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

Comments are closed.