The latest revelations from the files related to Jeffrey Epstein have done far more than just alter the American political discourse. Public disclosures have also led to resignations and investigations spanning from boardrooms to academia to governmental offices abroad.
But by any fair measure, the most dramatic development to date is the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, better known as the United Kingdom’s former Prince Andrew. The Thames Valley Police took the former royal into custody on Thursday morning on suspicion of misconduct in public office. While the specific details of the criminal allegations are not yet known, BBC News reported that the arrest “comes after Thames Valley Police said they were assessing a complaint over the alleged sharing of confidential material by the former prince” with the late sex offender.
Time will tell what becomes of the criminal case and its potential implications, though Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest renewed a larger conversation about accountability, and who’s held responsible for alleged wrongdoing and who is not.
Indeed, right around the time the world was learning of the former prince’s arrest, the public also learned that former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to life imprisonment, having been convicted of overseeing a 2024 insurrection attempt that sparked a constitutional crisis in the country.
One week earlier, former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland was charged with “gross corruption” over his Epstein ties.
Three months earlier, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, having been convicted of plotting what was effectively a coup, began a 27-year prison sentence.
A month before that, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy began a five-year sentence, having been found guilty of criminal association for attempting to use Libya to finance his campaign illegally.
In stable, advanced democracies around the globe, it’s not uncommon to see governments hold criminal suspects accountable — even if they’re politically powerful, and even if they served at the highest levels.
Italy prosecuted a former prime minister. France prosecuted a former prime minister, in addition to Sarkozy. South Africa prosecuted a former president. South Korea prosecuted a former president before sending a different former president to prison. Israel has prosecuted more than one former prime minister. Germany prosecuted a former president. Portugal prosecuted a former prime minister. Croatia prosecuted a former prime minister. Argentina prosecuted a former president. Austria prosecuted a former chancellor. Pakistan prosecuted a former prime minister.
These cases did not lead to violence or threats of violence. The criminal cases were tried without incident. These countries’ political systems persevered just fine, without talk of institutional breakdowns. The cases did not turn their countries into “banana republics,” and the judiciaries in these nations saw no need to elevate their former heads of state above the law.
There were also no systemic campaigns to punish the prosecutors who enforced the laws or the criminal investigators who worked on the cases.
And then there’s the United States, where Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices ruled in 2024 that Donald Trump, at the time a former president, was immune from prosecution for any possible crimes he might have committed while carrying out his duties. (Trump is also shielded from legal accountability during his tenure in the White House under existing Justice Department policy.)
In other words, we’ve reached a point at which British authorities can hold the king’s brother accountable, but American authorities are out of luck when it comes to Trump, no matter how much evidence they’ve compiled documenting the Republican’s alleged felonies.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
