Epstein file dump triggers global political and royal fallout (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: So, 3 million pages of documents, 180,000 images and 2,000 videos. The latest release of files related to the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein is shocking in its size and its content. Investigations are now underway in at least 10 countries. We're still combing through the detail and every day we uncover more and more about the crimes of the disgraced financier and the people he was connected to. Well, over the next half an hour, we'll discuss the key revelations uncovered so far and the seismic impacts they've had. We have analysis from our Chief North America Correspondent Gary O'Donoghue in Washington, in Windsor, our Senior Royal Correspondent Daniela Relf, our Political Correspondent Nick Erdley is in Westminster, our Analysis Editor Ros Atkins is in our BBC Verify hub and our Business Editor Simon Jack is here with me in London, as is Norma Iqbal who's been looking at the response from the victims and their families. Plenty to digest, but it all started exactly a week ago.

[00:01:05] Speaker 2: Today we are producing more than 3 million pages, including more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. In total, that means that the department produced approximately 3.5 million pages in compliance with the Act.

[00:01:24] Speaker 1: Well it's been a whirlwind week. By Friday evening, the new documents showed Epstein and the former Prince Andrew kept a close relationship long after he was convicted in 2008. By the next morning, a photo had emerged of Andrew crouched on all fours over an unidentified woman. He has yet to comment on the latest release of documents, but has always denied any wrongdoing. On Sunday, Peter Mandelson was back in the spotlight. Documents revealed Epstein paid $75,000 into accounts linked to the former UK ambassador to the US between 2003 and 2004. He said he has no record or recollection of receiving the sums and didn't know whether the documents were authentic. Police have now started searches of two of his properties. On Monday, emails which appear to be from Sarah Ferguson, Andrew's ex-wife and former Duchess of York, illustrated the closeness of her relationship with Epstein, even whilst he was in prison. In one, she calls him the brother she always wished for. The emails do not indicate any wrongdoing. By Tuesday, the Met Police launched an investigation into Peter Mandelson. Documents suggested he'd been passing market-sensitive material to Epstein when he was business secretary in Gordon Brown's government in the middle of the financial crisis of 2008. He maintains he did not act criminally and did not act for personal gain. Epstein had connections everywhere from Norway to Poland to Australia, among them Bill Gates. On Wednesday, the billionaire said he regretted every minute he spent with Jeffrey Epstein. Among the latest tranche of documents, Epstein accused Gates of contracting a sexually transmitted infection from Russian girls, a claim he denies. On Thursday, the Prime Minister himself was facing huge pressure for appointing Mandelson as US ambassador. Keir Starmer fronted the media to apologise. Well, at the heart of this scandal are the victims, the survivors of the abuse orchestrated by Epstein. Our correspondent Nomi Iqbal has been following the scandal for a number of years. And Nomi, for the victims, there are multiple strands, aren't there? Satisfaction because they campaigned for so long for this, fury at the way that many have been identified and a fear that perhaps some of the worst hasn't been released here.

[00:03:55] Speaker 3: That's right. So many strands because Matthew isn't just one abuser or one crime. Yes, Epstein was at the centre of it. His web spanned governments, royalty, finance, intelligence linked circles in the US and the UK, years of institutional failure. But we're going through these documents one by one as journalists. We're analysing, we're verifying. But for survivors, this is this is their life. This is a case of reopening their trauma, their abuse. And in many cases, they're discovering aspects of that abuse that they didn't know. And you touched on it there. The Department of Justice. This is staggering. They accidentally released information about survivors who did not want to be identified, who've now been identified. And lawyers have said it's caused irreparable harm to them. I want you to have a listen to Marina Lacerda. Now, she's originally from Brazil, now lives in the US. She met Epstein when she was 14 years old and he went on to exploit her for three years. This is what she had to say on seeing those files.

[00:04:57] Speaker 4: When I seen my files that are no longer obviously in the DOJ's website, I was in shock because there are things in there that I did not know. And I had to find out on that Friday when it was released. And it has drained me because I cannot stop thinking about it. And I I'm just I'm heartbroken about this. I'm extremely, extremely stressed. I'm frustrated. I'm sad. I'm feeling every emotion and they are not good.

[00:05:31] Speaker 3: I'm going to be Marina speaking to BBC Newsnight. Let's also hear now from Ashley Rubright, who was introduced to Epstein sometime after she turned 15. She had this to say on the fight for justice.

[00:05:43] Speaker 5: We didn't choose this fight. We would have much rather have just been moms or, you know, gone after our careers and him just be a distant memory. But, you know, we weren't able to heal in peace. So now we're screaming in public because we don't have a choice anymore.

[00:06:10] Speaker 3: And also Amanda Roberts. She spoke to the BBC Newsnight programme now. She's a sister-in-law of Virginia Dufresne, who is one of the most prominent accusers of Epstein and the former Prince Andrew. She was in that infamous photo where Matt Basin Windsor is seen with this arm around her. We spoke to Virginia Maxwell, who's also in that photo, who was convicted in 2021 as Epstein's co-conspirator, has confirmed seemingly that that photo is real. The former prince has always denied any wrongdoing. He previously even questioned whether that photo was real. He claimed it was doctored and said he'd never met Dufresne. Now Virginia died by suicide in April 2025. Have a listen to what her sister-in-law Amanda Roberts had to say.

[00:06:52] Speaker 6: It's a whirlwind. I think this moment I felt a moment of like such overwhelming emotion because I wish that she was here to see this. She fought so hard and so long against all odds and she still was just so... She was so strong for everyone, not just for her, but for her survivor sisters and every single survivor who has been discounted. And so this moment, it's a bittersweet moment because we're proud of her and her accomplishments and finally I think the world is really beginning to see the truth. And so we're proud of her but we miss her greatly in this moment because she should be, she should be reveling, you know, in this moment.

[00:07:47] Speaker 3: Amanda Roberts there. Now the only institution doing any kind of investigation is Congress but they don't have charging powers. They are due to hear from, as I mentioned, the person that has been convicted, the only person, Ghislaine Maxwell. She is due to give a deposition next week. That is likely to re-traumatise survivors, especially because, yes, they wanted these files released but they want accountability, they want investigations, they want people arrested, they want people charged, they want people jailed. And so releasing these files, and there's more to come yet, we understand, for them it's simply not a closed chapter.

[00:08:24] Speaker 1: Namia, thanks very much. Let's focus now on the epicentre of this entire scandal and the politics around the release of these documents in the United States. Let's go to our chief North America correspondent, Gary O'Donoghue. And Gary, Donald Trump resisted this move for a year. Now he's saying the country should move on. So talk me through the reaction there has been there.

[00:08:48] Speaker 7: Well, there's been horror, really. A lot of the fresh revelations that have come out of these three million plus documents over the last few days, and of course people are still going through those things, still finding things, still finding photographs, still finding, identifying information about some of the survivors. In fact, the Department of Justice said that it expected to have released information erroneously and had set up an email address beforehand for people to get in touch to have things brought down. So they knew this was coming down the line, but they argue they were under a deadline. They say their work is done, that their review of these documents is over and that there is no grounds to prosecute anyone, anyone at all, apart from Epstein, of course, who's dead, and Ghislaine Maxwell, who's in prison for 20 years. No other prosecutions currently being looked at. That is something, of course, that's incredibly difficult for many of the survivors to contemplate. They think, how can there be so much information, so much circumstantial information without anyone else being held accountable? And of course, we do know that the FBI were looking into co-conspirators, a number of co-conspirators, but we still don't know who those people are and to what extent they were investigated and what reasons there might have been for not prosecuting them. So there's that. And as Nomi was saying, Congress is the only real body that's looking into this now. It's a Republican-led House of Representatives. It's conducting its investigations. Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell next week, but also at the end of the month, the Clintons. The Clintons will be here in Congress giving evidence to that committee. They declined, refused to do so for months, but it was the threat of contempt proceedings and potentially jail that has made them decide to come here. And they want to do it in public. We'll see whether that happens. If it does, Matthew, that will keep this thing going in a big way.

[00:10:47] Speaker 1: Gary, a quick one. The material not released. Will that ever become public?

[00:10:55] Speaker 7: Well, there's certainly a lot of pressure from members of Congress on both sides, in fact, and indeed from the survivors to get that stuff released. It's pretty vague about what it is. Some of it apparently is child pornography. Some of it is images of death. It was described as by the deputy assistant, deputy attorney general. But he also said there was other material that was sort of a personal nature, medical nature. And people will be saying, well, what is it? What can we see? What can we see? The redactions in the stuff that has been published, all these questions remain. And yes, of course, there are still some documents in New York that may come out as well. But still a bunch of questions about the material that's already out there and what they're keeping back.

[00:11:37] Speaker 1: Gary, thanks very much. Well, let's go from Washington to Westminster and to our political correspondent, Nick Erdely. And Nick, such a contrast between what is happening in the U.S. and happening here, because there has been a political earthquake in the last week with the prime minister fighting to stay in his job.

[00:11:54] Speaker 8: Well, it absolutely has. The impact of the publication of these files has been profound in the U.K. We already knew that Lord Mandelson had been sacked as U.S. ambassador because more links with Jeffrey Epstein had emerged last year. But this tranche of documents shows a very different relationship. It shows just how close they were, but also that Lord Mandelson appears to have passed some sensitive information on to Jeffrey Epstein, sensitive U.K. government information from when Lord Mandelson was business secretary here, stuff that included discussion over asset sales in the U.K. government, including information about a potential Eurozone bailout after the financial crisis. And that has really led to the earthquake you talk about in British politics, because Lord Mandelson is now no longer a member of the House of Lords, he's no longer a member of the Labour Party in which he was so consequential for the past few decades. There is now a massive question over the prime minister himself and whether his future is guaranteed because of his judgment of putting Lord Mandelson in the U.S. ambassador job in the first place. So it is no exaggeration to say that the publication of these files could potentially bring down a prime minister.

[00:13:15] Speaker 1: Well, exactly. On that documentation and the paperwork that's going to become public, real peril about what actually might come out, not just around the appointment, but wider.

[00:13:27] Speaker 8: Yeah, absolutely. So one of the knock-on consequences of the Epstein files in the U.K. has been, one, a police investigation into Lord Mandelson, two, parliament voting to publish all the information the U.K. government holds about the vetting process for Lord Mandelson getting the U.S. ambassador job and, crucially, all communications between Lord Mandelson, government ministers and special advisers whilst Lord Mandelson was U.S. ambassador. That's potentially a huge amount of embarrassing and potentially damaging information. Now, we might not see all of it publicly. There's a process going on where a committee of parliamentarians will decide if some stuff has to be held back because it's sensitive either for national security or international relations. That's pretty controversial in and of itself. But we are going to see a lot of information published by the U.K. government. A lot of it could be very problematic for number 10. Number 10 says it shows, it will show that Lord Mandelson lied during his vetting process. My understanding is Lord Mandelson insists he was accurate in the answers he gave. But all of this comes back to that tranche of documents published in the U.S. Had that not been published, this trickle-down of crises for the U.K. government wouldn't have happened. As it stands this afternoon, Keir Starmer is still in his job. But plenty of his own MPs, Labour MPs, aren't sure how long that will be the case.

[00:15:06] Speaker 1: Nick, thanks very much. Let's go straight to Windsor and our senior royal correspondent, Daniela Ralph. And Daniela, as we have already touched on, we have seen that new grim photo of Andrew crouching over a young woman. An email that appears to confirm the picture with Virginia Dufresne was real. Rubbish emails from Sarah Ferguson with her taking her daughters to meet Epstein in the week after his release from prison. It is devastating stuff, isn't it?

[00:15:33] Speaker 9: It is. It's been a really difficult and damaging week for the royal family. And what has become crystal clear reading through so many of those emails this week is that the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Sarah Ferguson, his ex-wife, was very close. And in reading them all, you also get a sense of the power play in the relationship as well. And it's very clear that the power lay with Jeffrey Epstein. When you read the exchanges, his replies to them are quite curt, are quite factual. But their responses to him are almost over-complimentary. They're fawning. They're even desperate at times in tone. And I think looking at this latest drop of Epstein files has taught us a lot about the nature of the relationship between the three of them. The photos, as you mentioned as well, have also been extremely damaging and really unsettling. I think perhaps that one that emerged last weekend, or a series of them, of a barefoot Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, casually dressed, leaning over someone, a woman lying down on the ground. We think that is in Jeffrey Epstein's home in Manhattan. It's not clear what the context is or quite what was going on. But again, it is damaging. It is unsettling. It's upsetting. And again, as you say, that photo, the photo that really, in my mind, marks the start of the downfall of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, of him standing with Virginia Giuffre, with Ghislaine Maxwell in the background, a photo he said he had no recollection of. He even questioned during his BBC interview whether it had been doctored in some way. We now know from an exchange of emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell that it appears that Ghislaine Maxwell says that photo is real.

[00:17:14] Speaker 1: Daniella, growing pressure for the police to investigate Andrew and growing pressure on the palace and the king to do more to pressurise Andrew to co-operate with the US authorities. We see in these emails countless efforts to do that that have been frustrated.

[00:17:32] Speaker 9: Yes, all sorts of different paths that the authorities have taken to try and persuade Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor over the year to talk to them, to share information with them that just hasn't been successful. And it's been really interesting watching the response from the royal household from Buckingham Palace over the course of the past week. We haven't heard anything directly except from Prince Edward, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's younger brother, who was asked a question about it at a conference he was speaking at in Dubai and said that his thoughts were with the victims. He said there are a lot of victims in this situation. The king and queen have been out and about in the UK this week. They were thrown questions, people shouted questions at them, but there was no response from them either. Sources within the royal household do say to us that at the end of the day, whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor gives evidence to the authorities is ultimately going to be down to one thing, and that is his conscience.

[00:18:26] Speaker 1: Daniela, thanks very much. Well, Jeffrey Epstein kept friends in high places. The British royal family is not the only one under pressure. The Crown Princess of Norway, Mette Marit, features hundreds of times in the latest files released relating to Epstein. She expressed a deep regret for her friendship with Epstein that continued even after his conviction. And there are many giants of business in those files. Let's turn to our business editor, Simon Jack. He's in the studio here with me. And Simon, as Normia was saying earlier, this was a huge web, wasn't it, of power, of money, of influence, of abuse. So what have you picked out?

[00:19:05] Speaker 10: You're right. It's a mirroring network of the richest and most powerful people in the world. In fact, if you are extremely rich and powerful, there's every chance you will be mentioned in these files, either as a correspondent or come up in correspondence. I should say there's no suggestion that just appearing in these documents is any implication of any wrongdoing. But it is a formidable role, called Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Leon Black, a big private equity guy, Sergey Brin, founder of Google, big bankers, Mohammed bin Salman, etc. All of them are there in a kind of network. If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, make introductions, etc. We've got some more flesh on the bones of things that have already cost some of the top people their jobs. For example, Jez Staley, you just had there, that's Leon Black, who is the founder of Apollo. They both had to step down because of their associations with Epstein without admitting any wrongdoing. You've also seen people like Richard Branson. He said, I visited him a couple of times, but I regret that relationship only a few occasions more than 12 years ago, was limited to a group of business settings. And then you've got sort of politicians as well, economists like Larry Summers. Elon Musk, of course, is in there. He was inquiring about attending a party there to which he never attended and Bill Gates, the history with him and Epstein goes back several years. But I think what's interesting about this is, if you look at Staley back, Ben Wegg-Prosser, who founded a PR company with Peter Mandelson, he stepped down from his own business just a year ago. So this network, which was meant to confer advantage and power and favouritism and getting you in, has actually had incredibly corrosive effects on some of the people who've been involved with him.

[00:20:48] Speaker 1: And it is worth underlining just the staggering nature of what is in those emails around Peter Mandelson, what he was sending to Epstein around the time of the financial crisis, sometimes within minutes of important meetings.

[00:21:03] Speaker 10: I think that – and actually, the current Governor of the Bank of England got actually quite emotional the other day, saying that he said he couldn't believe – he was shocked at the fact that details of possible things like sales of government assets, the break of RBS, the bank, a Eurozone bailout, big conversations in – sensitive conversations in close quarters, relayed within minutes by Peter Mandelson to Jeffrey Epstein to be passed on to his banking contacts. And Andrew Bailey – I've never seen him like this – he said, I don't want to sound pious, but this is for all of us. How is it that we live in a society in which this has happened and the cover-up happened as well? So there are investigations about whether those leaks about very sensitive matters constitute misconduct in a public office. That investigation is ongoing, as Nick was talking about. And also, a lot of people have asked me, is this insider dealing? Is there stuff that he said that people could trade on? Possibly yes, but the definition of that is incredibly narrow. You have to prove that I would have bought this share because it was going to go up anyway. I think that's very difficult. But I think overall, Andrew Bailey expressed the view of many in the business community that they were pretty shocked that this stuff was getting out.

[00:22:14] Speaker 1: It's worth asking you. You've covered business for decades. Have you seen anything quite like this?

[00:22:19] Speaker 10: No, I've never seen anything quite like this where there are so many tendrils, if you like, to so many people. I mean, it's not just in US business, it's in UK business. Mohammed bin Salman is in this correspondence. You've got, as you were talking about, people in Norway. There are some families in France which have come up in correspondence. It's actually amazing how actually a sort of lawyer from Brooklyn managed to construct this web. The idea was to try and confer a bit of advantage and favour and it ended up being very corrosive for all concerned.

[00:22:52] Speaker 1: Simon, thank you for taking me through all of that. Let's head to the BBC Verify hub and our analysis editor, Ros Atkins. And Ros, just take us through the work BBC Verify has been doing on this cache of documents.

[00:23:07] Speaker 11: Hello, Matthew. Well, the scale and the nature of this release of files has definitely, to a degree, shaped our work. As we've been discussing, there are millions of files, emails, letters, photos, audio and video. And the way that they were put online by the Department of Justice doesn't necessarily make them particularly easy to search and sift, which is why we've seen new developments throughout the last week as the BBC and other news organisations have searched through the vast amount of files. And there are different aspects to the work that we've been doing. Our data scientists have been producing different pieces of code to help us identify files of interest. We've also been verifying the location of some of the photos that have been released. And we've assessed close to 1,000 videos. And there are different challenges that have come with that work. The videos, for example, frequently come with no additional information at all. So no date, no location, no details of where the files are from. In addition, we've had to take great care with the language in our reporting. For example, in some videos, we're describing young females because we can't be sure if the videos show young women or girls. And then we have to reference the redaction errors made by the Department of Justice. You were discussing this earlier. Some of the photos and videos show survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, and they can be identified. Some of these files have been taken offline by the Department of Justice, but not all. Needless to say, the BBC is taking great care to not identify the survivors affected by these redaction errors. All of this relates to the files that have been published. We should also say we're working to highlight fake files that are circulating. We're seeing fake e-mails claiming to be from Elon Musk, fake images claiming to show Saurabh Mandani, the New York mayor. Now, some of these fakes have had millions of views, and, of course, it's important for us to highlight that they are not from the batch of files that were released.

[00:24:52] Speaker 1: Ros, how do we see this story going?

[00:24:56] Speaker 11: Well, I think we can definitely expect more stories to emerge from this batch of files. The work goes on by the BBC and by many other news organisations. And because of the number of files, even though we've all been working on this story for a week, more details will emerge. And there's one other thing that I would emphasise, and Nick was talking about this earlier. This act of transparency in the U.S. with the Department of Justice sharing these files is potentially leading to further transparency in Westminster. We understand senior U.K. government figures may well have to share their electronic communications, their e-mails and messages that were exchanged with Peter Mandelson. The BBC understands that could be up to 100,000 documents, which means there's going to be a lot more for all of us to see. And that, Matthew, isn't just about Peter Mandelson. It may give us insights into how the U.K. perceives its relations with the U.S. and perhaps how some U.K. officials see Donald Trump too. So for all of those reasons, for number 10, this story is far from over.

[00:25:54] Speaker 1: Just in about 45 seconds, Ros, I suppose the other critical element, and they'll be feeling it in number 10, they'll be feeling it in a variety of capitals and individuals. There is so much that none of us really know what is still to come. And that could have all sorts of ramifications and consequences.

[00:26:15] Speaker 11: Well, you're quite right, because the Trump administration has moved around its position on how many files it will release, if it's going to release any. At one stage, Donald Trump did not seem to be committed to that happening. There was some criticism from within his own supporters, and now we've seen this really significant release of files in the last week. It's not clear how many further files will be released. But of course, we know further files do exist, and we know files outside of the Epstein files also exist. We've just been talking about transparency in Westminster. And so, of course, anyone who's been involved in sending those messages will be wondering, will they be put in the public domain?