What Does the Arrest of Andrew Tell Us?

One of my Democrat friends pointed to the arrest of former Prince Andrew as proof that there were prosecutable crimes concealed in the Epstein files – covered up by both the Biden and Trump administrations. I suspect that most people might see it that way. And there is no doubt that the Trump Derangement Syndrome folks will spin it that way. It may be a widely held misconception, but it is not accurate.

The first and most important point is this that Andrew is not being charged with pedophilia. Not now, not previously, not in the United States, and not in the United Kingdom. The allegations that have circulated for years are well known, and Andrew has consistently denied them. Two separate U.S. Justice Departments – under two different presidents, two different attorneys general, and two very different political climates – reviewed the available evidence. Both concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against Andrew that would stand up in court. That does not mean he is innocent. Just that a case cannot be proven based on known evidence. That is not a political cover‑up. That is the legal system doing what it is supposed to do. Deal with evidence, not rumors.

People forget that the Epstein saga is a magnet for speculation. It is a story with powerful figures, secretive behavior, and a man who died before he could be fully interrogated. That combination practically invites conspiracy theories. But the fact that something is suspicious does not automatically make it prosecutable. The Justice Department cannot indict someone because the public finds them unsavory or because social media has already declared them guilty. Prosecutors need evidence that meets a legal standard, and in Andrew’s case, they did not have it. That could change, but I would not bet on it.

So if the arrest is not about sexual misconduct, what is it about? A completely different issue – one that has nothing to do with Epstein’s sex trafficking crimes in the United States. Andrew is being investigated under British law for allegedly providing Epstein with confidential or sensitive information related to British security matters. That is a serious allegation, but it is a British one. It is not an American crime, and it is not connected to the U.S. criminal allegations that have dominated headlines for years.

It is also a crime that has been under investigation by the British before the release of the Epstein files. It was one of the reasons that the monarchy stripped Andrew of his royal positions and evicted him from the royal estate.

This distinction matters. The British legal system has its own statutes governing the handling of official information, national security, and the conduct of members of the royal family. If Andrew violated those laws, the British authorities have every right – indeed, an obligation – to investigate. But that investigation does not retroactively prove that the U.S. had a prosecutable case on unrelated allegations. It does not mean the Biden or Trump administrations buried evidence regarding Andrew. It simply means that British authorities believe there may have been a breach of British law.

The temptation to connect every development in the Epstein orbit into one grand unified theory is understandable. The story is sprawling, emotional, highly political and unresolved. But not every thread ties together. Sometimes a new development is just that: a new development, not a revelation that everything we thought we knew was a lie.

It is also worth noting that the U.S. Justice Department has been under intense public scrutiny regarding Epstein for years. If there had been credible, chargeable evidence against Andrew, it would have been politically safer to bring the case than to ignore it. No administration benefits from appearing to protect a foreign royal from culpability in heinous crimes. The idea that two administrations – one Republican, one Democrat, each eager to expose the failures of the other – would both independently choose to hide the same evidence strains credibility.

What Andrew’s arrest really tells us is something far less dramatic but far more grounded. Legal systems operate according to evidence, jurisdiction, and the specific statutes that apply. The British government is pursuing a case that falls under its laws. The U.S. government declined to pursue a case that did not meet its legal threshold. These two facts can coexist without implying corruption, conspiracy, or political manipulation.

People will continue to project their own narratives onto the Epstein story. Some will see Andrew’s arrest as vindication of their salacious suspicions. Others will see it as proof of a global cover‑up. But the reality is simpler. Andrew is facing a British investigation for a British offense. The U.S. allegations remain uncharged because the evidence did not support prosecution. That may not satisfy those who want a more sensational explanation, but it is the explanation grounded in law rather than dubious speculation.

So, there ‘tis.