King Charles's Visit: A Royal Clusterf***
The king's royal visit to Washington highlights the glaring contrasts between the UK’s and US’s handling of the Epstein saga.
This article is part two of a series called The Epstein Administration, in which we break through the noise of the Epstein files, report the truth, and demand transparency and accountability. You can read part one here.
Today the King of the United Kingdom arrives in Washington, D.C. for a visit with President Trump. During his royal visit, he will address Congress to mark the 250th anniversary of American independence from British rule. The last time an English monarch addressed a Joint Session of Congress was in 1991, when King Charles’s mother, Queen Elizabeth, spoke to a room packed with the stewards of our republic: elected, accountable representatives.
It’s already been an extraordinary year for the Crown. The arrest of the former Prince Andrew in February marked the first time that a senior royal had been arrested since 1647. The King, Andrew’s brother, released the following statement on the day that Andrew was taken into custody:
“I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office. What now follows is the full, fair, and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation.”
“The law must take its course,” the King added.
It’s a stunning statement; if you didn’t know that Prince Andrew was the younger brother of its author, you certainly wouldn’t suspect it. It’s as close to a full-throated endorsement of Epstein-related accountability as any world leader has offered. Andrew was charged with misconduct in public office, an offense not officially defined in any UK statute. Even before his arrest, King Charles stripped Andrew of his royal titles, honors, and duties and evicted him from his house because of his Epstein ties.
And this isn’t to say that the UK has handled the Epstein affair flawlessly, especially before the Bondi foot-in-mouth revival of the story last year. Reporting in the last several months revealed that the late Queen Elizabeth helped fund Andrew’s estimated $16 million civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre in March 2022. Royal biographer Robert Hardman says that the Queen’s decision to stand by her son “will go down as a mistake…and one that has outlasted her.” If familial loyalty and reputational protection guided her decision, King Charles’s actions have been diametrically different.
The UK’s movement toward accountability for one of its own is, if nothing else, a weighty symbolic gesture. But it’s time that the Epstein story’s importance stops being marked by symbolism. It’s past time for public officials to move beyond rhetoric and start pursuing criminal accountability for those complicit in Epstein’s crimes.
The UK has tried; the US has not.
How to Handle an Epstein Scandal: UK Schools US
Compare how the UK and the US have responded to the news that senior government leaders had relationships with Epstein. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is currently in hot water because he appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US; Mandelson was also charged with the same crimes Andrew allegedly committed.
When the nature of Mandelson’s relationship to Epstein came to light in September 2025, Starmer’s government fired him. Still, British parliamentarians are calling for Starmer’s removal on the grounds that his appointment of Mandelson was a gross vetting failure. Starmer was not himself a friend of Epstein’s. Nevertheless, Starmer himself admitted he exercised “wrong judgment” in selecting Mandelson as his ambassador, and Starmer extended a public apology to the victims of Epstein’s abuse.
Contrast Starmer’s apology and the Crown’s willingness to excise Andrew from the royal family with the approach taken by the Trump administration. Our president vehemently denies his friendship with Epstein continued beyond the early 2000s, but he offers competing and contradictory accounts of their fallout. When the Wall Street Journal published a “bawdy” letter that Trump allegedly wrote to Epstein, Trump sued the Journal for defamation. (A judge subsequently threw out Trump’s case.) Several members of Trump’s current administration also have connections to Epstein—some even visited Epstein’s private island and pursued business opportunities with him well after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution and had to register as a sex offender.
As far as we can tell, the only senior official who has lost their job over Epstein, theoretically, is former Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was fired not because of a personal relationship with Epstein, but because of her handling of the release of the files and the resulting failure to curb an enormous political headache for the administration.
Britain’s approach to Epstein-related revelations seems to be: acknowledge, apologize, and begin to pursue justice. The Trump administration’s approach is closer to: deny, attack, and try to sweep under the rug.
How the Crown Dealt with Andrew, Without DOJ Help
In building their case against Andrew, the Metropolitan Police (the police force in Greater London) have requested relevant unredacted documents from our Department of Justice. DOJ has refused to publicly indicate if it will comply, but DOJ officials have approached the UK investigation with the same apparent indifference with which they’ve handled all Epstein matters.
A DOJ spokesperson said in a statement that “Prince Andrew was arrested for ‘misconduct in public office’ under UK law. No such federal crime exists [in the US]. As we have said repeatedly, if new evidence of a crime presents itself, we will investigate.”
Meanwhile, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Mark Rowley said in March: “I can’t speak about American policing strategies on this, because I haven’t plowed through their files. But in the U.K., we’re proud of operating without fear or favor, and we’ll go where the evidence takes us. And we’ve investigated, and sometimes prosecuted, eminent people in the past, and I’m sure we’ll do it again in the future.”
DOJ’s ongoing refusal to pursue Epstein prosecutions—or even legitimate investigations to determine if prosecution is warranted–might also be impeding the UK’s ability to hold its own citizens accountable. The Metropolitan Police are dependent on the “original documentation that the American teams have got, and a full, evidenced understanding of where that documentation came from.” The gap in urgency between the two agencies makes you wonder if DOJ is just disinterested in helping or intentionally obstructing the UK’s efforts.
It’s Past Time for DOJ to Do Its Job
If DOJ wants a fresh start under interim AG Blanche, they could start by immediately turning over any relevant unredacted documents to the British authorities. Rowley visited DC in March and met with Warren Stephens, the US Ambassador to the UK, to discuss sharing unredacted documents. It’s as yet unclear what, if anything, will come of that meeting, but we will keep you updated here if anything develops or if DOJ otherwise changes its approach.
The relationship between the UK’s investigation and the US’s nominal pursuit of justice should go both ways: both law enforcement institutions should have equal investment in investigating and prosecuting criminal activity related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. That they don’t—and that DOJ seems to view the Metropolitan Police’s efforts as some kind of inconvenience—is a problem reflective of the much larger problems with DOJ’s overall approach to Epstein and any potential co-conspirators.
So when King Charles comes to Washington to mark the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence from the UK, he might be uniquely suited to explain the dangers of an unchecked, undemocratic monarchy to the American public. British rule was overthrown by American patriots, but 250 years later, a king by another name sits atop our democracy. Trump would do well to follow the—of all people—King’s lead and start pursuing justice for the victims of Epstein’s crimes.
Home of the Brave exists to show Americans the real-world consequences of this administration’s policies, and to highlight what bravery looks like in defense of American democracy.
I assure you that many people in the UK are asking what it says about King Charles that he would go to the US to meet with a paedophile.
The way the UK handles the Epstein scandal and Washington covers it up are the difference between a country run by actual adults and a country run by power-mad sociopathic children!