Prince Andrew Arrested Over Epstein Files & Trump Threatens Iran War at Board of Peace
PDS Published 02/19/2026
-
UK police arrested the former prince Andrew over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
And in the US, a few people have resigned, I guess? Although not anybody in the Trump administration, not even Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick – despite his blatant bald-faced lies about visiting Epstein’s Island.
And the whole thing just seems to be the latest example of the US proving itself uniquely unable to hold almost anyone who associated Epstein even remotely accountable.
But with all that, we gotta start with this news absolutely rocking the UK right now.
It started this morning with police issuing a statement that they had “arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk on suspicion of misconduct in public office…” []
They didn’t name Andrew because it’s policy under British law not to name a suspect who has been taken into custody.
But the details given in the statement matched what was known about the allegations against him, and police were seen around the same time at the estate in Norfolk where Andrew is living.
Not to mention you soon had Andrew’s brother, King Charles, confirming the arrest in a statement of his own – adding:
“What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities.”
“In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation.”
“Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.” []
A spokesman for Charles also said that Buckingham Palace hadn’t been told about the arrest before it took place.
But whatever the case may be, it has been a long road to get to this point.
Andrew’s links to Epstein have been known for years.
Virginia Giuffre, probably the most well known Epstein survivor, first publicly accused Andrew of sexual abuse in court filings way back in 2014.
And she said that she had been trafficked by Epstein to Andrew sometime around 2001 – when she was a teenager – and that he had raped her multiple times.
Andrew denied any wrongdoing and it wasn’t until 2019– after Epstein was arrested and lawyers for the victims called on Andrew to speak to investigators – that he started taking a step back from public life.
Then, in 2021, Giuffre sued Andrew in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
With Andrew paying roughly 16 million dollars according to reports to settle the lawsuit in 2022 – without admitting to any of the allegations against him and again denying any wrongdoing in relation to his friendship with Epstein.
And it was only last year, about six months after Giuffre took her own life, that the King finally stripped Andrew of his royal titles and evicted him from his royal residence.
Although, of course, it’s not like Andrew was out on the street.
He ended up moving into that massive estate I mentioned earlier – which is privately owned by Charles.
But now, after all this time, there’s a chance he may face some real consequences.
Although, to be very clear, he hasn’t been arrested in connection to allegations of sexual assault or trafficking.
He’s believed to have been arrested based on suspicions that he shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a British trade envoy.
And those revelations came thanks to the files released by the US Department of Justice on January 30.
Right, those files? They included photos of Andrew kneeling over and touching an unknown woman or girl lying on the floor – which of course brought to mind the accusations Giffure had made against him.
But they also included several emails suggesting he may have broken the law in this other way.
In one email, for example, he appears to have forwarded internal reports about an official trip to Asia.
And in another he seems to have sent a confidential brief given to him in his official capacity with information on investment opportunities in gold and uranium in Afghanistan
And the potential criminal charge he’ll be facing as a result is “misconduct in public office” – which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Though, notably, legal experts have said this charge is very difficult to prosecute because of the narrow definition of the crime.
With one London-based lawyer telling the New York Times:
“The authorities will be looking to prove that Andrew was a public officer acting as at the time of the allegations, and that he wilfully neglected to perform his duty to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in him as the office holder, and that he did so without reasonable excuse or justification.”
Of course, with all that, the family of Virginia Giuffre has still welcomed the news of Andrew’s arrest – saying in a statement:
“At last. Today, our broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty.”
“He was never a prince. For survivors everywhere, Virginia did this for you.”[]
And as far as what this process will actually look like?
Well, in the UK, the police typically can’t hold suspects for more than 24 hours unless they’ve been formally charged.
But there’s a chance that could be extended to 96 hours with permission from a court. []
That time is typically used to conduct interviews with the suspect.
And investigations often continue after people are released.
But if and when police are sure a crime has been committed, they’ll send the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Which will bring charges if it thinks there’s a real shot at conviction and the case is in the public interest. []
Now, with all that, there’s obviously been criticism that more wasn’t done sooner.
But Andrew’s arrest just seems to be yet another example of how different the response has been to the Epstein files internationally versus in the US.
Right, sticking with the UK, in addition to going after Andrew, they’ve been looking into Labour Party politician and former ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson.
Who is also being investigated on suspicion of “misconduct in public office” tied to the sharing of sensitive government documents with Epstein.
And that whole scandal led Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff and communications director to resign.
With Starmer himself also facing calls to step down since he appointed Mandelson to the Ambassadorship despite knowing the guy had a relationship with Epstein.
Although Starmer has claimed he wasn't aware of how close they actually were and accused Mandelson of lying about it.
And then, outside of the UK, the former prime minister of Norway has been charged with “gross corruption” in connection with his ties to Epstein.
And a diplomat and her husband are facing a corruption investigation by police.
While in France, authorities have said they’re investigating reports that the country's former culture minister and his family had financial links to Epstein.
With prosecutors in Paris further announcing this week that they have just opened two new investigations into potential sex abuse crimes and financial wrongdoing linked to Jeffrey Epstein.
With them also calling on victims to come forward and share their stories – saying:
“We will listen to all the statements they wish to make.”
But in the US, when Attorney General Pam Bond testified before the House Judiciary Committee last week, you had all six survivors in attendance raising their hands to say that they had still not been able to meet with Trump’s DOJ.
And Bondi? She not only refused to apologize to survivors, she actually demanded that Democrats apologize to Trump.
And that was after her department had exposed the names of at least 43 victims and shared dozens of unredacted nude images of young women and possibly teenagers in the January 30th files release.
All while heavily redacting much of the rest of the files, potentially withholding millions more, and insisting that it had met its obligations under the law even while many lawmakers say that’s just not true.
And that’s without mentioning the people in or around this administration that are named in the files themselves.
Right, like I said, Lutnick lied about visiting Epstein’s island.
Elon Musk appears to have lied about refusing to visit.
And – according to unredacted files that lawmakers have been able to see – Donald Trump may have lied about kicking Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago in the early 2000s. .
Or, if he was telling the truth, according to earlier reporting by the Wall Street Journal, that may have happened after an 18-year-old told the club’s managers that Epstein had pressured her for sex.
With those managers then relaying her allegations to Trump, who agreed to kick Epstein out, but – according to the Journal – the incident wasn’t reported to police.
With other files suggesting Trump may have told police a few years later that “everyone” knew about Epstein’s behavior – but only after the department had launched an investigation.
And of course there are many others whose ties to Epstein have been seen as alarming.
But I’m focused on the people running the fucking government with the power to try and hold potential wrondoers accountable.
And that’s not to say anyone is guilty just because they’re in the files – guilt can only be determined after a process.
The problem is Trump and his DOJ suggesting the country needs to move on and that that process is never gonna take place.
That said, there are still lawmakers pushing for more to be done, and pointing to Andrew’s arrest as a call to action.
WIth Republican Thomas Massie, for example, writing on X:
“Prince Andrew was just arrested. This was the metric I established for success of the Epstein Files Transparency Act that @RepRoKhanna and I got passed.”
“Now we need JUSTICE in the United States. It’s time for @AGPamBondi and @FBIDirectorKash to act!”
And Democrat Robert Garcia adding in a statement:
“Now it’s time for the United States to end this White House cover-up.” []
But, of course, we’ll have to wait and see if this can actually lead to any more action.
And it will still be a while before we find out if anything actually happens to Andrew.
-
While on the brink of an all-out war with Iran, Trump officially kicked off the first meeting of his Board of Peace, surrounded by the leaders of autocracies, dictatorships, and countries accused of human rights abuses.
Right, as we’ve talked about before, the Board of Peace was initially created to focus on the stabilization and reconstruction of Gaza, but Trump has since tried to expand its vision, painting the board as a major international body like the U.N.
But, despite what Trump may believe, the vast majority of other nations — including the biggest international players — have cast doubt on the group’s credibility.
Or, as The Guardian put it:
“Global powers, including Washington’s traditional allies, fear the US-led body is an attempt to side-step the more democratic United Nations and replace it with a fee-paying members’ club run on the whims of a single man.” []
Right, in order to even join the board as a permanent member, nations are required to pay a $1 billion fee.
And basically all of America’s traditional allies, like the U.K., Canada, Australia, and Japan, have refused to sign on, as have NATO allies and EU heavy hitters in the EU like France, Germany, and Italy.
In fact, the only two EU nations on the board are Bulgaria, a fringe member, and Hungary, which is led by the authoritarian and pro-Russia Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Hell, even Russia and China haven’t gotten on board.
You only had representatives from just over 40 countries gathering in D.C. for the inaugural meeting of this supposedly revolutionary organization — and even then, half of those nations were just observers.[]
Right, all in all, only around two dozen countries have actually joined the board, and most of them have incredibly questionable governments.
You also have many people raising concerns about the fact that Palestine isn’t part of the board that was created to rebuild Gaza.
But Israel, which is literally the whole reason Gaza needs to be rebuilt, has shelled out the $1 billion to join.
Right, and with widespread doubts already swirling about the credibility of the group, you had Trump kicking off the meeting in the most Trump way possible: by giving a hour-long, rambling speech where he repeatedly bragged about all his “achievements,” endorsed dictators, talked about how much he loves women, and told anecdotes about groping his wife.
“Prime Minister Orban of Hungary, who has my complete and total endorsement for election. Not everybody in Europe loves that endorsement.” 00:02 - 00:12
“Young, handsome guy. Always nice to be young and handsome. Doesn't mean we have to like you. I don't like young, handsome men. Women I like. Men I don't have any interest.” 00:10 - 00:24
“I've had a good relationship with the UN other than at my last speech they did turn off my teleprompter. I got up there -- my teleprompter didn't work! First I had an escalator that stopped. I was lucky my movie star first lady was in front of me. Because I put my hand on a certain part of her body and I was able to stop my fall.” 00:08 - 00:47
You also had this viral moment where Trump appeared to say that AOC was still hot even though she fumbled some questions at the Munich Security Conference last weekend:
“The people that were at the event in Munich, they didn’t graduate quickly from college. They had everything they could do. There was one young attractive woman, she was unable to answer questions.” 00:01 - 00:12
But as far as the actual substance of this first meeting, there wasn’t a whole lot — at least from Trump.
Right, when Trump actually stayed on script, he mostly used buzzwords and platitudes about how all these great authoritarian nations will somehow come together to create lasting peace in the world.
We also saw this particular moment getting a lot of attention:
“And, you know, there’s peace in the Middle East. We have peace in the Middle East. Think of it. For years, you’ve been hearing about ‘peace in the Middle East’ and everybody whose saying it’s impossible.” 00:06 - 00:14
With many people saying it’s pretty fucking ironic that Trump would say that while the U.S. is on the brink of a major war with Iran.
I mean, literally in that same speech, you had Trump repeatedly threatening Iran if they don’t agree to a nuclear deal:
“We have to make a meaningful deal, otherwise bad things happen.” 00:18 - 00:21
“So now we may have to take it a step further, or we may not. You're gonna be finding over the next probably 10 days.” 00:08 - 00:15
But, beyond all that, even though the Board of Peace was explicitly created to stabilize Gaza, Trump didn’t focus on it all that much.
And when he did, he chose to downplay the situation, even falsely claiming at one point that the war was basically over:
“The war in Gaza is over. It’s over. There are little flames. Little flames.” 00:01 - 00:05
“The ceasefire was held, and every last remaining hostage, both living and dead, has been returned home.” 00:29 - 00:35
Now, that said, you did have various members of the Board of Peace making a few notable announcements regarding Gaza.
With Trump saying that nine members of the organization have agreed to pledge $7 billion toward a Gaza relief package.
Beyond that, Trump also said that the U.S. would be giving $10 billion to the board’s efforts, though he didn’t specify exactly how that money was going to be spent.
But you had some speculating it could go toward building a U.S. military base in Gaza, pointing to reports of contracting records that show plans to build a 5,000-person military compound.
We also saw another official announcing that troops comprising up to 12,000 police and 20,000 International Stabilization Force soldiers will eventually be allocated across five sectors, starting in Rafah.[]
But, of course, no Trump event would be complete without some AI-slop propaganda.
With the U.S. playing a weird promotional video that blamed Hamas for Gaza’s destruction but made no mention of Israel, while also featuring seemingly AI-generated images of an imagined futuristic Gaza.[]
So, you know, a pretty standard, run-of-the-mill Trump event through and through.
Go to Vessi for 15% off your first order.
-
Then, back to the news, the chairman of the FCC thinks that James Talarico ginned up this whole Stephen Colbert controversy to boost his campaign.
That is what he said during a press conference yesterday while denying that the FCC censored Colbert and his show.
“The claimed equal time issue in the Colbert instance had to do with Democrat on Democrat violence. This was about James Talarico trying to get a click and a view and maybe a vote and a money boost over his two opponents in the Democratic primary.” (10:38-10:56)
Right, earlier this week Colbert said that CBS blocked him from airing an interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, citing the FCC’s equal time rule.
And that rule states that if a network gives one candidate air time, their opponents are entitled to equal air time on the network.
So in the case of Talarico, that would mean his Democratic primary opponents, including Jasmine Crockett, need to be offered CBS airtime.
But, and it’s a big but, talk shows are historically exempt from this, so people have been accusing the FCC of over-enforcing this rule to punish Trump’s critics, and many feel CBS is at the very least complicit in this, too.
But Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, dismissed all these concerns, accused the media of falling for a hoax, and thinks this whole debacle was pre-planned:
“You had a Democrat candidate who understood the way that the news media works and he took advantage of all of your sort of prior conceptions to run a hoax apparently for the purpose of raising money and getting clicks and the news media played right into it. I think yesterday was a perfect encapsulation of why the American people have more trust in gas station sushi than they do in the national news media.” (2:23-2:52)
And sure, it is true that this may have helped Talarico’s campaign.
Even though his Colbert interview could not air on broadcast TV, it did go to YouTube, where it has over seven million views. []
And his campaign raised $2.5 million following this news cycle.
But, that does not mean the FCC or CBS has clean hands.
Because yesterday, we talked about an FCC Commissioner who said this was an:
“...example of corporate capitulation in the face of this administration’s broader campaign to censor and control speech.”
And a lot of people are inclined to agree with her there.
Because also during yesterday’s press conference, Carr confirmed that the FCC has started enforcement proceedings against ABC and the View over equal time issues related to their interview with James Talarico.
This even though the show is produced by ABC News, and news programs are not supposed to be subject to this rule.
Then, later in the day, Carr appeared on Fox News and suggested he would have opened a probe into Colbert if he had aired his Talarico interview, too:
“Would you have gone after them for violating the equal time rule as Colbert said?...We have been very clear that broadcasters have a unique right and privilege: a license, and the one thing they have to do is comply with the equal time rules, but complying with equal time…when was the last time that was enforced? I used to work for CBS many years ago…Well, it’s been a while, but complying would mean more air time for more democrats.” (3:09-3:33)
“We’re going to enforce the law and hold broadcasters accountable.” (3:54-58)
And so you have people like Senator Brian Schatz arguing that:
“Congress specifically carved out an exemption for talk shows because candidate interviews are newsworthy and important in informing people about their choices. Carr can’t repeal this by fiat.”[]
Others thinking that with the logic is Carr is using:
“the fcc is saying no primary interviews on network air unless you interview every candidate? how does this work in california which has a jungle primary? or in the inevitable candidate pileup in 2028?”[]
And we will just have to see how this plays out, if this Talarico Colbert situation is just the first equal time domino to fall, if this becomes the FCC news censorship playbook.
(But here’s an idea, I know FCC Chairman isn’t an elected position, but maybe someone should run for it anyways, that way every broadcaster that interviews Brendan Carr has to interview them too, and they can use that airtime to call him bald and stupid!)
-
But then, y’all may find this hard to believe, but labor unions shrank under Biden and have actually grown under Trump.
Right, union membership hit an all-time low in 2022, then an even aller-timer low in 2023, then the allest-timest low in 2024 … did I do a good English? [Headline, then headline, then headline]
With that leaving about 14.3 million workers in unions by the time Trump put his hand on the Bible and said … [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:30 - 00:33] Caption: “I Donald John Trump do solemnly swear.”
But then, over the course of the following year, as one of the most labor-hostile presidents in modern American history shredded worker protections, union membership reversed its downward slide. [B roll]
With the ranks of organized labor growing by over 400,000 in 2025, bringing the total number to 14.7 million and pushing union density up by a tenth of a percentage point to 10%. [Quote, find “14.7” and “tenth”]
Then, when you count workers who aren’t members of a union but are still covered by a union contract, that number hit the highest level since 2009, at 16 and a half million. [Quote, find “16.5”]
So what happened? Is Biden a corporate shill and Trump a working-class champion?
Well no, actually it’s quite the opposite; right, a big part of the reason for the shift is that the labor market was doing pretty good under Biden and sucks shit under Trump.
Right, there was the post-pandemic recovery, and even through 2024 the U.S. economy added 2.2 million jobs, so nonunion positions grew faster than union ones, pushing their relative share down. [Quote, find “2.2”]
But last year, the labor market grew at its slowest pace outside of a recession since the early 2000s, so unions grabbed a larger share back. [Image]
Though I should clarify that you can’t just boil down the shift to changes in relative percentages; right, there was an absolute decline in Biden’s last year and a rise in Trump’s first.
But that seems to have more to do with the tireless work of labor organizers and less to do with anything Trump can take credit for. [B roll]
Right, he’s been ruthless toward workers, cutting down the federal workforce by some 300,000 people so far. [Headline]
And for those who have remained, they’ve described feeling fearful, hopeless, and stressed the fuck out as he’s stripped them of protections.
Starting when Trump took away collective bargaining rights from over a million federal workers at over 40 government offices covering roughly two-thirds of the federal workforce. [Headline]
A move that one labor historian called the largest and most aggressive single act of union busting in U.S. history, even worse than Reagan’s infamous assault on air traffic controllers. [Quote, find “aggressive” and lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 02:55 - 02:59]
But it didn’t stop there, because Trump also ended automatic payroll deductions of union dues, which deprived them of funding. [Quote, find “deduction”]
In fact as a result, the American Federation of Government Employees had to lay off 30% of its staff in August. [Same quote]
Next, several agencies Cancelled their contracts with federal unions, several more sued unions in an attempt to get their contracts voided, and many unions sued the government to stop their contracts from being voided. [Headline]
Then last week, the White House told those agencies, hey, don’t even wait for the lawsuits to finish; just end the contracts now. [Headline]
Yet despite all these relentless attacks, public sector union membership grew throughout last year as tens of thousands of federal workers joined to defend themselves. [Quote, find “32.9”]
But that’s just the federal workforce; another war’s being waged in the private sector, where Trump has less direct control but is still causing a lot of damage.
So for example, he purged the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, then refocused its attention on a very unusual type of discrimination.
[Clip, 00:42 - 01:00]
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, isn’t in much better shape, either.
With Elizabeth Warren and five other Senate Democrats writing a letter to Trump’s Labor secretary complaining that there were 20% fewer work site inspections between April and September compared to the same six months the year before. [Quote, find “20 percent” and B roll]
Meanwhile, of the inspections that were carried out, 42% fewer found “willful violations,” a category that carries some of the highest penalties for employers. [Quote same link, find “42 percent”]
And the agency has reportedly lost nearly 300 employees since Trump took office. [Quote same link, find “300”]
Now experts warn that OSHA already did so few inspections before this, and since it can’t investigate everything, its effectiveness as an agency depends on deterrence.
So they fear that employers are just gonna go, eh, fuck it, who cares? We’ll break the law. The odds of getting caught and held accountable are so low anyway.
Plus the Trump administration has repeatedly signaled that worker protections are on the chopping block. [B roll]
With it closing offices that protect coal miners, revealing plans to stop requiring proper lighting at construction sites, and moving to ease evaluations of protective equipment for workers regularly exposed to dangerous chemicals. [Quote same link, find “chemicals”]
And then it’s the same story with the National Labor Relations Board, whose chair Trump fired without cause for the first time in the agency’s 90-year history. [Headline]
So for most of last year, the board didn’t even have enough members to perform its normal duties.
This compared to Biden’s NLRB, which aggressively enforced labor laws and went after huge corporations like Amazon and Starbucks for illegal union-busting. [B roll]
In fact, during Biden’s term filings for union elections doubled, and union victories reached their highest level in a decade. [Quote, find “doubled”]
But the erosion of organized labor in the United States long predates either Trump or Biden.
Right, back in the 1950s, nearly a third of all workers were represented by a union; today it’s just 10%. [B roll]
And there are many reasons for that, a few of the big ones being the shift toward a service economy, the proliferation of right-to-work laws, and the general rise of neoliberalism since the 1970s.
With even public support for unions falling to an all-time low of 48% in 2009, right at the peak of the Great Recession. [Graph, hide part after 2009]
But over the past decade it’s roared back again, reaching 68% last year, a level not seen since the early 1960s. [Same graph, show hidden part]
So now you have this huge gulf between the public’s overwhelming support for unions and the dismal state of actual unions in reality.
Though there’s a little wrinkle in that, because when you break down the polling data by political party, it’s more complicated.
With support shooting up to 90% among Democrats, remaining steady at 69% among independents, and plummeting to 41% among Republicans. [Graph]
But for all three groups, support has increased compared to 2016, though still Republicans are way down from their peak of 56% in 2022. [Same graph]
Anyway, y’all got the news as well as the big picture, so now tell me, what are your thoughts about all this and why do you think we haven’t had a communist revolution yet?
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(1119x465:1121x467)/brendan-carr-fcc-chairman-091825-a4ea77b767f5455cb2f9e74c529a779c.jpg){kind=link}
