“Epstein” scandal; Why did Europe react harder than America? – Mehr news agency RCO News Agency

Mehr News Agency, International GroupHasan Shokohi Nasab: The case of American financier and notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has for years gone beyond a judicial scandal and has become a test of political systems and democratic norms.

The disclosure of the network of power, wealth and influence relationships that was formed around him, not only revealed the hidden dimensions of sexual abuse, but also posed a fundamental question to Western societies that to what extent are the political and economic elites accountable to public opinion and the law?

It is noteworthy that the consequences of this case were significantly different on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. In Europe, from London and Oslo to Paris, revelations of political, royal, and diplomatic ties to Epstein have led to a wave of resignations, judicial investigations, and official apologies. By contrast, in the United States, where Epstein committed the bulk of his crimes, the response has been limited, fragmented, and largely without serious political cost to influential figures.

This transatlantic divide is not simply a cross-sectional difference in the handling of a scandal, but a reflection of deeper differences in political culture, accountability structures, and the relationship between power and public morality. Why is it that in Europe, even the “connection” with Epstein was enough for the political downfall, but in America, the big names remained immune from serious consequences?

The answer to this question leads us to the heart of the difference between the two models of democracy, responsibility and politics in the West; where the Epstein case has become a full-length mirror to measure the health of political systems.

Europe and the chain fall of political elites

The Epstein case in Europe has led to a series of resignations, dismissals and judicial investigations, which shows the high sensitivity of the political systems of this continent to the connection of elites with moral scandals.

In England, the government’s decision to remove “Peter Mendelsohn” from the position of ambassador in Washington was taken quickly and led to his exit from the House of Lords. This action, which was accompanied by the acceptance of responsibility at the highest levels of the ruling party, was considered a symbol of the pressure of public opinion and the necessity of political accountability. At the same time, Prince Andrew was also deprived of royal titles and even the activities of some charitable institutions related to figures close to him were stopped.

In Norway, the consequences of the Epstein case had wider dimensions. The resignation of Norway’s ambassador to Jordan and Iraq, Mona Juel, after the disclosure of financial interests related to Epstein’s will, started an investigation that also involved former Prime Minister Torbjörn Jagland. On a symbolic level, Mette-Marit, the wife of the Norwegian crown prince, publicly apologized for her past connections with Epstein, a rare move among European royals; An action that showed that social pressure has forced even traditionally immune institutions to react.

This wave of reactions was not limited to Britain and Norway. In France, “Jean-Pierre Raffarne” and “Jack Long” faced political and judicial pressure, and in Eastern European countries, including Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania, official investigations were also started on the officials named in Epstein’s documents.

At the same time, the closure of charities linked to the network showed that Europe’s response was not just about individuals, but about structural cleansing and rebuilding public trust. Overall, the European political climate, especially after the “Me Too” movement and increased sensitivity to sexual abuse, has little tolerance for such scandals and has made the political cost of communication very high even without direct evidence of crime.

Why didn’t any prominent official fall in America?

In stark contrast to Europe, in America, the main focus of Jeffrey Epstein’s activities and crimes, almost no prominent political or economic figure has faced serious consequences. The name “Donald Trump” has been repeatedly mentioned in documents, civil complaints and media reports related to Epstein, but these connections not only did not lead to his political downfall, but also did not prevent him from returning to power. In the absence of a comprehensive and independent judicial investigation, this case practically reached a dead end at the American political level.

This pattern is not limited to Trump, and his Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick remained in office despite the release of documents about his communications with Epstein and no meaningful disciplinary action by government agencies. In the economic field, large financial institutions supported their managers and advisors, whose names are mentioned in the margins of this case; Support that shows that in America, economic power is often an effective shield against media pressure and public opinion. In this environment, the cost of damage to reputation and credibility is considered much lower than the political cost of resignation or dismissal.

Figures like “Elon Musk” and “Steve Bannon” also passed the sidelines of this case without facing practical consequences. The focus of the dominant discourse in America has not been on the moral responsibility of the elite, but on the need to deal with the main criminals; An approach that practically limits the scope of accountability and protects influential people from political consequences.

According to Politico, the only people who left their positions were figures without direct political power; Which shows that in the American political structure, the fall is usually not the result of the pressure of public opinion but the product of the loss of power supports.

Structural-cultural analysis of the roots of the Atlantic divide

The difference in reactions to the Epstein case on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean is more than anything rooted in the difference in governance structures. In most of the European countries, parliamentary systems prevail, in which the political legitimacy of the elite depends on the trust of the parliament and public opinion. In such a system, even an indirect connection with a moral scandal can quickly deplete an official’s political capital and turn resignation or removal into a preemptive measure to preserve the credibility of institutions. Accountability in Europe often takes meaning before a judicial verdict is issued and is based on the logic of “immediate political cost”.

On the contrary, the American presidential structure gives more power to the president and makes accountability mechanisms more complicated and slower. Formal processes of impeachment and political prosecution require broad consensus and are virtually deadlocked in America’s highly polarized atmosphere. On the other hand, ministers and senior advisers are more dependent on the president than they are accountable to the legislative institutions; A thing that replaces political loyalty with institutional and moral accountability and minimizes the cost of violations or suspicions.

Beyond the political structure, deep cultural differences also play a decisive role. In many European societies, the pressure of the media and the sensitivity of public opinion, especially after movements like “Me Too” (Me Too), have greatly reduced the threshold of tolerance for sexual abuse and power networks. In this environment, the damage to the public reputation quickly becomes a political consequence. In America, however, political polarization has caused even moral scandals to be redefined within the framework of party competition, and the cost of prestige for groups supporting a political figure has become practically ineffective.

Finally, elite behavioral patterns have cemented this divide. The style of politics attributed to Trump, based on denial, counterattack and avoiding accepting responsibility, has become a dominant norm in a part of American politics; A norm in which retreat is considered a sign of weakness. In contrast, in Europe, resignation and acceptance of responsibility is still part of the logic of maintaining public trust. This structural and cultural difference has caused the Epstein case to become a political earthquake in Europe and a contained and low-cost crisis in America; A gap that speaks not only about a scandal but also about the meaning of accountability in contemporary democracies.