The latest tranche of Epstein files is humiliating and deeply exposing for the Royal Family, particularly Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Sarah Ferguson, but it would be a profound mistake to treat this as a story that begins and ends with the House of York. If anything, the documents underline a far more disturbing truth: Jeffrey Epstein embedded himself across the political, financial and technological elite, and even now there appears to be an active reluctance to let the full picture emerge.
For Andrew and Sarah, the details are excruciating. This is precisely the sort of material they hoped would never surface. We have known for years that the Yorks were close to Epstein. What these emails appear to show, if genuine, is the texture of that relationship: intimacy, dependence, and a level of trust that is impossible to square with Epstein’s status as a convicted paedophile.
The emails suggest Epstein was welcomed into the inner sanctum of royal life. Invitations to Buckingham Palace in September 2010. An invitation to Andrew’s birthday party at St James’s Palace in February 2010. All of this occurred after Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor and after his release in 2009. The dates matter and they are devastating.
Financial discussions, requests for help, exchanges about money, and even talk of Epstein setting Andrew up with women all point to something deeper than casual acquaintance. This was a man trusted with private anxieties and practical problems. The obsequious tone of the correspondence is especially hard to read and will be enraging for survivors. It suggests a relationship of dependence, one in which Epstein made himself indispensable. That fits disturbingly well with Sarah Ferguson’s later claim that she felt compelled to remain loyal because he was blackmailing her.
The timeline also directly challenges Andrew’s own account. In his Newsnight interview, he claimed his December 2010 meeting with Epstein in Central Park was an attempt to “honourably” end their association. Yet emails exchanged as late as February 2011 appear to show Epstein still assisting the Yorks financially. That contradiction goes to the heart of Andrew’s credibility.
It is important to be precise. These documents do not introduce new criminal allegations against Andrew. He continues to deny all wrongdoing, and the Metropolitan Police have said they will not pursue further inquiries into claims he asked a protection officer to investigate his accuser, Virginia Giuffre. But criminal liability is not the same as moral accountability, and for the Royal Family this remains painfully difficult reading.
Unsurprisingly, Andrew and Sarah sit at the top of search results. As the brother and former sister-in-law of the king, scrutiny is inevitable — and justified. These documents provide a level of insight into their judgment and conduct that they have long attempted to close down.
But focusing solely on the monarchy is precisely how this story becomes distorted.
The Missing Files and the Justice Department Row
This week’s release of around three million pages by the US Department of Justice has itself become a scandal. Democrats, survivors and watchdog groups have accused the DoJ of failing to release millions more records it is legally required to disclose.
Robert Garcia, the Democratic ranking member of the House Oversight Committee — which has taken a lead role in examining the government’s handling of the Epstein files — has accused Attorney General Pam Bondi of breaking the law. Lawmakers estimate that as much as 50% of the relevant material is still being withheld.
This matters. Not just symbolically, but substantively. Survivors have been clear that partial disclosure perpetuates harm. Selective transparency protects the powerful while creating the illusion of accountability. The question hanging over Washington now is simple: who is still being protected, and why?
That this controversy is unfolding under Donald Trump’s justice department only sharpens those questions.
Trump, the Clintons — and the Familiar Pattern of Evasion
Donald Trump’s proximity to Epstein has long been documented, yet he continues to oscillate between distancing himself and boasting about how well he knew him. Bill Clinton has acknowledged multiple flights on Epstein’s plane while claiming ignorance of his crimes. Hillary Clinton’s circle has consistently closed ranks. In the UK, Peter Mandelson has admitted socialising with Epstein, later describing it as an error of judgment.
Each case is treated in isolation. Each framed as a one-off lapse. Yet the same pattern repeats: Epstein retained access, influence and legitimacy long after his criminality was established. The question is not whether these figures committed crimes — but why Epstein was still welcome in their worlds at all.
Elon Musk and the Tech Elite
Perhaps most striking in the latest document dump is the revelation that Elon Musk had more extensive — and more friendly — communications with Epstein than previously known.
Emails released by the Department of Justice appear to show Musk and Epstein cordially messaging on at least two occasions, discussing plans for Musk to visit Epstein’s private island. There is no allegation of wrongdoing in these exchanges, but once again the pattern is unmistakable: Epstein positioning himself as a connector, a facilitator, a man worth knowing.
The tech world has often tried to portray itself as disruptive, outsider-driven and ethically distinct from old power structures. These emails suggest otherwise. Epstein’s reach extended seamlessly into Silicon Valley’s highest echelons, just as it did into politics, finance and royalty.
The Bigger Picture We Are Still Avoiding
More than three million pages are now public and yet we are still being told that roughly half the story remains locked away. The Royal Family will understandably feel uniquely battered by this moment. It will intensify calls for Andrew to finally speak in full, whether to US congressional investigators or to the public.
But justice demands consistency.
If Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is to be interrogated because of his proximity to power, then so should presidents, prime ministers, tech billionaires and political fixers. Epstein did not thrive because of one royal or one politician. He thrived because an entire elite ecosystem tolerated him, protected him and continued to draw value from him after his crimes were known.
Sarah Ferguson has said she would “never have anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again” and that her association with him was a “gigantic error of judgment”. That phrase echoes across this entire scandal.
The real question is no longer whether errors of judgment were made. It is why so many of the most powerful people on earth made the same error, repeatedly, and why, even now, the full truth still appears to be rationed.
