, parliamentary governments are inherently more susceptible to internal challenges; the possibility of a no-confidence vote or party coup keeps prime ministers highly accountable to both their party and the electorate. Conversely, the U.S. separation of powers—originally designed to check executive authority—has weakened over time, leaving presidents less constrained and scandals less politically lethal. The article draws a historical lens, noting that the Founders feared concentrated power, yet contemporary American presidents often operate with near-immunity, particularly in a deeply polarized environment.

Ultimately, the piece underscores an ironic truth: moral and institutional accountability no longer aligns neatly with public expectation. In Britain, decency and prudence still matter politically, while in the United States, partisanship and systemic safeguards—or their erosion—allow leaders to survive far more egregious associations. Starmer’s plight, therefore, is both personal and emblematic of the enduring tension between ethics, politics, and institutional design in liberal democracies. Meanwhile, Trump’s enduring political survival demonstrates that structural insulation can outweigh scandal in shaping accountability.

By Vugar Khalilov