Pressure mounted on Keir Starmer on Monday as Britain’s prime minister struggled to contain the political fallout from his government’s links to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a crisis now threatening the stability of his premiership.

Starmer is facing mounting anger in parliament over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States, despite Mandelson’s documented past association with Epstein. Opposition figures and some Labour lawmakers have demanded Starmer take responsibility, with calls for his resignation growing louder.

The controversy deepened after Starmer’s chief of staff and longtime confidant, Morgan McSweeney, resigned on Sunday. McSweeney had advised the prime minister on the Mandelson appointment, leaving Starmer without his closest political shield at a critical moment.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the situation was “untenable,” arguing that while advisers offer guidance, ultimate responsibility lies with the prime minister. “He made a bad decision,” she said, “and he should take responsibility for that.”

The crisis marks the most serious challenge of Starmer’s 18-month tenure. Already weakened by repeated policy reversals since taking office in July 2024, Starmer now faces dire polling numbers, with surveys showing him to be the most unpopular prime minister in modern British history.

The row reignited after the U.S. Justice Department released new Epstein-related documents on January 30, allegedly indicating that Mandelson shared confidential UK government information with Epstein while serving as a minister, including during the 2008 financial crisis. British police are investigating Mandelson for possible misconduct in public office and raided two of his properties last week. He has not been arrested.

Starmer dismissed Mandelson from his post last September, saying he had been misled during the vetting process. He has since apologised publicly to Epstein’s victims, but the damage has spread across his party, with Labour trailing the hard-right Reform UK by double digits in recent polls ahead of key local elections in May.

With no clear successor emerging inside Labour, senior figures have rallied behind Starmer for now. But the Epstein fallout has exposed deep vulnerabilities at the heart of his leadership — and raised new questions about how much longer he can hold on.

Epstein names fall abroad. Silence in America? Sheryl Crow explodes — and names Trump.

U.S. singer Sheryl Crow has publicly called for the impeachment and imprisonment of Donald Trump, accusing American institutions of failing to hold powerful figures accountable over their links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

In a statement posted to Instagram on Thursday, Crow said that while figures named in Epstein-related files in other countries have faced resignations, prosecutions, or investigations, the United States has largely avoided consequences.

“Those named in the Epstein files in other countries are going down hard for it. Not in America,” Crow wrote. “Who are we if we do not stand up for children?”

She argued that Trump, along with anyone — “Democrat, Republican, American, or foreign” — who knew about Epstein’s crimes and failed to act should face legal consequences.

The comments followed the Justice Department’s release last month of millions of documents tied to the Epstein investigation. Media reviews found thousands of references to Trump, though none showed direct criminal wrongdoing. Trump has repeatedly denied any involvement, saying he cut ties with Epstein in the early 2000s and expelled him from his Mar-a-Lago club.

The White House has not publicly responded to Crow’s remarks.

The Epstein case continues to reverberate internationally. In recent months, several prominent figures abroad have resigned or been placed under investigation following document releases, fueling criticism that accountability has been uneven — particularly in the United States.

Crow’s comments add to growing public pressure from cultural figures demanding renewed scrutiny of Epstein’s network and justice for victims, as debates intensify over political accountability and institutional trust.

Epstein Files Expose the Elite’s Web: What the New Document Dump Reveals—and What It Doesn’t.

The latest release of documents tied to the Justice Department’s investigations into Jeffrey Epstein does not deliver criminal verdicts. What it delivers is something more uncomfortable: a detailed map of proximity between a convicted sex offender and some of the most powerful men of the last three decades.

From royalty and former heads of government to technology founders, financiers and political strategists, the files show how Epstein continued to operate within elite circles long after his criminal record was public. None of the individuals named have been charged with crimes related to Epstein’s abuse. Many deny close relationships or any knowledge of wrongdoing. Yet the correspondence, invitations and travel plans captured in the documents raise a deeper question that legal standards alone cannot answer: how did access to power repeatedly override judgment?

What emerges is not evidence of a single conspiracy, but a pattern of tolerance. Epstein was treated as a fixer, a connector, a man whose wealth and social capital granted him repeated second chances. Invitations to palaces, islands and townhouses did not stop after his 2008 conviction. In some cases, they intensified.

This is the central lesson of the files. Epstein did not rely on secrecy alone. He relied on status. For many around him, the risk of association appeared manageable, the benefits tangible, and the moral cost abstract—until it wasn’t.

The presence of figures such as Prince Andrew underscores how institutions struggle when personal relationships collide with reputational damage. The stripping of his titles years later reflects a belated reckoning, not an immediate one. In the private emails now public, the boundaries between official roles and personal indulgence blur in ways that would be unthinkable for ordinary citizens.

The tech and business figures named in the files highlight a similar dynamic. In industries that celebrate disruption and informal networks, Epstein positioned himself as a conduit to capital, influence and global connections. Even when some claim to have refused his overtures, the correspondence shows how close the orbit was allowed to become.

Politics is no exception. Former officials and advisers appear in the files discussing meetings, logistics and favors, often long after Epstein’s crimes were known. In at least one case, the fallout was immediate and career-ending, even without allegations of criminal behavior. That contrast—between resignation in one country and silence in others—shows how accountability remains uneven and contingent on political culture.

It is important to be precise. Being named in these documents is not proof of abuse. The files do not establish criminal liability for those mentioned. Conflating proximity with guilt would repeat the injustice Epstein inflicted on his victims by disregarding due process.

But dismissing the revelations as meaningless would be equally dishonest. The documents expose how elite systems protect themselves. Epstein moved comfortably through worlds that prize discretion, loyalty and mutual benefit. When warning signs appeared, they were often minimized, outsourced to lawyers, or ignored altogether.

The enduring relevance of the Epstein files lies in what they say about power, not just about one predator. They show how reputations are insulated, how access is currency, and how moral failure can persist in plain sight when consequences are deferred.

Epstein is dead. Many of his victims are still seeking justice, and many of the systems that enabled him remain intact. The documents do not close the case. They reopen a broader one: whether elite accountability is a principle or a performance.

For now, the files offer no final reckoning. They offer a record. And records have a way of outlasting denials.