Successive governments have failed to learn lessons of Grenfell Tragedy

Prem Sikka 

17 April, 2026 
Left Foot Forward


The conditions that facilitated the tragedy remain unchecked

We are approaching the ninth anniversary of the 2017 fire at Grenfell Towers in London which killed 72 people, including 18 children. This week, the UK parliament has passed a Bill to build a memorial to the memory of its victims. The most effective memorial would be to ensure that such avoidable tragedies never occur again. However, the conditions that facilitated the tragedy remain unchecked. The root cause of the tragedy is lust for higher profits; corporate power, performance related executive pay, failure of regulators and indifference of governments to the cry of the people.

The Grenfell tragedy provides a lens for examining systemic failures, corporate abuses, and failure of governments to hold anyone to account in not only housing but numerous other sectors too.

The Grenfell Tragedy

The Grenfell tragedy occurred in one of the wealthiest countries and cities on the planet. The 24-storey social housing block was in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the most affluent borough in London.

Grenfell Tower was located in the poor part of the borough, an area in the top 10% of the most deprived areas in England. Occupants of its 129 apartments had low incomes and survived on the margins of society. They frequently complained about the poor housing conditions, electrical faults and fire safety. There was no building-wide fire alarm or sprinkler system. Tenants’ complaints were ignored even though previous fires and fatalities at similar properties had raised safety concerns.

The fire was caused by an electrical fault which ignited highly combustible materials used in construction and refurbishments of the tower. A subsequent inquiry concluded that there was “systematic dishonesty” by suppliers of cladding panels and insulation products. “They engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market … Arconic deliberately concealed from the market the true extent of the danger of using Reynobond 55 PE in cassette form, particularly on high-rise buildings.”

Kingspan knowingly made false claims about its insulation’s fire performance and conducted “long-running internal discussions about what it could get away with“. Celotex used “dishonest means”.to break into the market, presenting its insulation as safe while knowing it did not meet required standards.

The Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation responsible for managing Grenfell Tower on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea showed “persistent indifference” to tenants’ complaints about fire safety. The tragedy was the ‘culmination of decades of failure by central government and other bodies in positions of responsibility in the construction industry’, especially as little reform followed previous high-rise block fires.

The Government accepted all 58 of the inquiry’s recommendations but they have not been fully implemented. Many buildings still have the same cladding as in Grenfell.

To date, no corporation or individual has yet been charged or prosecuted over the death of 72 people. No company director has been disqualified by the Department of Business and Trade. The offending companies are not excluded from public procurement. Despite promises, no legislation has been introduced to improve corporate and director accountability. Ministers bat away calls for urgent action by claiming that the Police are looking at the issues.

Grenfell is not the only case of political indifference to corporate abuses and damaged lives.

Corporate Capture of the State

State capture, a form of political corruption, is all around us. Governments speedily prosecute carers and poor people for comparatively minor indiscretions but lack the necessary backbone for dealing with corporate crimes.

England’s water companies have over 1,200 criminal convictions. Companies reward executives for boosting profits by dumping sewage in rivers. They bypass rules on payment of bonuses. To manage public opinion, occasionally fines on companies are announced but then quietly waived or deferred. No company has had its licence to operate withdrawn. No corporate executive has been fined or prosecuted.

The Post Office scandal goes back to the 1990s. The December 2019 High Court judgment showed that it falsely secured criminal convictions of hundreds of postmasters by not revealing that its Horizon accounting system was fundamentally flawed. An independent inquiry revealed that it was assisted by Fujitsu, the supplier of the IT system, lawyers and business advisors. So far, the public purse has paid nearly £1.5bn in compensation to victims.

Horizon’s predecessor system known as Capture was used from 1992 to 1999. It too was flawed and was used to falsely secure criminal convictions of postmasters. Millions will be paid in compensation.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, no corporation or corporate executive has been fined or prosecuted. Fujitsu and others have made no contribution to compensations. Fujitsu still gets government contracts.

The third strand of the Post Office scandal is that there has been no scrutiny of the 100 or so postmaster convictions secured by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) for alleged frauds on payments of social security benefits. On 27 February 2025, a Minister told the House of Lords, “My noble friend Lord Sikka raised a question about the DWP convictions. I can assure him that the Minister for Transformation is looking into this, a review is being established”. On 27 January 2026, at a meeting with the relevant Minister I learnt that no review had taken place, and that the government had not even appointed a reviewer. On 23 March 2026, the government finally advertised for the post of a reviewer. The position may be filled by summer 2026 and the reviewer is expected to spend just 30 working days on the job. The review is expected to be cosmetic.

Secret commission from mis-selling of motor finance is the latest finance industry scandal. On 24 October 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that it was unlawful for car dealers to receive a commission from a lender providing motor finance to a customer, unless it was properly disclosed to the customer and they gave informed consent to the payment. A possible compensation bill of £44bn, hitting bank profits, was mooted. Lenders appealed to the Supreme Court.

In January 2025 the Treasury, led by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, took the unprecedented step of applying to intervene and influence the Supreme Court judges on how they should interpret the law. The Treasury opposed the proposed redress and claimed the compensation would have “adverse consequences for the UK’s reputation as a place to do business and could negatively impact economic growth”. The court rejected the Chancellor’s interference. Faced with snub, the Chancellor said that she is considering emergency legislation to overrule the Supreme Court and limit customer redress. The August 2025 Supreme Court judgment severely diluted the redress available to customers.

The zeal to protect banks is not extended to victims of bank frauds. There is the long-running saga of frauds at HBOS, since 2009 owned by Lloyds Bank. Between 2002 and 2007, small business owners at the Reading branch were classified as ‘high risk’ even they had never missed a repayment of loans. They were sold unnecessary financial products and ultimately forced into liquidation, with senior managers benefiting from the forced sale of assets. Despite the evidence, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Serious Fraud Office and the Police declined to bring any prosecutions. Finally, in 2017, the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner prosecuted and secured criminal convictions of HBOS managers for fraud and corruption.

Still, no regulatory agency sought to fully investigate the £1bn frauds and secure compensation for the victims. The buck was passed to Lloyds Bank for a very limited investigation by Dame Linda Dobbs. A report was promised by 2018. Nothing has been published. I have raised the matter in parliament on several occasions. The typical response from Ministers is silence, indifference, obfuscation and buck-passing.

The above is a tiny part of evidence showing callous disregard for the lives of ordinary people. In the public mind corporate crime is associated with tax dodges, illicit financial flows, dud products, profiteering, bribery and corruption, but it is more than that. It destroys lives, families and communities. The abuses are part of an enterprise culture that persuades many to believe that `bending the rules’ for personal gain is a sign of business acumen. Stealing a march on a competitor, at almost any price, to gain financial advantage is considered to be an entrepreneurial skill, especially where competitive pressures link promotion, status, profits, market shares and niches with meeting business targets. The result is that people are denied safe housing, water, work and essential services. Yet governments are obsessed with deregulation, with little regard for human rights, workers’ rights and protection of people and the environment.

The political system has done little to address the root causes of abuses. Current laws do not impose a proactive duty on companies and directors to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm arising from their commercial activities. No attempt is made to reform corporate governance, democratise corporations, reform regulation and ministerial accountability. The state itself has become a sponsor of social terror where corporate profits are prioritised over people’s lives. Unless checked, further loss of confidence in institutions of government is inevitable.

Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.

 

Saunas surge in popularity in Britain amid stress, but are the benefits proven?

By Roselyne Min with AP

Published on 16/04/2026 - EURONEWS

As Finnish tradition is expanding rapidly, the UK is projected to lead Europe in sauna market revenue by 2033, data suggests.

As work-related stress peaks in the United Kingdom, many Brits are now turning to saunas.

Work-related stress in the UK hit record levels between 2024 and 2025, with nearly one million workers reporting stress, depression or anxiety, according to the UK’s Britain's national regulator for workplace health and safety.

Against that backdrop, the appeal of an hour or so of calm is not hard to understand.

Owners of Temz, a floating sauna in London, say it offers an alternative to endless scrolling.

“It's just such a good way to just treat yourself, almost, to that 50 minutes of calm and serenity where you can let go, take that time for yourself,” said Amy Wilson Hardy, co-owner of TEMZ Sauna.

“And people do come out as a different person and we see it so often. People come in a bit stressed and then they leave just with a sauna glow and a relaxed look on their face. So it's brilliant to see.”

On the floating pod on the River Thames, the ritual is simple but demanding.

Guests lower themselves into cold baths as the sauna staff keeps a close eye on the clock. Timing is central to what is known as contrast therapy, before making the short sprint back to the warmth of the sauna.

“It's just such a brilliant place to come, obviously,” said Sue Harper-Clark, a visitor at the Temz sauna and a physiotherapist.

“I've been in a sauna before, but I've never done an ice bath. So obviously, the combination of the sauna and the ice bath was something just a little bit novel.”

While alternating between heat and cold is rooted in Finnish sauna culture, another modern reinterpretation has spread worldwide in recent years, driven by the rise of biohacking, a wellness movement that promotes what it says is optimising the body through controlled stress such as heat and cold exposure.

Related

• Europeans are burned out. What would it take to boost mental health at work?

But are there measurable benefits to contrast therapy?

Heather Massey, associate professor in extreme environments and physiology at the University of Portsmouth, has studied both ends of the temperature spectrum.

“We know that that initial response to cold water, what we term as the cold shock response, causes a big gasp and then rapid breathing and an increase in heart rate and blood pressure as well,” Massey said.

But while anecdotal evidence is compelling, Massey urges caution about the growing number of health claims surrounding sauna and cold exposure.

“We just don't have that evidence in terms of what the benefits could be, and also how that benefit might come about,” she said.

Related

• This small island in Denmark lets stressed students unplug from distractions and study in nature

Keah O'Reilly, a sauna visitor who works as a recruitment executive, is less concerned by the scientific uncertainty.

“Well, the last time I did it I noticed a big difference. I was still buzzing two or three hours later. So it was real uplifting. I'd never done anything like it before. And to be honest sitting in a sauna in a gym, you feel enclosed and stuff, whereas this is gorgeous,” she said.

Massey points to the social and environmental context, which may be just as important as the physical effects.

“A lot of the qualitative research that's coming out would start to suggest, particularly being in a social group of like-minded individuals doing something with moderate challenges involved, whether that's a physical challenge or an exercise-type challenge, exercise itself," Massey said.

"And being outdoors in nature may also be contributing factors. So these need to be considered as well."

In Finland, there is roughly one sauna for every two people. In the UK, the practice is expanding rapidly, with the country projected to lead Europe in sauna market revenue by 2033, according to market research group Grand View Research.

 

UK Appoints Salvage Company to Remove Masts from Famous WWII Wreck

SS Richard Montgomery was one of more than 4,700 Liberty Ships, but she sank laded with explosives on the UK coast (US Archives public domain photo)

Published Apr 10, 2026 8:03 PM by The Maritime Executive

After six years of planning and annual surveys of the wreck site, the UK confirmed that it has selected a salvage company to remove the masts of the SS Richard Montgomery, a World War II Liberty ship that wrecked in the Thames Estuary in 1944. The wreck site became a popular tourist attraction, although all that is visible are the tops of three masts, but because the ship is still laden with explosives, people are warned to keep their distance.

The UK’s Department for Transport (DfT) officially has oversight of the wreck and confirmed to the BBC that it has appointed a leading salvage company to undertake the delicate job. The Telegraph newspaper reports that Resolve Salvage was selected, and the DfT confirmed that it expects to finalize the contract soon. The Telegraph says the work is expected to run for nearly a year until March 2027.

The Richard Montgomery was one of more than 2,700 WWII-built Liberty ships, a standardized design that the U.S. created at the start of the war and mass-produced to meet the needs for cargo and troops. The 10,000 dwt vessels were approximately 440 feet in length (135 meters), and, while known as a maritime workhorse, also earned some more dubious reputations due to their rapid construction. The average build time was brought down to just over 40 days, and in a 1942 publicity effort, one was built in under five days. At its peak, U.S. shipyards were turning out more than three Liberty ships a week.

The Richard Montgomery was commissioned in 1943. Her fateful voyage began in August 1944 when she was loaded with nearly 7,000 tons of munitions. Upon her arrival in the UK, she was assigned an anchorage in the shallow Thames Estuary near the Sheerness Middle Sands. She was waiting for a convoy to proceed to Cherbourg, but on August 20, 1944, during a storm, she dragged anchor and grounded. 

 

The masts are above the water level regardless of the tide (MCA)

 

A salvage effort ensued, and by most estimates, at least half of the munitions were salvaged by September 25, 1944. However, the ship broke her back, and as the water rose, the efforts had to be abandoned. The recent UK surveys have estimated that there are approximately 1,400 tons of explosives contained within the forward holds.

The ship is sitting on the bottom in two pieces. Two of three forward masts protrude from the water, attached to the ship near the holds containing the munitions. They are visible at all tide conditions, and long-ago warning signs were posted to stay away. The wreck, however, is just about 1.5 miles off the coast.

The DfT had started an effort in 2020 to remove the masts, but it had stalled out. Surveys, however, raise a concern as the hull continues to deteriorate, the masts are increasingly in danger of toppling over. One concern is that they could displace or even cause an explosion of some of the munitions still onboard. More sensationalist media reports also speculate that terrorists could attempt to explode the mutations. 

 

Rendering of the wreck based on multibeam and laser data from the 2013 survey report (MCA)

 

The BBC is now reporting that the removal has become a local sensation and political issue, with a petition being raised demanding that the masts be placed on permanent display in the local area near the wreck site. The DfT told the BBC it was aware of the calls to preserve the masts but said it was too early to determine what would happen to them once they were removed from the wreck.

The UK continues its monitoring and annual surveys of the wreck. Overall, they report it is stable. The condition, however, is too decayed to consider removing more of the ship, especially because of the concern about the munitions that remain onboard.

‘Labour must prove it understands public anger over water company failure – and act on it’

Sean Woodcock MP 12th March, 2026

© Yau Ming Low/Shutterstock.com

Like many Labour MPs I have had a lot of emails encouraging me to watch “Dirty Business”, the Channel 4 docudrama on the water company sewage scandal. The UK public will tolerate many things, but they will not tolerate an obvious injustice. And they will not tolerate being taken for mugs which is exactly how the water industry has treated them.

In 2024, Labour won an election on a promise of ‘change’. This wasn’t tucked away in the middle of our manifesto. It was on the front of every leaflet. It was the hashtag on every social media post. Every ‘out card’.

Labour’s current troubles are because people don’t believe we have delivered that change. And where they accept we have, they currently think it has been change for the worse.

Change, fairness and clarity

Nowhere is this clearer than on the issue of water.

People look particularly at a company like Thames Water, the largest in the country, who also serve my constituency. This is a company that has abused its monopoly. Infrastructure has been left creaking while bosses took out loans to pay dividends to shareholders. Now it is drowning in debt, and it is still polluting our rivers, streams, and beaches with sewage.

Yet last year, under a Labour government, they were allowed to increase bills by £250. This is a lot of things, but nobody can claim that it is fair.

To most people, this is not just mismanagement. It is a violation of the basic British belief in fairness.

People do not expect perfection. But they do expect that companies entrusted with essential services should not be allowed to pollute, profiteer, and then plead poverty to bill payers who are unable to switch suppliers.

Thames Water’s collapse into dysfunction is not an accident. It is the predictable outcome of a political choice to let private companies treat essential infrastructure and bill payers as a cash machine. And when they fail, it is the public who are forced to cough up.

The company is staggering under nearly £20 billion of debt — the legacy of decades of financial engineering that prioritised extraction over investment.

Meanwhile, the pipes leak. The rivers choke. The bills rise. And sewage still ends up in our rivers and on our beaches. Is it any wonder that people are angry?

The cost of living tops every poll of issues that the public are concerned about. And the government has recognised this by taking welcome steps on energy, rail fares, prescription charges and childcare.

But when a bill that (unlike some of those things) everyone in the country has to pay – namely water, is allowed to increase after a company has behaved as shoddily as Thames Water, then the public are entitled to ask if a government elected on a mandate for change really gets it.

A Survation poll of 4,300 people found a majority want water run in the public sector, not by private companies that have repeatedly failed to deliver. New research from 38 Degrees shows overwhelming support for renationalising key services, including water, because voters are sick of “high costs, declining services, scandal-hit companies, and eye-watering bonuses.

These numbers reflect a public that believes fairness has been broken. For all that Labour has passed legislation in this area; the reality is that the public do not believe it goes anywhere near far enough.

Nationalisation may not be the answer

Government estimates put the cost of bringing water utilities into public ownership at around £100 billion. This is not a trifling sum and when there are so many other competing priorities it is right that other options are explored.There are steps short of nationalisation that would show the public that we get the scale of their anger.

We should block companies from paying any dividends until infrastructure investment is delivered. We should impose penalties that reflect the true scale of environmental harm. We should force rapid restructuring of companies that fail basic standards. And, like with COVID fraud, we should get billpayers at least some of their money back.

These are not radical demands. The measures taken so far in the Water (Special Measures) Act simply do not meet the scale of public anger and desire for change. That is the same for other things that the government has done. This is not about opening up the cheque book or about ripping up the fiscal rules. It is about calling time on those who have rigged and milked the system for far too long.

This crisis is not just about water. It is about whether the government believes fairness applies to vested interests that screw over hard-working people. Polling shows the public has already made up its mind; they want a system that treats water as a public necessity, not a private cash machine.

That doesn’t have to be publicly owned but it must be unambiguously public serving.

THE EPSTEIN CLASS

Opinion

King Charles exposes Pam Bondi’s shame

Amanda Marcotte

SALON
Fri, February 20, 2026 



Photo illustration by Salon / Getty Images / Dan Kitwood / Tom Williams / Tim Graham


Donald Trump is very pleased with himself for being president during the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. Hijacking a Black History Month event on Wednesday, he gloated that, along with the Olympics and the World Cup, “I get the 250th year.” This wasn’t just the latest in a series of tacky gestures toward the nation’s semiquincentennial from a man the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein claimed as his “best friend.” It ended up being another disturbing reminder that Trump is on a mission to destroy everything the revolutionaries fought for, and not just because he continued to push his belief that he was entitled to steal the 2020 election. Because a few hours later, the literal British Crown took a stand for equality under the law and elite accountability that Trump and Pam Bondi, his lackey attorney general, have been doing everything they can to avoid.

On Thursday morning in the United Kingdom, Thames Valley Police took the unprecedented move of arresting Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the younger brother of King Charles III and son of the late Queen Elizabeth II, on what was his 66th birthday. Theaction was historic. The former Prince Andrew is the first senior royal in the modern era to be arrested by law enforcement. The last was Charles I, who was arrested in 1646 and executed three years later for treason.

Mountbatten-Windsor has already been stripped of his titles, styles, public role and home due to the fallout from his lengthy relationship with Epstein, including accusations of sexual abuse of minors. The ex-prince was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office in the wake of newly-released Epstein files from the American Justice Department that showed he may have been sharing confidential government documents with Epstein while serving as a British trade envoy. Held in police custody for 11 hours, which would have included questioning under caution, Mountbatten-Windsor was released while the investigation into his conduct continues.

What is truly remarkable is how Charles immediately came out in support of the notion that his younger brother is not above the law. “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,” the king said in a statement issued by Buckingham Palace. “In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation. Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.”

On the other side of the pond, Trump was, unsurprisingly, unwilling to take a hard stand against a fellow close associate of Epstein’s. “I think it’s very sad,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One. “I think it’s so bad for the royal family.” The president did not express sympathy for the victims or explain what was sad — the alleged crime itself, or that Mountbatten-Windsor may eventually face prosecution, trial and punishment for what he reportedly did.

Charles also strongly diverged from Bondi, who is supposed to be the top law enforcement official in a nation founded on the rejection of monarchy and the belief that rule of law should apply equally to all.

To state this more plainly: The literal throne America rebelled against is now honoring the nation’s constitutional principles and ideals better than those who swore an oath to uphold them.

That Bondi is using her power to shield Trump and his rich friends from accountability was underscored yet again last week when the attorney general testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee about the department’s failure to release all of its files on the Epstein case as required by law. She was repeatedly asked — mostly by Democrats, but also by GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky — about the withheld documents and seemingly illegal redactions of the names of potential Epstein co-conspirators. Instead of explaining these discrepancies, many of which work to hide information about Trump and his wealthy allies — including some members of his very administration — Bondi deflected by yelling, filibustering and calling members of Congress names.

One thing is certain: The cover-up isn’t being conducted in the shadows. When Lex Wexner, the former Victoria’s Secret CEO and massive political donor, was deposed last week by the House committee in an effort to examine his extensive relationship with Epstein, no Republican representatives bothered to show. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was recently forced to admit that, after claiming he had cut off contact with Epstein in 2005, he was in fact involved with the financier for years later. The White House shrugged this off, just as they did with Epstein’s ties to multiple administration officials including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Commissioner Mehmet Oz, Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Sign up for her free newsletter, Standing Room Only, now also on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

Then there’s Trump himself, whose name appears thousands of times in what has been released of the documents, including one time when he reportedly told Florida law enforcement that “everyone has known” about Epstein’s crimes following the sex offender’s first arrest. (It’s also important to remember that Epstein got an infamous sweetheart deal from federal prosecutor Alex Acosta, who later served as labor secretary under Trump in his first administration.) Then there are the redactions that seem to be about Trump. These include at least one photo from the lengthy time period he was partying constantly with Epstein. According to Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a search of the unredacted Epstein files revealed “more than a million” references to the president. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche denied that the Justice Department is covering up mentions of Trump, but from an administration that appears to lie about everything, his statement means nothing.

The actions taken by British police — which also included raids on residences belonging to former U.S. ambassador Peter Mandelson, a Labour Party stalwart with deep links to Epstein — only makes the Justice Department’s inaction look worse by comparison. Before he died in jail in 2019, Epstein had friends all over the world, but he was an American. Most of his alleged crimes took place in the U.S., and most of the people suspected of being involved were also Americans. Yet while top federal officials appear to be shielded from consequences in what is purported to be the world’s oldest democracy, real accountability can be seen overseas. Norway’s former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland has been indicted on corruption charges. The son of the country’s crown princess is awaiting trial on 38 charges, including four counts of rape. Top officials from the UK, Sweden, France and Slovakia have all lost their jobs due to having Epstein connections. But only a handful of people in American business or academia have faced professional consequences, and aside from Epstein’s associate and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, there have certainly no legal consequences.

Trump built his political career on laughable claims that he is an anti-elite actor who wants to drain Washington’s swamp and serve the interests of everyday Americans. To his detractors, who tend to engage real news at much higher rates than Trump voters, this was always an obvious lie. The president is the heir of a massive real estate fortune who spent his whole life defrauding investors and the government, as was proved in court, in a lifelong bid to buy his way into fancy New York circles. As the Epstein files definitively show, it worked. Trump spent years as Epstein’s shadow while the sex criminal hobnobbed his way through the world of the rich and powerful — and yet he managed to hoodwink millions into thinking he isn’t the living embodiment of a corrupt elite.

When organizers of the nation’s biggest anti-Trump protests landed on the “No Kings” branding, they got a lot of criticism from those who argued it was both hyperbolic and weirdly old-fashioned to suggest Trump wants to be a king. But it’s increasingly obvious that “king” — even more than “dictator” — captures Trump’s view on what he should be. By running the Justice Department like it’s a royal spy agency serving a 16th century king and his court rather than a civilian-controlled law enforcement agency, Bondi is reinforcing Trump’s anti-democratic ambitions.

“If a Prince can be held accountable, so can a President,” tweeted Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M. According to the Constitution and the values that fueled the American Revolution, this is an understatement. The president is supposed to be a citizen representative held to the rule of law, not a medieval monarch placed above it.

But now, in our topsy-turvy world, the literal King of Great Britain and Northern Island is standing against his own brother to uphold equality under the law, while the attorney general of the United States runs cover for a whole mess of wannabe aristocrats in what is supposed to be a democracy. Trump may gloat about being the president on our country’s 250th anniversary, but his presence there is a travesty that will resonate through history.

The post King Charles exposes Pam Bondi’s shame appeared first on Salon.com.

Investigation into Andrew could be complex and long

Dominic Casciani - Home and legal correspondent

BBC
Fri, February 20, 2026 


Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested and released on suspicion of misconduct in public office. [PA Media]


If anyone thought that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor would be leaving a police cell and going to court, they were seriously wrong.

That's because he is now under investigation for misconduct in public office. The offence, essentially an allegation of corruption, is one of the most difficult crimes to investigate, charge, prosecute and convict.

We do not know what Thames Valley Police put to Andrew during the 11 hours he was under arrest, but highly involved legal questions over whether an offence may have been committed will be at the heart of the investigation.

Detectives will be going through a four-step process, assessing which actions, if any, by the former prince amounted to misconduct in public office.

First, was the suspect a public officer?

Second, did they wilfully neglect to perform their duty and/or wilfully misconduct themselves?

Third, was that neglect or misconduct so bad that it amounted to "an abuse of the public's trust" in the office holder?

Peter Stringfellow of Brett Wilson, a firm that works on complex criminal cases, says that a case last year underlined the challenges that any investigation into alleged misconduct faces.

In that prosecution, a man who worked in the Metropolitan Police pound was accused of taking pictures of human remains found in a crashed vehicle.

A judge concluded the man had not committed misconduct in a public office because the man was not a public officer carrying out a role involving public trust.

"Even though [the defendant] worked for the police, he did a very menial job," Stringfellow says.

"The judge had to look at what position the defendant held and what duties were attached to that position.

"Did those duties amount to a responsibility of government, in which the public has a significant interest beyond those directly affected?"

The allegations being levelled in public at the former prince concern claims that he passed confidential documents to Jeffrey Epstein - while working as a trade envoy.

Detectives may now be looking in close detail at what precisely that role involved and line by line and the nature of the information he passed to the sex offender.

"A public office is primarily defined by its functions, not its status," Stringfellow says. "It does not need to be an 'office' in any technical sense or be a permanent position.

"The position does not need to be subject to specific rules of appointment, and does not need to be directly linked, by way of appointment, employment or contract, in terms of status, to either the Government or the 'state'."

This level of complexity means that if someone is convicted, each case is sentenced differently, even though in theory the maximum is life imprisonment.

"The problem that you have with this type of offence is it's incredibly wide - it covers all manner of public offices," Stringfellow adds.

"It equally would cover all manner of offences. Some of them could be deemed much more serious than others. Sentences will be incredibly varied."

The reason why this offence is so complicated is an accident of history - and the Law Commission, the body that advises government on big legal changes, called five years ago for the offence to be completely reworked.

Misconduct in Public Office is part of England's "common law" - which means judges came up with it hundreds of years ago, rather than Parliament.

Back in the 13th Century, there was a law that said local sheriffs should not receive "for favour borne to such misdoers".

That developed along with other ideas about corruption - arriving at a turning point in 1783.

That year, Lord Mansfield, one of the most celebrated chief justices in English legal history, reviewed the conviction of Charles Bembridge, a government accountant, who was accused of knowingly cooking the books.

The defendant had appealed, saying he had committed no identifiable crime. But the judge said Bembridge had a public role and had failed to carry out his duties on behalf of the King for a corrupting motive.

That, he said, was a crime.

The rules in force today - the four tests being followed by detectives - were set out in an important Court of Appeal judgment in 2003. In the centuries between the Mansfield ruling and that, the offence was sparingly used - maybe as few as 72 times, according to the Law Commission's research.

That meant the crime was little understood by the lawyers and courts dealing with it - and that led to a very modern controversy.

From 2011 the offence was used to pursue journalists and the public officials they were said to have paid for stories in the wake of the closure of the News of the World.

The then Lord Chief Justice eventually stopped the pursuit of some journalists , saying they were being unjustly treated like criminal conspirators, concluding the law was ancient and difficult.

As a result, only 34 of the 90 people arrested in relation to payments from newspapers to officials were ultimately found guilty.

That led the Law Commission to propose a complete rewrite to make sure the offence was only used when appropriate. It suggested that Parliament should make clear that misconduct must include proof that someone has used their position to improperly benefit from their action.

The last government did not act on that 2020 recommendation, but Sir Keir Starmer's government is now, coincidentally, putting that plan through Parliament.

Assuming the law passes, the ancient offence will be confined to history, and the investigation into the King's brother may be the last chapter in a very messy and contested legal saga.

Opinion: Why a Royal’s Arrest Exposes Trump’s Shameful Perversion of Justice

David Rothkopf
Thu, February 19, 2026 

Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty

The U.S. justice system is a national embarrassment.

That actually understates the problem. A justice system that was an example to the world, one that pursued and prosecuted scandals without fear or favor, is now itself perhaps the greatest of all scandals in the United States.

This was never clearer than today, Thursday, as Americans awoke to news that in the United Kingdom, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince and favored son of Queen Elizabeth, was arrested for his apparent involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. At the same time, headlines spoke of a former Korean president getting a life sentence for leading an insurrection akin to that led by President Trump on and around January 6, 2001.

Former Prince Andrew was arrested on his 66th birthday. / WPA Pool / Getty Images

Police Officers patrol near the gates of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's former residence. / Leon Neal / Leon Neal/Getty Images

Trump, of course, the most central figure in the Epstein scandal other than Epstein himself, and the primary inciter behind the attacks on the U.S. Capitol, sits ensconced and apparently above the law at the White House.

Rather than investigating or prosecuting him for those crimes or the myriad others of which he has been credibly accused—from stealing national secrets, to attempting to defraud voters and meddle with the results of the 2020 election—our Justice Department is actually serving as personal lawyers helping with Trump’s defense and directing its efforts to attacking, without grounds, his enemies and rivals. Furthermore, another arm of Trump law enforcement, is now summarily executing Americans in the street, throwing innocent people in jail, denying them thousands due process, incarcerating children and innocents in concentration camps (again often without due process) and serially violating the rights of Americans.

Ousted South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to life in prison. / Kim Hong-ji/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

That is to say nothing of the efforts afoot by Trump, DoJ, and even the Trump intelligence community to conspire to deny Americans of their right to vote or the serial, egregious corruption at the center of the Trump Administration, corruption that has siphoned billions into the personal accounts of the president, his family and his close aids.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, we see a far different picture. Not only was Andrew whisked off to a police cell, with a statement of support for the investigation by his brother the King, but multiple former members of the Starmer government are under investigation for their Epstein ties. That is also true in Norway where an ambassador has had to resign and other officials are feeling the heat. Further, across the private sector from the Middle East to U.S. corporate suites, individuals with ties to the sordid Epstein saga are losing their jobs or under intense pressure to leave them.

Have Epstein’s victims received their share of justice or even the day in court they deserve? No. Have Trump associates who have lied about their ties to Epstein, like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick felt pressure? No. Has former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr whose name has come up in the released Epstein files been called to testify? No. Has troubling evidence that is emerging surrounding the circumstances of Epstein’s death received further investigation? No.

Donald Trump has denied knowing about Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes while the pair were good friends. / Davidoff Studios/Getty Images

Trump’s name appears in the Epstein files more than a million times, according to a Democrat who reviewed the unredacted version of the files. / Davidoff Studios Photography / Getty Images

Indeed, those files concerning Epstein that have been released—although heavily redacted—have raised new questions about Trump (who is accused in some sworn testimony of rape and threatening to kill young girls), about Epstein and his ties to foreign governments, and about why with so much evidence in circulation, many of the cases that could be brought were not and indeed, were not even investigated.

Nonetheless, the Department of Justice seems to be involved in a massive cover up, with the assistance of parts of the U.S. Congress and the White House. They not only did not comply with the law passed to require the release of the Epstein files in a timely manner, they have to date only released about half the known files and those were, as noted above, extensively blacked out. Meanwhile, Congress’ investigation into Epstein has been turned into a sham by Republicans. This week, when Epstein associate Les Wexner was deposed, no Republican members attended the deposition. While great pressure is being placed on Bill and Hillary Clinton to testify—which they have agreed to do—there is no such pressure concerning Trump.

The bad news for those involved in the Trump-Epstein cover up is that the world has different standards. Should Andrew or others go to trial, what could be revealed might be very damaging to Trump. Furthermore, despite Trump’s weak claim a couple of days ago on Air Force One that the Epstein case is over and that he has been exonerated, the growing scandal and possible prosecutions that could occur elsewhere ensure that it will be front and center for a long time to come—through the 2026 elections. That’s bad news not only for Trump but for members of the Republican Party who have aided in trying to burying the Epstein scandal.

The Yoon case in Korea raises other deeply disturbing questions for Americans who once had faith in their system of justice. A president is apparently not above the law in the Republic of Korea. Insurrections led by presidents are seen as the most grave sort of crime. Yoon could die in prison. And what’s more, we have seen months ago, a similar result in Brazil for another similar case, this one involving a close Trump friend, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, now serving a 27-year sentence for his own failed insurrection.

Ex-Prince Andrew laughs with Melania Trump, Gwendolyn Beck, and Jeffrey Epstein at a party at the Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. / Davidoff Studios Photography / Getty Images

Here in the US, not only has Trump walked despite his involvement in an unprecedented assault by a sitting president on the U.S. government, he pardoned all the insurrectionists and some of them are now actually working in the Trump government. Indeed, some are now part of the roving bands of masked thugs, the American gestapo, fielded by Trump’s lawless Department of Homeland Security, an agency that has not only violated the rights of countless thousands but one that has regularly failed to comply with court orders to act within the law.

There is some comfort that many of Trump’s efforts to use the Department of Justice to prosecute his opponents—from James Comey to Letitia James to the six members of Congress who committed the unspeakable “crime” of urging service members to adhere to their oaths of office and the law—have been quashed in the courts. But there is absolutely no sense that such cases will not be brought again in the future, costing the targets immensely in terms of reputation and money, regardless of their final outcomes.

This disaster for America, this blight on our reputation, this failure of our institutions, this danger to our society, has many authors. Trump, of course, tops the list. His top aides from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Stephen Miller to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to Tom Homan are all involved in what has to be seen as an assault on our system that, while an extension of what happened on January 6, 2021 is even graver. Members of Congress including the Speaker of the House are actively involved. The manifold prosecutors who failed to act on the Epstein evidence and helped insure the impunity of the billionaires and other elites involved are also at fault. And of course, profound blame goes to America’s worst chief justice, John Roberts, who with his right wing colleagues have placed Trump and all future presidents above the law.

On the pediment of the U.S. Supreme Court it reads “Equal Justice Under Law.” That may be true in some parts of the world. Here in America, we know that’s a lie.

5 takeaways from the arrest of Britain’s Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Niall Stanage
Thu, February 19, 2026

THE HILL

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, was arrested by British police Thursday morning local time, in an investigation focused on his links with Jeffrey Epstein.

The former prince was released after about 12 hours. No charges were pressed for now, but a police statement said he remained “under investigation.”

Mountbatten-Windsor has always been among the most famous of Epstein’s associates.

The late Virginia Giuffre alleged that she had been trafficked and forced into sex with then-Prince Andrew on three occasions, including when she was 17. Mountbatten-Windsor has always denied this. He settled a civil lawsuit Giuffre brought against him in 2022.

The arrest Thursday was not in relation to any alleged sexual matters, but instead focused on suspicions that Mountbatten-Windsor had disclosed sensitive information to Epstein, apparently while he was serving as a trade envoy for the U.K.

President Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Thursday that the arrest of Mountbatten-Windsor was “a shame” and “a very sad thing.”

Here are the main takeaways.

The arrest was a historic moment

Until police came calling for Mountbatten-Windsor, no British royal had been arrested in almost 400 years.

It will be cold comfort to the former prince that he is not at risk of suffering the same fate as King Charles I, who was arrested during the English Civil War. Charles was arrested in 1647, convicted of treason, and beheaded in 1649.

Still, it is a seismic moment for any modern-day royal to be arrested.

To be sure, cultural deference to the monarchy has been on the decline for decades, driven in part by personal drama, lurid media coverage, and some landmark moments — including the popular perception that the royal family was overly cold in its response to the death of Princess Diana almost 30 years ago.

Still, the prospect of a man who remains eighth-in-line to the British throne potentially facing criminal charges is of a different order of magnitude.

King Charles III released a statement reacting to his younger brother’s arrest in which he said he had learnt about it “with the deepest concern.”

The monarch added that the authorities “have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation” and continued, “Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.”

But there could yet be more troubles ahead for the royals, especially if information suggesting they tried to protect Mountbatten-Windsor were to emerge.

It has been reported that the family, including the late Queen Elizabeth II, helped finance Mountbatten-Windsor’s settlement with Giuffre, for example.
Democrats sharpen questions about lack of US accountability

The arrest of such a high-profile figure drew questions about whether adequate scrutiny had also been applied to figures in the United States with a connection to Epstein.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) put that case especially sharply when she wrote on social media, “If a Prince can be held accountable, so can a President.”

Trump last year resisted a full release of the Epstein files until it became clear congressional pressure would force his hand.

Trump also often notes that he cut off a previous friendship with the disgraced financier roughly two decades ago. The president has always vigorously denied any wrongdoing or specific knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

The latest batch of the Epstein files, however, did include a reference to a 2019 FBI interview with a former Palm Beach, Fla., police chief who apparently said Trump had called him in 2006 to thank him for investigating Epstein, adding “everyone has known he’s been doing this.”

The new files also include lurid and uncorroborated accusations against Trump.

During his Thursday remarks on Air Force One, Trump claimed of the Epstein matter generally, “I’m the expert in a way because I’ve been totally exonerated. That’s very nice.”

The issue isn’t just Trump, however.

The latest files forced Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to acknowledge he and his family visited Epstein on his island in 2012. Lutnick had previously indicated he had cut ties with Epstein in 2005.

Lutnick has not endured any real pressure to surrender his government role.
The list of foreign figures to suffer Epstein consequences grows

The Epstein matter has had more far-reaching consequences, so far, in the U.K. and elsewhere in Europe.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has come under serious pressure because of his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the U.S. in late 2024, even though it was known Mandelson had some past connection to Epstein.

Mandelson, a central figure in the ruling British Labour Party since the mid-1980s, was fired in September after new details of his friendship with the disgraced financier came to light.

There is no suggestion Mandelson was involved in, or aware of, Epstein’s sexual predations. But he faces investigation under the same law as Mountbatten-Windsor: alleged misconduct in public office. Mandelson, like Mountbatten-Windsor denies wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, a former prime minister of Norway, Thorbjørn Jagland, has been charged with corruption over his dealings with Epstein, an ambassador from the same nation resigned, and so too did the national security adviser to the prime minister of Slovakia.
Giuffre family claims vindication

Even though the current investigation is into Mountbatten-Windsor’s communications with Epstein, rather than anything of a sexual nature, Giuffre’s family claimed vindication from the arrest.

“Today our broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty,” Giuffre’s siblings said in a statement shared with several news outlets. They also expressed “gratitude” to British police and added, “He was never a prince. For survivors everywhere, Virginia did this for you.”

Virginia Giuffre died by suicide last year, aged 41.

Even before Thursday’s arrest, Mountbatten-Windsor had faced fresh questions after the latest batch of Epstein files included photos that appear to show him kneeling over an unidentified woman.
New demands for Mountbatten-Windsor to testify to Congress

Demands that Mountbatten-Windsor testify to Congress have been sharpened by his arrest.

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), who sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Sky News that Mountbatten-Windsor could testify from the U.K. if he wished. “He can testify remotely, he can testify in person — and in the U.K.,” the congressman said.

In a separate interview with the U.K.’s Channel Four, Subramanyam acknowledged the U.S. Congress had no subpoena power over a foreign national, but said of Mountbatten-Windsor, “We’ve been wanting him to come to us and tell us what he knows.”

On social media, the congressman wrote that it was the committee investigation that had “let to real accountability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in the UK. Now, we need that justice and accountability here in the United States.”

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

Former Prince Andrew was arrested. Bill Gates backed away from a speech. For these power players, the Epstein walls are closing in

Eva Roytburg
Thu, February 19, 2026 
FORTUNE

A photo of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is displayed as U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the House Judiciary Committee, Feb. 11, 2026.

(Win McNamee—Getty Images)

Since the Justice Department released the latest tranche of Jeffrey Epstein’s emails, a number of political and business leaders have come under renewed scrutiny for maintaining contact with him long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

From the arrest of a former royal to billionaires, diplomats, and academics stepping away from public roles, here are the most significant figures facing fallout.

Prince Andrew

British police on Thursday arrested the king’s younger brother, former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, on suspicion of “misconduct in public office.” Authorities said they carried out searches at properties in Berkshire and Norfolk, an escalation from what had previously been described as a review of claims arising from the latest tranche of Epstein-related documents released by the DOJ.

Andrew has long faced allegations tied to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, most notably from Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most outspoken accusers, who died by suicide last April. In her posthumously published memoir, Giuffre alleged she was trafficked to have sex with Mountbatten-Windsor when she was 17. “He believed having sex with me was his birthright,” she wrote, recalling that afterward Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly told her, “You did well. The prince had fun.” Andrew has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and previously reached a civil settlement with Giuffre without admitting liability.

But the current arrest is not centered on those allegations. Instead, investigators are examining whether Mountbatten-Windsor improperly shared sensitive government material during his tenure as British trade envoy. Emails released by the U.S. Justice Department appear to show him forwarding confidential trip reports and investment briefs to Epstein soon after receiving them. King Charles has signaled that there will be no royal intervention, saying, “The law must take its course.”

Bill Gates

Microsoft cofounder and philanthropist Bill Gates abruptly withdrew from a keynote appearance at India’s high-profile AI Impact Summit just hours before he was set to speak, citing a desire to “ensure the focus remains” on the summit itself.

The latest DOJ tranche includes emails and communications showing that Gates met with Epstein multiple times between 2011 and 2014, several years after Epstein’s Florida conviction. The two discussed philanthropy, including a proposed fund that would have pooled money from Gates and other billionaires to support global health initiatives. That plan ultimately collapsed, and Gates has said he cut off contact after concluding Epstein’s ideas were a “dead end.”

The document release also includes a series of inflammatory claims—including allegations about Gates’ extramarital conduct with “married women” and drug use—that appear in emails Epstein sent to himself. Gates, through the Gates Foundation, has categorically denied those accusations, calling them “absolutely absurd and completely false.” No documents released to date allege that Gates was involved in Epstein’s criminal activity or had knowledge of sex trafficking.

Peter Mandelson

Peter Mandelson’s Epstein exposure, like the former Prince’s arrest, has triggered political fallout in Britain. The former British ambassador to the United States lost his diplomatic post, resigned from the Labour Party, and stepped down from the House of Lords after details of his buddy-buddy relationship with Epstein became clearer after the release of the files.

The DOJ tranche revealed that contact between the two continued for years after the financier’s 2008 prison term, with Mandelson referring to Epstein’s release as “liberation day.”

As with the former Prince Andrew, London’s Metropolitan Police have opened a criminal investigation into whether Mandelson improperly shared confidential government information with Epstein.

Larry Summers

Larry Summers, former U.S. Treasury Secretary and Harvard president, stepped back from multiple public roles after the newly released emails showed he continued communicating with Epstein after the late financier faced sex trafficking charges, often asking him for advice on romantic relationships.

A 2019 email to Epstein showed Summers discussing interactions he had with a woman, writing: “I said what are you up to. She said ‘I’m busy.’ I said awfully coy u are.”

Epstein replied, “You reacted well … annoyed shows caring … no whining showed strength.”

Summers resigned from the board of OpenAI and took leave from Harvard while the university reviewed the ties. He also stepped down from positions at think tanks and saw his contract as a contributing writer at the New York Times end.
Kathryn Ruemmler

Kathryn Ruemmler stepped down as lead counsel of Goldman Sachs last week after the Epstein emails showed she shared nonpublic White House communications with the disgraced financier.

The emails indicate that Ruemmler, who served as White House counsel under President Barack Obama, forwarded Epstein internal material related to the administration’s handling of the 2012 Secret Service prostitution scandal, asking for his input in communicating with reporters. She wasn’t in government at the time, but was still managing the fallout.

Her spokesperson said she “has done nothing wrong” and emphasized that, knowing what she knows now, she would not have interacted with Epstein.
Joichi Ito

Joichi Ito’s resignation as director of MIT’s Media Lab served as an early template for the fallout that has since resurfaced across institutions. In 2019, Ito admitted to concealing financial ties to Epstein and stepped down amid backlash over how donations were handled and characterized.

He resigned from multiple boards and academic posts, setting an early standard for accountability in elite academic circles.

Thomas Pritzker

Thomas Pritzker announced on Feb. 16 that he would retire as executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corp., acknowledging what he described as “terrible judgment” in maintaining ties to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

The latest Justice Department files detail years of cordial correspondence between Pritzker, Epstein, and Maxwell after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. In one message, Pritzker wrote to Epstein about a meeting at the Louvre.

Casey Wasserman

Casey Wasserman announced on Feb. 13 that he has begun the process of selling his talent agency after his name surfaced in the latest Epstein files, triggering defections from high-profile clients like singer Chappell Roan.

The Justice Department documents show that Wasserman flew on Epstein’s private jet at least once, alongside a group that included former President Bill Clinton. The files also contain flirtatious emails exchanged between Wasserman and Maxwell in 2003. In a memo to staff announcing the sale, Wasserman said he regretted that his correspondence with Maxwell had become “a distraction.”

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem was replaced as chairman and CEO of Dubai-based logistics giant DP World on Feb. 13 after emails between him and Epstein surfaced, showing a close relationship. DP World, owned by Dubai’s royal family, operates one of the world’s largest port and logistics networks, including Jebel Ali, the Middle East’s busiest port.

The newly released emails show Epstein describing bin Sulayem as a “close personal friend” in a 2010 message, and that they often talked about women.

The Trump team downplayed the Epstein files. Andrew’s arrest and other probes show how rash that was.

Analysis by Aaron Blake, CNN
Thu, February 19, 2026 at 11:38 AM MST



President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media on the South Lawn of the White House on February 13, 2026. - Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg/Getty Images


In mid-2025, when the Trump administration suddenly felt compelled to downplay the Jeffrey Epstein files, officials said they didn’t have enough evidence to prompt any additional investigations of third parties.

The memo didn’t just say there wasn’t evidence to charge anyone else, mind you; it said there wasn’t even evidence to investigate “uncharged third parties.”

That broad assertion in an unsigned FBI memo has proved to be a rather rash conclusion — most recently and emphatically by Thursday’s arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Prince Andrew, in the UK.

While we only know at this stage that Andrew was arrested on suspicion of “misconduct in public office,” the Thames Valley Police previously said they were looking at claims that Andrew shared sensitive information with Epstein while serving as the UK’s trade envoy in the early 2000s. Andrew has denied all allegations of misconduct related to Epstein, and his name appearing in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing.

And there’s more than just Andrew’s arrest on the international stage. The Epstein files that the administration were ultimately forced to release have proven to be of great interest in Europe, where we’ve seen a criminal charge against another high-profile figure and investigations in at least three other countries besides the UK.

Norway’s former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland was charged last week with “aggravated corruption” after investigators said they were probing “whether gifts, travel and loans were received in connection with his position.” Jagland has denied “all charges.”

UK police have also searched two properties linked to former ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson, amid accusations of Mandelson sharing market-sensitive government information with Epstein while he was business secretary of the UK.

Norwegian police are also investigating a prominent diplomat.

Prosecutors in Paris opened two new investigations into potential sex abuse and financial wrongdoing related to Epstein on Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.

Latvia has also opened a human trafficking investigation linked to the files’ release.

A police officer passes the gate of the Royal Lodge in Windsor, Thursday, Feb. 19, 2026 after Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested by British police on suspicion of misconduct in public office. (AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali) - Alberto Pezzali/APMore

We have yet to see where these investigations lead. The laws in European countries are also different than in the United States. And in some cases, the investigation is not necessarily linked to sexual misconduct — allegations that can be notoriously difficult to prove.

But it’s become clear that authorities in other countries see plenty of potential misconduct unearthed by the files in a way American authorities initially claimed they didn’t, and it’s leading to a reckoning across the pond.

It’s also worth noting that the FBI memo’s assurance has wobbled even domestically.

Despite the assurance that nothing warranted further investigation, Attorney General Pam Bondi nonetheless announced in November that the Justice Department would investigate Epstein’s relationships with prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton. The announcement came after Trump called for such probes. Bill Clinton has repeatedly denied wrongdoing related to Epstein.

Fast forward to last week, when Bondi signaled during testimony to the House Judiciary Committee that more investigations were happening.

Asked “whether another individual will be indicted and prosecuted,” Bondi replied: “We have pending investigations in our office.”

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Bondi is facing criticism over the Department of Justice's handling of the release of the Epstein files. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images) - Samuel Corum/Sipa USA/APMore

Jay Clayton, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, seemed to throw some cold water on Bondi’s comments Wednesday, suggesting there were no active investigations. But Bondi has now said there were Epstein-related investigations twice since the FBI assured the public that there was no evidence to warrant them.



Take off: This poll reveals just how badly the U.S. has damaged its relationship with Canada



Those assurances went beyond the memo, too. In testimony to the House in September, FBI Director Kash Patel said DOJ had released “all credible information.”

Patel added that there were “no investigative leads that were credible to prosecute and investigate any others.” And he suggested the Obama and Biden administrations had agreed with that assessment.

It’s fair to point out that Bondi and Patel are only responsible for enforcing domestic law, and that could have been what the FBI statement was referencing.

Still, Bondi’s confirmations of further domestic investigations are awkward in that context. She’s also repeatedly said things about the Epstein files that seemed convenient in the moment, regardless of how true they were. (Think: supposedly having the Epstein client list on her desk.) There is little evidence of robust investigations involving Bill Clinton or anyone else.

At the very least, the developments of the past few weeks betray the very different views on Epstein accountability between the US and Europe. Prosecutors in the UK and Norway especially seem to feel compelled to hold the powerful accountable, while the Trump administration’s animating principle since the middle of 2025 has been “time to move on” — a view most bluntly conveyed by the president himself, who keeps calling the Epstein files a “hoax.”

The problem with that latter approach is that, in your haste to assure there’s nothing to see here, you can miss something quite substantial. And when you’re forced to release the files you tried so hard not to release, that evidence can undermine your hard-and-fast claims about what it said.

That breeds distrust regarding any future assertions you make about the files — a persistent problem the Trump administration hasn’t been able to shake.

Bill Gates pulls out of India's AI summit over Epstein files controversy

Cherylann Mollan; 

Liv McMahon - technology reporter BBC

Fri, February 20, 2026

Gates is currently in India and there was speculation over whether he would attend the summit amid a renewed scrutiny of his ties to Epstein [Getty Images]

Bill Gates will not deliver his keynote address at the India AI Impact Summit in Delhi, his philanthropic organisation said hours before the Microsoft co-founder was due to speak.

The Gates Foundation said the decision was made after "careful consideration" and "to ensure the focus remains on the [summit's] key priorities", but did not elaborate.

Gates's withdrawal comes amid a controversy over his ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after he was named in new files released by the US Department of Justice in January.

Gates's spokesperson has called the claims in the files "absolutely absurd and completely false", and the billionaire has said he regretted spending time with Epstein.

Gates has not been accused of wrongdoing by any of Epstein's victims and the appearance of his name in the files does not imply criminal activity of any kind.

The Gates Foundation said Ankur Vora, president of its Africa and India offices, would speak at the summit instead of Gates.

The organisation added that it remained "fully committed" to its work in India to advance "shared health and development goals".

Gates's decision to not speak to the summit came after days of uncertainty over whether he would attend.

He is currently in India and had visited the southern state of Andhra Pradesh on Monday, where he reportedly discussed initiatives for boosting health, agriculture, education and technology.

After media reports speculated he would pull out of the summit, his foundation said on Tuesday he would deliver the address as scheduled.

Gates's withdrawal is a blow for the summit, which India has pitched as a flagship gathering to position the country as a global AI hub.

The five-day summit features policy discussions, start-up showcases and closed-door meetings on AI governance, infrastructure and innovation.

The event has also seen investment pledges by companies, including Microsoft, to expand AI access and infrastructure in countries such as India.

Delegates from more than 100 countries, including several world leaders, are attending the event.

But it has already been marked by some controversies over mismanagement on the first day and an Indian university's claims to have developed a robot dog - which turned out to be made in China.

AI democratisation calls

Though Gates is not attending, other big names are appearing at the Summit.

OpenAI boss Altman said in a speech the world should "urgently" look to regulate AI.

"Democratisation of AI is the best way to ensure humanity flourishes," he said, adding that centralising the tech in one company or country "could lead to ruin".

"This is not to suggest that we won't need any regulation or safeguards," Altman added.

"We obviously do, urgently, like we have for other powerful technologies."

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron made similar calls for AI's democratisation and for a shared approach to innovation.

Modi and Macron are among many world leaders and tech executives speaking at India's AI Impact Summit [Reuters]

Addressing the Summit, Modi said there was a need to share technology "so that humans don't just become a data point for AI or remain a raw material for AI".

"AI must become a medium for inclusion and empowerment, particularly for the Global South," he said.

Macron, who earlier held bilateral talks with Modi, said there was a need to change the discussion around AI from "let's do more" to "let's do better together".

This theme was addressed by other speakers as well, including UN chief Antonio Guterres - who stressed the future of AI should not be "decided by a handful of countries" or left to the "whims of a few billionaires".

Google's chief executive Sundai Pichai underscored India's growing role in the AI landscape.

He said his firm was working on establishing an AI hub in the southern city of Vishakhapatnam, which he said would help bring jobs and cutting-edge AI to Indians.

Billionaire Mukesh Ambani meanwhile pledged to invest $110bn (£81.4bn) over the next seven years to build India's AI ecosystem, while Anthropic boss Amodei said it would like to work with India on "testing and evaluation of models for safety and security risks".

BBC News India 

Bill Gates is shrinking his $132 million Xanadu compound amid sudden public withdrawal and Epstein revelations

Nick Lichtenberg
Thu, February 19, 2026 at 9:40 AM MST


Microsoft cofounder and philanthropist Bill Gates at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Jan. 21, 2026.(Fabrice COFFRINI—AFP/Getty Images)

Bill Gates is trimming his real estate footprint around his famed Xanadu 2.0 estate outside Seattle, as renewed scrutiny of his past ties to Jeffrey Epstein coincides with a quieter public profile and a rare no‑show at a major AI summit.

Property records show Gates has listed for sale a $4.8 million four‑bedroom home in Medina, Wash., that sits directly beside his primary 66,000‑square‑foot Xanadu 2.0 mansion on Lake Washington. The 2,800‑square‑foot house, purchased for about $1 million in 1995 via an LLC shortly after his marriage to Melinda French Gates, is one of several smaller properties that form a privacy buffer around the main estate. Over three decades, Gates has amassed much of the wooded hillside, turning the area into a heavily fortified enclave anchored by a residence last appraised at roughly $132 million in 2025.

Gates bought the Xanadu land in 1988 for around $2 million and poured about $63 million into a seven‑year build that produced one of the world’s most recognizable tech mogul compounds, complete with multiple garages, a trampoline room, an indoor pool, a private theater, and extensive digital displays. French Gates told Fortune in 2008 the project was “a bachelor’s dream and a bride’s nightmare” and considered not moving in, underscoring how closely the property has been associated with Gates’ personal tastes and outsize ambitions.

A reversal on downsizing

The listing marks a notable shift from Gates’ own insistence just a year ago that he had no intention of shrinking his residential footprint. In 2025, he told the London Times that, unlike his siblings, he could not imagine downsizing from the “gigantic” Seattle home, saying he liked the houses he owned and that his children still enjoyed coming back. Real estate analysts now see the sale as a modest first step in unwinding the layers of property that protect Xanadu 2.0, more pruning of the hedges than a wholesale exit from Medina, but striking given how central the compound has been to his image.

Gates also controls an $18 million equestrian ranch in Rancho Santa Fe and a golf retreat in Indian Wells. A representative for Gates told Fortune that Gates does not own property in Del Mar, Calif., or Wellington, Fla., as previously reported. The decision to sell one of the Medina buffer homes therefore barely dents his balance sheet, but it does signal a new willingness to unspool parts of an empire he once described as nonnegotiable.
Epstein files and a potential retreat

The real estate move comes as millions of pages of investigative files related to Epstein have reignited questions about Gates’ past meetings with the disgraced financier.

Gates has acknowledged meeting Epstein several times between 2011 and 2013, saying he was seeking funding for global health initiatives and later calling those meetings a “serious error in judgment” that he regrets “every minute.”

French Gates has publicly said his association with Epstein was one factor in their 2021 divorce and described Epstein as “abhorrent” and “evil personified” after meeting him once. The latest document release has pushed those past interactions back into the spotlight, just as Gates appears to be stepping away from highly visible stages.

On Thursday, the Gates Foundation confirmed Gates would no longer deliver the keynote address at the high‑profile India AI Impact Summit, a reversal framed as an effort to keep the focus on the event’s agenda but widely read as a response to the renewed Epstein furor. A senior foundation official will appear in his place, as spokespeople reiterate that the new files show Epstein’s attempts to leverage Gates’ name rather than evidence of wrongdoing by the billionaire.

For this story, Fortune journalists used generative AI as a research tool. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. This report has been updated with a statement from a representative for Gates that he does not own property in Del Mar, Calif., or Wellington, Fla.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com