The UK has arrested high-profile figures connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Will the US?

Weeks after justice department officials released more than 3m investigative documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, there have not been any arrests in the US, prompting questions about whether any potential co-conspirators will be held accountable on American soil.

Indeed, consequences in the US for the sex trafficker’s associates have largely been limited to a handful of sombre resignations and public apologies of late – not high-level criminal prosecutions that victims and advocates have long demanded.

This lack of arrests contrasts sharply with authorities’ handling of Epstein associates in the UK. The former royal prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, as was ex-Washington ambassador Peter Mandelson days later. Neither man was arrested on suspicion of Epstein-related sexual misconduct, and Mountbatten-Windsor has adamantly denied such claims in prior statements.

Meanwhile in the US, there have been political investigations in Congress, and New Mexico’s top prosecutor announced an inquiry into Epstein’s Santa Fe-area ranch, but but there has been little federal action from the Department of Justice, run by Trump loyalist Pam Bondi.

Legal experts told the Guardian that there might be multiple reasons why federal authorities have not arrested anyone in relation to Epstein since accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell was apprehended in 2020. They said there might be legal issues – such as insufficient evidence to prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt – as well as a potential lack of political willpower.

Kate Mangels, a partner at Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir, said there might not be any US arrests because federal prosecutors had already made charging decisions.

“The documents that are being dribbled out in redacted form have been in the possession of the Department of Justice for some time,” Mangels said. “The US Department of Justice has already reviewed these documents and made whatever determinations they’ve made as to the feasibility of bringing charges.”

“The fact that documents are now being released, and that the public is now aware of certain things, or other countries are now aware of certain things, doesn’t necessarily change the DoJ position.”

Mangels said that US public pressure could affect authorities’ decision to prosecute, but that could carry complications. Since the DoJ long ago reviewed these materials and made decisions, pursuing prosecutions and investigations now “would probably raise questions”.

That said, further federal legal action is not necessarily off the table. The DoJ is a political department, so different leadership at the top might make a different determination about charges. And, “if new information came out, for whatever reason, that could obviously change the decision-making process”, Mangels said.

Asked why there haven’t been Epstein-related arrests in the US following these disclosures, Joseph McNally, former federal prosecutor and now director of emerging litigation at McNicholas & McNicholas, said: “We’ll see how it plays out”. McNally also pointed to the DoJ’s years-long possession of investigative documents.

“The southern district of New York has very capable, aggressive prosecutors,” McNally said, referring to the federal prosecutors’ office that pursued charges against Epstein in 2019 and against Maxwell. “I am confident that they would have looked at other targets that they could have potentially charged.”

“Maybe these documents will help spur new leads that will be looked at, but I don’t expect suddenly a round of criminal prosecutions to result from the release of documents,” he added. “These were documents the government had when they were previously making charging decisions.”

John Day, a defense attorney in New Mexico and former prosecutor, said that the UK’s decision suggests authorities there are “being aggressive about Epstein, and the fallout from Epstein, whereas the US Department of Justice seems willing to try to cover up and hide Epstein material”.

“The people who were allegedly involved with him are being arrested and prosecuted in the UK, and the people in the US who were involved with him apparently are being protected, which is tragic for the victims,” Day said, noting that the UK prosecutions are not based on sex trafficking, but rather misuse of sensitive government information.

There might also be legal limitations on what can happen in the US, as it’s possible that so much time has passed that crimes might exceed the statute of limitations. “If there’s no way to prosecute these people criminally, then you’re out of luck, which is an awful conclusion to the Epstein story,” he said.

Still, he said, “it’s sad that a country other than the US has taken the lead on pursuing the people associated with Epstein, whereas it looks like in his home country, people who were with him are being protected.

“I think there would have to be a significant change at the Department of Justice, because all the signs point to leadership at the Department of Justice trying to conceal, delay, obfuscate information from getting out, and protect powerful people who are associated with Epstein.”

Day is not alone in his belief that authorities abroad seem to care more about Epstein’s crimes than those in the US.

“The arrests taking place in the UK shows a country which is taking the sexual assault of victims and the Epstein investigation much more seriously than the US,” said Spencer Kuvin of Goldlaw, who as an attorney has represented multiple Epstein victims. “Unfortunately, I don’t believe that the current administration will take any further action against potential perpetrators here in the US. It will take a change in administration before any true justice will occur.”

At present, it remains unclear what will happen here in relation to Epstein’s associates at the federal level. Bondi, the attorney general, did seem to leave the door open for further action, reportedly telling a congressional committee “we have pending investigations in our office”, but additional details about any such inquiries appear vague.

Meanwhile, public outrage over Epstein seems all but guaranteed to persist – and remain a political liability for Trump, who was friends with Epstein until a falling out that predated the latter’s Florida state-level prostitution case.

Asked for comment, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said: “Just as President Trump has said, he’s been totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein.”

Jackson claimed that “by releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena request, signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and calling for more investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, President Trump has done more for Epstein’s victims than anyone before him.”