China–United States: Asymmetrical rivalry from a historical and internationalist perspective

By Eric Toussaint & Cyn Huang

Published date 7 February, 2026

First published at CADTM.

Cyn Huang, a student at Berkeley (California) and active member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), where he co-chairs the Bread and Roses current, conducted an interview with Éric Toussaint.

Can you explain the terms of the conflict between China and the United States? Where does it come from?

Today, we are witnessing a conflict between two superpowers. However, I would argue that they represent two distinct forms of imperialism. China is an emerging imperialism, whereas the United States embodies an established, consolidated imperialism that is currently in relative decline and exhibiting a high level of aggression.

To understand the evolution of relations between China and the United States, it is crucial to consider the historical context. Following the Chinese revolution of 1949, the United States supported the nationalist regime of Chiang Kai-shek, which had retreated to Taiwan, and refused to recognise the People’s Republic of China, led by Mao Zedong, which was in the process of transitioning to socialism. Relations were particularly conflictual during the Korean War. In the early 1960s, China supported armed struggles in various countries deemed strategic by the United States. Notably, Beijing provided assistance to North Vietnam, under Hồ Chí Minh, as well as to the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF) also, known as Viet Cong.

Faced with the impasse of the Vietnam War, the United States then made a strategic shift and moved closer to China. This rapprochement was symbolised by the historic meeting between Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong in the early 1970s, as illustrated by the famous photograph of their handshake in 1972. The United States had recognised the Beijing authorities as the legitimate government of China prior to this meeting. The United States subsequently withdrew its diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and accepted the principle that Taiwan was part of Chinese territory.

This change had concrete consequences. Until 1971, China was represented on the United Nations Security Council by Taiwan. Following the Sino-American agreement, the People’s Republic of China took China’s seat on the UN Security Council. A few years later, in 1980, Beijing replaced Taiwan at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

At that time, China was still undergoing a transition to socialism, which was characterised by a high level of bureaucratisation and significant contradictions, particularly those exposed during the Cultural Revolution that began in 1966. Deng Xiaoping initiated reforms from the 1980s onwards, gradually facilitating the restoration of capitalism in China.

The development of China’s political economy and the evolution of its position within the global system are remarkable. As you have just demonstrated, the United States has not always viewed China as its primary strategic adversary. Furthermore, beginning in the 1990s and continuing through the first decade of the 21st century, the American ruling class regarded China as a crucial economic partner from which it could profit, and believed it could be integrated into a world order dominated by the United States.

From the 2000s onwards, China emerged as a significant destination for foreign investment, especially from the United States. Major American corporations — including Apple, Microsoft, and others — established factories in special economic zones in China. For years, both the US government and large multinationals believed they were gaining substantial benefits from this arrangement: they were able to exploit a low-paid Chinese workforce, enduring particularly harsh working conditions, while extracting considerable added value.

Using Karl Marx’s categories, we can discuss the transfer of value through unequal trade, whereby a significant portion of the added value generated by Chinese workers was appropriated by American capitalists. Simultaneously, China’s substantial exports led to the accumulation of enormous trade surpluses and significant dollar foreign exchange reserves. These reserves exceeded $3 trillion — an amount comparable to France’s GDP in 2025 — of which more than $1.3 trillion was invested in US Treasury bonds in 2013. In essence, China reinvested part of its surpluses by lending money to the United States. Following this, China scaled back its purchases of Treasury bonds and is projected to hold $700 billion directly by 2025.

Throughout the period from the 1990s to 2014-2015, the United States believed that it was benefiting greatly from its relationship with China. However, from 2014 onwards, with the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative, China was no longer content to simply export goods. It began to export its capital abroad on a massive scale, lending money to many countries and investing in infrastructure, businesses, and natural resources in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and even the United States.

From that point on, China reached such a level of economic power that the United States — from the end of Obama’s term and even more clearly from 2016–2017 onwards — began to feel that it was no longer benefiting as much as before from this relationship. It began to take protectionist measures and strengthened its military presence around China. This situation must be described as military encirclement: more than 20,000 American soldiers are stationed in South Korea, more than 50,000 in Japan, and around 10,000 on the island of Guam, not to mention other deployments. Additionally, the United States maintains an alliance with Taiwan and provides it with weaponry.

From the Chinese point of view, the United States is therefore encircling China in its own periphery. From the American point of view, China has become a rapidly expanding capitalist rival power, gaining market share and consolidating lasting positions on several continents, including what Donald Trump calls ‘the Western Hemisphere’, from Greenland and Canada to southern Argentina and Chile.

For example, China controls Peru’s main seaport and owns mining and oil extraction companies in many countries. The United States therefore considered that the area it had historically dominated was beginning to be seriously threatened. Under Trump, this logic is brutally assumed: the United States claims the right to act freely in its hemisphere, to attack Venezuela for its oil and appropriate it, to kidnap and hold the Venezuelan president and his wife hostage in New York, and to seek control of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal while demanding that China abandon its positions in this area.

How does Trump define China in the National Security Strategy NSS 2025? Would you like to summarise what you wrote in your article entitled ‘Why Washington has made China its central strategic adversary’ ?

The National Security Strategy document published by the Trump administration in early December 2025 clearly designates China as the United States’ main strategic adversary. Washington seeks to reduce China’s presence in the Western Hemisphere and strengthen its military encirclement in the Indo-Pacific region. Officially, the United States acknowledges that it has 375,000 soldiers and civilian military personnel in this region, 66 permanent military bases, and more than 80 non-permanent bases. This is an absolutely colossal military presence.

Faced with this situation, although China has thus far adopted a strategy centred on economic and peaceful expansion, it is possible that certain factions within its political leadership are gaining influence by advocating preparations to confront the United States directly, citing self-defence. Consequently, we are approaching an extremely precarious situation.

Historically, Trump’s policy bears resemblance to that of the latter half of the 19th century and the early 20th century, during which the United States engaged in direct military interventions to expand its sphere of influence. Notable examples include the war against Mexico in 1847, which allowed the United States to annex Texas, New Mexico, and California. In 1898, Washington waged war against the Spanish colonial empire, subsequently taking control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Additionally, the United States occupied Haiti beginning in 1915.

After the Second World War, the United States persisted in its aggressive foreign policy, most notably through the Korean War in the early 1950s and the Vietnam War from 1960 to 1975, which involved the deployment of up to 500,000 soldiers. Additionally, the Gulf War in 1991, the military intervention in Taliban-led Afghanistan from 2001 onwards, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 are significant examples of this trend.

In the 21st century, we are witnessing a resurgence of classic imperialist policies, as examined by Lenin, Trotsky, Hilferding, Bukharin and Rosa Luxemburg. These Marxist theorists have demonstrated that such confrontations between imperialist powers inherently lead to conflict. Following the Second World War, despite the occurrence of extremely violent wars in Korea and Vietnam, these conflicts, while involving multiple nations, did not escalate to a global scale. However, in the current climate, influenced by Trump’s policies, the prospect of a shift toward a new world war has become a tangible threat once more.

What gives Trump the impression that China could be ‘controlled’?

I believe that Donald Trump and his administration are attempting to contain China’s international economic expansion through various economic, trade, diplomatic, and military strategies. These strategies include enhancing economic and trade protectionism by implementing various barriers aimed at reducing Chinese imports into the United States while promoting US exports on the global market. Additionally, they are exerting pressure on the United States’ trading partners to increase their purchases of US-made products and urging companies in the United States and other nations to either increase their production within the US or repatriate their operations there. Other measures involve increasing subsidies to US companies, asserting control over territory and natural resources in the Western Hemisphere and beyond, and engaging in tough negotiations with China to encourage a reduction in its economic expansion beyond its borders. Regarding military measures, it does not necessarily imply that Trump is directly preparing for war with China. Rather, his intention appears to be to impress Beijing by demonstrating overwhelming military superiority. The aim is to convey to China that, in the event of armed conflict, it would stand little chance against the United States, given the extensive US military presence encircling China, both in the Indo-Pacific region and globally.

The United States is therefore operating on the assumption that it can intimidate the Chinese leadership and, in this way, limit its economic expansion. However, there is no guarantee that China will agree to scale back its strategic and economic objectives under pressure. On the contrary, it is likely that Beijing does not want a direct military confrontation, but that it will be increasingly forced to face one as the United States steps up its threats and military posture.

In this context, Trump’s calculation appears extremely dangerous. It poses a major risk not only to Sino-American relations but also to humanity as a whole: the populations of the United States, China, and, more broadly, the entire world.

How do you currently perceive the balance of power between China and the United States, and what is Russia’s place in this situation?

To get an accurate picture of the current international landscape and Donald Trump’s strategy, it is crucial to incorporate an analysis of both Russia and Europe.

Trump’s primary objective is to create a rift between Russia and China. Over the past fifteen years, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have forged a significantly closer relationship. This rapprochement has led to the establishment of BRICS and the enhancement of trade, financial, and military agreements between Russia and China, particularly in the wake of the sanctions imposed by Western powers on Russia following the annexation of Crimea in 2014. These sanctions were further intensified after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Russia’s ties with China have inadvertently strengthened due to the sanctions imposed on it. In light of this situation, Trump has formulated a distinct strategy: he is subtly offering Vladimir Putin a deal. The essence of this message is as follows: you can act in your regional environment – that is, in the space of the former Soviet republics that have become independent states – in the same way that I act in the Western Hemisphere. In simpler terms, Trump asserts his right to intervene in Venezuela or other locations in Latin America while simultaneously bestowing upon Russia a form of legitimacy to act in its own neighbourhood.

Following this logic, Trump is proposing a ‘deal’ to Putin: he will allow Russia to pursue its objectives in its own region, including Ukraine, in exchange for a commitment to distance itself from China. The strategic aim of the United States, therefore, is to isolate China by creating a rift between it and Russia, while simultaneously providing Russia with assurances regarding its imperialist ambitions.

Let us be clear: Russia has become an exceedingly aggressive capitalist imperialist power, as evidenced on numerous occasions. Consequently, we are witnessing a potential agreement between two imperialist powers: Russia, characterised as aggressive yet second-rate, and the United States, which stands as a dominant and hyper-aggressive imperialist power. This agreement appears aimed at weakening and isolating China.

However, the effectiveness of this strategy remains uncertain. Trump’s current conciliatory stance towards Putin, exemplified by his invitation to the ‘world peace council’ he organised during the Davos meeting on 21 and 22 January, could shift unexpectedly. Should Putin decline to distance himself from China or reject an agreement with Trump that compromises Ukraine, a sudden reversal in the US position is entirely plausible.

It is important to note that we cannot conduct the analysis of US-China relations in isolation from Russia’s stance. US imperialism is actively pursuing an agreement with the Russian government to reduce China’s economic, political, and strategic influence.

What internationalist position should we adopt?

Faced with this situation, the essential question for us, as revolutionaries and internationalists, is this: which side are we on? Our answer is unequivocal. We stand with the people, opposing the calculations and confrontations of the great powers and the various forms of imperialism.

Concretely, this means that we support activists in Russia and Ukraine who oppose Russia’s war in Ukraine. We support workers, students, and social movements in China that are fighting for their rights, better living conditions, and greater political freedoms. We also support workers and the popular masses in the United States who are fighting against Trump’s policies. Finally, we defend the sovereignty of countries in the Western Hemisphere and other parts of the world against the aggressive strategy of domination by the United States. We support the people’s fight for self-determination and control over their natural resources. We oppose all imperialist and colonialist aggression, whatever its origin. In Europe, we oppose the imperialist and neo-colonialist policies of our governments and denounce their complicity with the neo-fascist Netanyahu government, which is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. We oppose the inhumane policies practiced by the majority of governments around the world toward migrants and refugee applicants. We support all internationalist solidarity activities.

We defend a genuinely internationalist perspective. We choose the side of the people against their oppressors. We are actively participating together with other forces to the preparation and organisation of the anti-fascist and anti-imperialist conference in Porto Alegre, Brazil (March 26–29, 2026). We support the International Call for the Strengthening of Anti-Fascist and Anti-Imperialist Action.

The authors would like to thank Gabriella Lima and Maxime Perriot for their review.

 

When a Backup Steals Your Life’s Work: My Experience with pCloud on macOS

by Jan Oberg / February 6th, 2026

Our readers are not used to seeing this type of article. However, it offers a peek into the troubles one can encounter, also when working for peace and art – processes that are never revealed in the final text, video or image. The experience involved starting up my Mac and finding only empty folders on its desktop, i.e. the sudden loss of nearly 100,000 documents and files accumulated over decades. I then had to manually retrieve and reorganise it all, and exchange with a formally polite but incompetent pCloud support department that denied any wrongdoing on its side and kept talking about how well it understood my frustration. I also had to consult with AI CoPilot about the technicalities and downloading such huge data volumes from Mac’s iCloud and other places, and much more.

The catastrophe cost me more than 100 working hours over 5 weeks. Now everything is back in order, and I can finally turn to more meaningful and productive tasks. I have felt it my duty to warn everyone who needs cloud services and has Macs: Don’t ever engage with pCloud in Switzerland!

Cloud services promise security, redundancy, and peace of mind. The Swiss pCloud markets itself as a trustworthy European alternative to Big Tech — a place where your files are safe, your backups are reliable, and your digital life is protected for the long term. That promise was the reason I invested in a lifetime plan: to safeguard forty years of work for The Transnational Foundation and my photographic archive over the last 25 years. My two life works.

What happened instead was the opposite of safety.

On my Mac, pCloud’s software removed local files without my consent, replaced originals with cloud‑only placeholders, and continued to manipulate my file system even after I had turned both Backup and Sync off. The behaviour was unpredictable, intrusive, and entirely at odds with what any user would expect from a backup service. A backup should preserve your files, copy them and not take them away.

The deeper problem is architectural. pCloud’s macOS integration behaves less like a backup and more like a fragile mirroring engine. Even when “Backup” is selected — a word that universally implies one‑way, non‑destructive copying — the system acts like Sync, treating the cloud as the master copy and the local machine as secondary. This means that if the software becomes confused, falls out of step, or misinterprets a state change, local files can simply vanish and be replaced by cloud‑only versions. That is exactly what happened to me.

And I am far from alone. Across Apple’s support forums, GitHub, Reddit, and Mac news sites, users describe the same pattern: pCloud Drive freezing, crashing, failing to mount, consuming excessive CPU, or becoming unusable after macOS updates. Apple advisors have even told users that pCloud’s app is “faulty with newer versions of macOS.” These are not isolated anecdotes. They form a consistent picture of a system that is unstable and unsafe on the Mac platform.

My correspondence with pCloud stretched across eight to ten long letters. Throughout most of it, they denied any responsibility, insisted that no files had been removed because they were safe in their cloud (!) and suggested that I had misunderstood their terminology. At some point they unilaterally closed the case.

Only when I informed them that I would close the case by documenting my experience publicly did they finally acknowledge that many users have reported serious macOS instability, that sync inconsistencies can cause local files to disappear, and that the software “should not remove local files without clear user control.” Even then, they avoided the central point: that their system had taken my files off my computer and left me dependent on their servers – but hilariously asked me whether I could help them re-create what had happened so they could better understand what had happened! Obviously believing that I was willing to take that risk a second time…

This avoidance becomes even more troubling when one considers the broader implications and that this is a lifetime subscription:

If pCloud’s servers were ever compromised, destroyed, or rendered inaccessible — through cyber warfare, corporate collapse, or simple technical failure — I would lose everything. A backup system that removes local copies and forces reliance on a single remote server is not a backup at all. It is a single melting point of catastrophic failure.

pCloud’s final advice to me was revealing: they recommended avoiding Backup and Sync entirely for important folders and using only manual uploads instead. In other words, they advised me not to use the very features I had paid for. That alone speaks volumes.

pCloud also refused to offer any refund or compensation, only that I could buy other products at a reduced price. Finally, I should make clear that I work in both the PC and the Mac world, and what I experienced at my Mac did not happen on my PC. But I use only manual uploads now, once a month, and have removed the pCloudDrive, which does intrusive backup and sync even when you have turned them off, from both.

I am sharing this experience because others deserve to know what I learned the hard way. For macOS users — especially photographers, filmmakers, designers, researchers, and anyone who works with large original files — pCloud is not a safe choice. Its behaviour is unpredictable, its architecture is flawed, and its support is ad absurdum evasive when confronted with the consequences.

A backup service must be trustworthy. pCloud, on macOS, is not.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Jan Oberg is a peace researcher, art photographer, and Director of The Transnational (TFF) where this article first appeared. Reach him at: oberg@transnational.org. Read other articles by Jan.

Trump official bought business with Epstein years after claiming to cut ties: report

 Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (R)

Carl Gibson

February 06, 2026 

ALTERNET

Before he joined President Donald Trump's Cabinet, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick jointly owned a business with convicted child predator Jeffrey Epstein.

CBS News reported Friday on new revelations contained in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) latest release of documents from Epstein's two federal investigations showing Lutnick and Epstein acquiring a company in 2012. One document shows both Lutnick's and Epstein's signatures on a document purchasing stakes in the now-defunct digital advertising company Adfin. Epstein signed on behalf of his entity, Southern Trust Company, while Lutnick signed on behalf of a limited liability company named CVAFH I.

The purchase took place just four days after Lutnick and his wife, Allison, visited Epstein's Little Saint James Island around the Christmas holiday of 2012. Lutnick initiated contact with the convicted sex trafficker, emailing him to inform him that he and his wife would be in the Caribbean, and if they could meet for lunch. Allison Lutnick told Epstein's assistant that the couple would be arriving on a 188-foot yacht named "Excellence."

CBS noted that the island visit and business deal came multiple years after Lutnick claimed to have cut off all contact with Epstein. In October, Lutnick told the New York Post's Miranda Devine that he and his wife were both disgusted by Epstein after he invited them to his home in 2005. Lutnick referred to Epstein as "the greatest blackmailer ever."

During the 2005 visit, Lutnick — who at the time ran the firm Cantor Fitzgerald and lived next door to Epstein — said Epstein showed off the "massage room" in his Manhattan town house.

"“I say to him, ‘Massage table in the middle of your house? How often do you have a massage?'” Lutnick said. “And he says, ‘Every day.’ And then he gets, like weirdly close to me, and he says, ‘And the right kind of massage.'”

"In the six to eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again," he added.

UK Parliamentary Motion calls for Public inquiry into Epstein links

Part of Epstein Files released by the DOJ on December 19 2025. This image or file is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties. This image is in the Public Domain.

6th February 2026Leave a Commenton Parliamentary Motion calls for Public inquiry into Epstein links

“Epstein’s victims deserve the truth: who was involved, who knew what and when, who covered for whom.”

Nadia Whittome MP

A Parliamentary Motion has been tabled by Nadia Whittome MP calling for a public inquiry into British public figures included the Epstein files.

Following the publication of the Early Day Motion, Nadia Whittome said:

“With child sexual abuse on this scale, it is unfathomable that other people did not know.”With child sexual abuse on this scale, it is unfathomable that other people did not know.

“Epstein’s victims deserve the truth: who was involved, who knew what and when, who covered for whom.

“No person or institution, no matter how powerful, should be above accountability.”No person or institution, no matter how powerful, should be above accountability.”

The Early Day Motion has currently been backed by 73 MPs from 6 different parties. You can read the text of EDM 2749: Public inquiry into Epstein links and view the full list of signatories.

EDM 2749: Public inquiry into Epstein links

That this House stands with Jeffrey Epstein’s victims whose relentless courage and pursuit of justice has led to the publication of the Epstein files; notes with concern the number of British public figures included in these files; recognises that child sexual abuse on this scale is likely to have involved not only those directly perpetrating the abuse but other individuals who were complicit in a number of ways, including by ignoring this abuse or covering for those perpetrating it; and urges the Government to set up an independent, statutory inquiry into the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and British public figures and institutions, whether they had involvement in or awareness of his crimes, what action they took or failed to take, whether they assisted in covering up child sexual abuse, and if due diligence was undertaken in the case of any appointments to public roles.

---

• You can view the Early Day Motion and its supporters here.

Type yo

Lord Mandelson: Trapped in the Epstein Web

by Binoy Kampmark / February 6th, 2026

Jeffrey Epstein certainly got around. He moved virally, galloping through the cells of the establishment. What was more, he was permitted to. Dead and buried, the financier, convicted paedophile, sex trafficker, eugenics follower, and the man all in power would want to know, continues to ruin reputations, casting doubt on many relationships, and stirring investigations into his correspondents.

Much of this damage is emanating from that noxious font of revelation, despair and disgrace hosted by the US Department of Justice, entitled the Epstein Library. As a result of these 3.5 million files or so, Noam Chomsky, saint of the progressive Left, may well find himself the poorer for his foolish correspondence sneering at “the hysteria that has developed about abuse of women”. Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to do filmed depositions for the House Committee on Oversight and Governance Reform. And in Britain, Lord Peter Mandelson, immodestly seeing himself as the creator of New Labour, finds himself facing potential criminal investigations in the UK and the European Union.

Mandelson’s case is particularly dire. Here was a person who had already lost his job in the cabinet twice over issues involving matters of money and the wealthy. In 1998, he resigned as trade and industry secretary after obtaining a loan of £373,000 from the Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, to purchase a house. In 2001, he fell foul over a passport application from Indian billionaire Srichand Hinduja who had pledged £1m in sponsorship for the Millenium Dome project when Mandelson was in charge.

Despite a heavily blotted copybook, Mandelson still secured the confidence of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to be appointed ambassador to Washington in anticipation of the second Trump administration. The association between Mandelson and the late Epstein was already known, making the appointment dangerous in the extreme. The publication of certain emails revealing the continuing friendship post-conviction doomed yet another job.

The extent of that association is now becoming even more apparent. Now notorious for being a convicted paedophile, Epstein was receiving updates from Mandelson following the 2010 general election. (Mandelson had been politically revived as business secretary.) Seeing his hold on power slide, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was trying to secure a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. “GB now having ‘secret’ talks with [Lib Dem leader Nick] Clegg in Foreign Office,” Mandelson informs Epstein on May 9. On May 10, he again updates Epstein: “Finally got him to go today.”

Within hours Brown announced that he would be resigning as Labour leader but continuing as prime minister, a precondition demanded by Clegg in holding coalition talks. These came to naught, with Lib Dem leader preferring to share power with the Conservatives of David Cameron. But throughout, the Mandelson-Epstein exchanges take place, with the financier more than happy to offer morsels of wisdom. In one instance, Epstein suggests that the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition would comprise “15m v 10 million votes”. This is then followed by another suggestion: “[W]hy not let tories govern with minority, no coalition”. In doing so, they would be unable to get “anything done”. Mandelson replies that this was unlikely “cos GB thinks British economy will collapse without [him] at helm.”

Epstein also proffers his view about Brown’s credibility as a continuing prime minister, informed by a certain “jess”. Supporting the Labour leader “will be seen as bad form commercially, he has lost the confidence of the public.” The views of investment bank JP Morgan are also given, they being “very concerned that the pound could be the next currency to falter. and big time. uncertainty not in your favour”.

Epstein also received what appears to be advanced notice of a 500 billion euro bailout intended to save the euro as the Greek economy was imploding. European finance ministers had rapidly concluded that the bailout was necessary to contain financial contagion in the eurozone. The night prior to the deal’s conclusion, the financier badgers Mandelson: “Sources tell me 500 b euro bailout, almost complete.” The reply: “Sd be announced tonight.” Mandelson promised to call after leaving 10 Downing Street.

The previous year, Mandelson had gleefully informed Epstein about asset sales and tax changes being considered by the Brown government. That conduct, and the broader disposition of Mandelson as business secretary to Epstein, has led the Metropolitan Police to commence an investigation. “Following this release and subsequent media reporting,” Metropolitan Police Commander Ella Marriot stated, “the Met has received a number of reports relating to alleged misconduct in public office. The reports will be reviewed to determine if they meet the criminal threshold for investigation.”

On February 3, Balazs Ujvari, a spokesperson of the European Commission, also revealed interest in investigating potential breaches, considering Mandelson’s time as European Commissioner for Trade. “We have rules in place emanating from the treaty and the code of conduct that commissioners, including former commissioners, have to follow.”

Epstein’s web is looking increasingly, and alarmingly, expansive. Not only did the wily, persuasive man of advice slither his way into the confidence of the governing classes, he invited the easy betrayal of secrets. He was not only a conduit for young flesh and pleasures, but for classified information.

Being the Prince of Darkness, Mandelson has always managed some form of reputational reincarnation. This time, a stake has been taken to him. Let us hope it stays there, lodged for posterity. As for the party he represents, and the daft Prime Minister who made him ambassador to Washington, the die may well have been cast. What the Profumo affair did for the Macmillan government in the early 1960s Mandelson risks doing to Starmer’s in 2026.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

Keir Starmer: ‘I regret appointing Peter Mandelson’ but admits Epstein questions had been raised during vetting

Daniel Green 4th February, 2026

Photo: House of Commons

Keir Starmer has said he regrets appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States and claimed that he had “lied repeatedly” about his relationship with Epstein.

Mandelson resigned as a member of the House of Lords after it emerged that he had exchanged sensitive information with Epstein while serving in Gordon Brown’s government.

During Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer said: “To learn that there was a Cabinet minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating.

“I am as angry as the public and any member of this House. Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament and my party.

“He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would have never been anywhere near government.

“Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary with my support took the decision to refer material to the police – and there is now a criminal investigation. I’ve instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers.

“This morning, I’ve agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Councillors on the grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute.”

Labour benches in the Commons were deathly silent during the exchange between Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch.

One Labour MP told LabourList: “It’s like parallel PMQs. Loyal questions on one side and one issue on the other.”

When asked whether official security vetting mentioned Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Epstein, Starmer told MP that it did – and that questions were put to him as a result.

The Prime Minister said that he intends to allow MPs to see full documentation to show how Mandelson “completely misrepresented the extent to his relationship with Epstein”.

Keir Starmer defended Morgan McSweeney, who was said to have been heavily influential in Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador.

The Prime Minister said: “Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him.”

Commenting on PMQs LabourList editor Emma Burnell said: “When talking specifically about Peter Mandelson, Starmer hit the right note – a combination of anger and disgust. He repeatedly said that he had lied to him and those vetting him.

“The problem is that this did not carry through in responses to the wider questions this whole sordid affair inevitably raise. Here Starmer repeatedly fell back on process, without the passion for pursuing the outcomes of that process that was needed to satisfy a party reeling from the damage Mandelson has done.”

Government accepts change to Mandelson document release amid rising backbench pressure

James Tibbitts,4th February, 2026

Photo: FCDO/Flickr

:

The government has put forward a change to its own amendment regarding the process of document release on Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, following further revelations about his maintained relationship with disgraced paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

At Prime Minister’s Questions today, Keir Starmer said ministers could not release certain documents that would have been ‘prejudicial to the UK national security or international relations’.

It has now instead been agreed that any documents that could be deemed a risk will be sent to the Intelligence and Security Committee for them to decide if they can be released.

This comes following rising tensions from backbench Labour MPs, who felt the government should not attempt to withhold information relating to this decision.

Notably, former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Angela Rayner called on the government to make this change earlier in the day and allow ISC involvement in the review of documents related to the scandal.

It became apparent to the government that, had they not made this change to their amendment, they could face having it voted down by their own backbench members of the PLP who are significantly frustrated with decisions around Mandelson.

The backbenches were particularly quiet at Prime Ministers Questions earlier today, when Starmer was pressured by leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch on the details around the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador.

MPs are due to vote on the amendment this evening, where it will be brought to the Commons in a closing speech.

Does the Mandelson scandal mark the endgame for Keir Starmer’s premiership?

Daniel Green 5th February, 2026

Photo: Number 2010 (February 2025)

Yesterday marked 19 months since that landslide election victory that saw Labour return to power. I remember Starmer addressing supporters the following morning, talking of a “burden removed from the shoulders of this great nation” and returning “politics to public service”. It was truly a hopeful moment – that we could move past the disappointment and despair of the Tory era and usher in a new start for our country.

And yet, 19 months on from that great day, where are we? Starmer, who promised to “restore respect to politics”, admitted in Parliament he had been aware of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein during the ambassador vetting process – and appointed him regardless. MPs have been reported as saying that scenes in Parliament yesterday were reminiscent of the Chris Pincher affair that eventually brought down Boris Johnson.

And all of this while the party fights to hold onto a seat in Greater Manchester as the forces of populism on the right and left circle like vultures, not to mention campaigns for councils across England and the devolved nations.

Some MPs have said that the Prime Minister was “advised badly”, not so subtly putting the blame at Morgan McSweeney’s door. This saga is the latest blot on his record, especially after claims he was behind briefings against Wes Streeting. However, as leader of the country, the buck always stops with the Prime Minister.

Surely the continuing relationship Mandelson maintained with Epstein after his conviction should have been disqualifying enough for any role in public office, even in the absence of all the information that has now come to light. How Starmer and those around him came to the opposite conclusion is beyond me.

This is only the latest example of where Starmer has demonstrated a lack of political nous, with a series of self-inflicted wounds from multiple U-turns after spending considerable political capital defending contentious policies, from changes to inheritance tax for farmers to digital ID. Even as he tried to clear up the mess from Mandelson, Starmer was only spared an embarrassing Commons defeat by the intervention of Angela Rayner.

In the Commons yesterday, the Prime Minister said he felt betrayed for what Mandelson had done to the country, Parliament and the Labour Party. For what it’s worth, I feel betrayed by Keir Starmer – for tarnishing the party’s reputation with this ill-thought-through appointment, a reputation that he had spent four years bringing out of the gutter after that dismal night in 2019.

A sea of bad decisions coming from Number 10 have drowned out all the positive measures the government has taken. Starmer has taken the rare opportunity afforded by a Labour government with a sizeable majority and squandered it. Decisions made by this Prime Minister will cost councillors, MSPs and MSs their jobs in just over three months’ time without a change of course.

Commentators and many Labour MPs have taken to the media to question whether Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney can weather this storm, with the Prime Minister said to be in crisis talks with his senior team. The deathly silence of the Labour benches during PMQs yesterday was extremely telling.

Labour has genuinely changed the country in ways that will have lasting effects, but the party is – and has always been – bigger than the person at the top. If Keir Starmer has become a distraction from this good work, it is perfectly reasonable for MPs, councillors or members knocking on doorsteps across the country to raise the questions they are asking.

I write this with a great deal of melancholy – Starmer does come across as a man in politics for all the right reasons, but as Prime Minister has been found wanting.

But a question that remains unanswered is no doubt on the minds of many Labour MPs today – if not Starmer, then who?

The Epstein files and the right’s ‘selective transparency’

Right-Wing Watch

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Today
Left Foot Forward

Even the young women and children who suffered because of the egos and sexual appetites of these powerful men are increasingly marginalised, and certainly the obscure source of Epstein’s wealth becomes lost in the psycho drama of media coverage.

The release of more than three million documents linked to the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein should have marked a watershed moment for transparency and accountability. Instead, it has exposed something else entirely: how selectively the truth is pursued when it threatens political power.

The files, made public by the US Department of Justice after pressure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, have reignited scrutiny of the powerful figures who moved in Epstein’s orbit for years. The Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in November, required the full release of all Epstein-related documents. Yet survivors, Democratic lawmakers, watchdog groups and even some Republicans insist the Trump administration has still failed to meet its legal obligation, withholding as much as half of the material.

“This is outrageous and incredibly concerning,” said Robert Garcia, the Democratic member on the House oversight committee, which is investigating the handling of the release, promising a thorough review of “this latest limited production.”

Indeed, in both the US and the UK, scrutiny of the newly released files has varied somewhat depending on political convenience.

A familiar pattern in the British press

At one level in the UK, the story has produced a rare consensus among the liberal and right-wing media in that their coverage has focussed first on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and then increasingly on Keir Starmer’s judgement in appointing him US ambassador. Nicknamed “the Prince of Darkness,” Mandelson has been a chequered presence in British politics for decades. In 1998, he was forced into his first ministerial resignation after it emerged that he had received a secret £373,000 loan from fellow minister Geoffrey Robinson. In 2001, a second resignation followed given some dubious dealings around the wealthy Hinduja brothers passport applications, although he was subsequently cleared of wrong doing. He was then awarded a peerage and brought back into British politics by Gordon Brown as business secretary, presumably for his behind-the-scenes political skills and possibly and ironically, for his networks.

Fast-forward 16 years and Mandelson’s “casual corruption” has truly caught up with him. He is accused of leaking sensitive government information to Epstein and of offering to lobby ministers over a bankers’ bonus tax in 2009. He has quit the Labour Party to stave off “further embarrassment” and was sacked last year as UK ambassador to the US over the same links.

These developments raise serious questions about Keir Starmer’s judgment. It was, heaven forbid, hard not to find yourself nodding along with Kemi Badenoch at PMQs this week, as she made a series of points about Starmer’s decision to back scandal-scarred Mandelson.

In doing so, Starmer handed his opponents exactly the kind of ammunition they relish. The conservative press scarcely had to strain for copy; the goal was gaping. “Starmer’s judgment over Mandelson looks worse than ever,” declared the Telegraph, a verdict that, in the circumstances, was uncomfortably easy to legitimise.

The problem is not that Mandelson has been rightly scrutinised. It’s that others have not.

Royals, scandal and safe targets

Alongside Mandelson, the other favoured subject has been Andrew Mountatten-Windsor. Royal scandal reliably sells papers, and editors, particularly those most vocal about Brexit, patriotism and “traditional values,” rarely resist the temptation. The latest tranche of documents has once again drawn the former Duke of York, and his former wife Sarah Ferguson, into the Epstein story. Again, it is difficult to demur from much of this coverage, revealing as it does, two people who seem desperate to sustain privileged lives to which they feel they are entitled through no more than an accident of birth.

Yet conspicuously absent from much right-wing coverage, both in the UK and across the Atlantic, is any sustained attention on figures closer to conservative political power.

Take the messages involving Nick Candy, the former Tory donor appointed treasurer of Reform UK in December 2024. As reported by LFF, emails emerging from the new documents show Candy communicating with Epstein associates and requesting the email address and phone number of Ghislaine Maxwell, now serving a 20-year federal sentence for child sex trafficking. These revelations were scarcely reported, if at all, by the mainstream outlets, who had their man Mandelson and needed to look no further.

Another lesser-known entry in the files concerns Epstein’s reaction of Britain’s decision to leave the EU in 2016, which he reportedly hailed as a “return to tribalism.” In emails said to be exchanged with tech billionaire Peter Thiel just days after the referendum, Epstein described Brexit as “just the beginning,” according to the Independent.

“Return to tribalism, counter to globalisation, amazing new alliances,” Epstein allegedly wrote, prompting Thiel to reply: “Of what?”

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Peter Thiel, but did his name feature in the Brexit-cheering pages of the Sun, the Express, or GB News? Of course not.

Nor was there meaningful scrutiny of revelations concerning former Donald Trump strategist Steve Bannon who boasted to Epstein in 2018 that he had become an adviser to Nigel Farage. On the same day Bannon addressed France’s far-right National Front, proclaiming that “history is on our side,” Epstein messaged him: “Very well done, congratulations!”

Bannon responded by boasting of advisory roles not only to Farage but also to Matteo Salvini, Germany’s AfD and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.

The story barely registered in the right-wing press, despite resurfacing alongside a photograph of Bannon posing in January 2025 with Matt Goodwin, Reform’s candidate in the widely-anticipated Gorton and Denton by-election. Of course, the nature of Epstein’s networks which extended as they did, to liberal politicians, Labour as represented by Mandelson, and even the ‘left’ intellectual Noam Chomsky, obscure the corrupt nature of power at their heart. Even the young women and children who suffered because of the egos and sexual appetites of these powerful men are increasingly marginalised, and certainly the obscure source of Epstein’s wealth becomes lost in the psycho drama of media coverage. In fact, aside from Starmer’s apology to Epstein’s victims for appointing Mandelson as US ambassador, the victims themselves have been largely absent from the narrative.

Cherry-picked transparency in the United States

Meanwhile, in the US, accusations of delay, cherry-picking and obfuscation have followed the Trump administration’s handling of the files.

The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, said: “The law required all the Epstein files to be released on December 19, 2025. For 43 days, the justice department delayed release, cherrypicked documents – many were heavily redacted – all to obscure the truth and delay justice for the survivors.

“Until yesterday, the justice department admitted to having released less than 1% of all documents. Now it’s saying the work is done. Americans are very dubious.

“The American people want the complete truth on the Epstein files, not puffed-up statistics.”

In a joint statement, a group of 20 Epstein survivors said the document once again shields powerful figures while exposing victims to renewed harm.

“This latest release of Jeffrey Epstein files is being sold as transparency, but what it actually does is expose survivors,” they said. “As survivors, we should never be the ones named, scrutinised, and re-traumatised while Epstein’s enablers continue to benefit from secrecy.”

Fox News and the art of looking away

And conservative US outlets such as Fox News have shown little appetite for examining Trump’s own relationship with Epstein. Interest spikes when Democrats are implicated, but fades when Republicans are.

The Murdoch-owned channel has constantly provided extensive coverage of former president Bill Clinton’s ties to Epstein. “New Epstein documents include photos of Bill Clinton shirtless in hot tub, socialising with Michael Jackson,” it sensationally gushed in December.

Yet similar attention has not been given to Trump’s associations with Epstein.

Even when House Democrats released emails showing Epstein claiming Trump “knew about the girls,” right-wing broadcasters fell silent. Viewers were spared the details, aside from a rare slip when a progressive guest on Sean
Hannity’s show told the audience: “Trump’s all over the Epstein files.”

And when Republicans prepared to defy Trump by voting to release the documents, Fox News reframed the retreat as tactical brilliance. “Trump’s calling their bluff,” Laura Ingraham declared, assisted by Republican congressman James Comer, who accused Democrats of exploiting victims in the hope of embarrassing Trump.

Soon after, Fox ran an “exclusive” headline reassuring viewers: “Epstein emails released as DOJ says no criminal or inappropriate conduct by Trump.”

This is the same Ingraham who had, in November, promised, on air, to cover new information on Epstein. She told her audience she had “new news coming on [about the Epstein saga] from the Wall Street Journal.” That day, the Journal had reported that Trump had sent Epstein a lewd letter for his 50th birthday album, a revelation which led to follow-up reporting from much of the media.

Yet despite the Fox host’s promise, Ingraham never covered the Journal’s story.

For a political movement that claims to champion free speech and transparency, the Epstein files, and the reaction to them, tell a different story. They reveal a truth that is managed, curated and weaponised, deployed ruthlessly against opponents, and quietly buried when it threatens allies.

The scandal isn’t just who appears in the Epstein files, but who is protected by the way they are released, reported and discussed. Transparency, it turns out, is only welcome when it points in the right direction – or should that be left direction?

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch