By Ben Emos | Friday February 20, 2026 | 4 min read
The idea of a presidential pardon is often framed as the closing chapter of a legal saga — a final stroke of executive power that wipes the slate clean. But in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, any such move by Donald Trump could mark the beginning of a new legal storm across the Atlantic.
Legal observers in Washington have quietly raised a question that has yet to be fully aired in public: if Trump were to pardon Maxwell in the United States, what would stop British authorities from pursuing their own charges? A U.S. pardon does not shield anyone from prosecution abroad. In Maxwell’s case, her citizenship and the location of alleged misconduct could open the door to action in the United Kingdom.
Whether Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche or Trump’s advisers have fully grappled with that possibility is unclear. But the implications are significant. A pardon designed to put an end to Maxwell’s legal exposure in America could instead trigger extradition proceedings or a fresh arrest on British soil — especially in light of recent developments involving Prince Andrew.
Andrew, born Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has long faced scrutiny over his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has said publicly that he met Epstein through Maxwell, whom he described as a friend. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Maxwell and Andrew were fixtures in elite social circles in London and New York. Photographs from that era show them together at parties, charity events and private gatherings.
Two individuals familiar with their relationship have said that palace staff once speculated the pair may have briefly dated. Buckingham Palace has never confirmed that account, but it underscores how closely intertwined their lives appeared during that period.
The shadow hanging over all of it is the allegation brought by Virginia Giuffre. Giuffre accused Epstein and Maxwell of trafficking her to Andrew when she was 17. She filed a civil lawsuit in 2021, alleging sexual assault at Maxwell’s London home, at Epstein’s Manhattan residence, and on Epstein’s private island. Andrew denied ever meeting Giuffre and said he had no recollection of the events described. In 2022, the two sides reached an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed sum. He was stripped of his royal patronages and military affiliations amid the fallout.
Giuffre’s death by suicide in April 2025 added a tragic note to a story already marked by trauma and controversy. For many observers, it reinforced the sense that accountability in the Epstein network has been uneven and incomplete.
Now, Andrew’s recent arrest in the United Kingdom on suspicion of misconduct in public office has reignited scrutiny. British authorities have not detailed the full scope of their investigation, but the move signals that legal exposure tied to the Epstein saga remains active overseas.
Maxwell, meanwhile, is serving a 20-year sentence in the United States after being convicted of sex trafficking minors for Epstein. She has maintained her innocence, and her legal team continues to explore appeals. If a presidential pardon were granted, it would vacate her federal sentence — but it would not erase the underlying allegations or foreclose action by foreign prosecutors.
Mein Kampf & Trump — Available on Amazon
British law allows authorities to pursue charges if evidence supports them, particularly if alleged conduct touched UK territory or involved British nationals. Given Maxwell’s background and her longstanding ties to Andrew, any shift in her legal status in America would likely draw immediate attention in London.
For Trump— who has described Prince Andrew’s arrest as “a shame” —the political calculus would be complex. A pardon powerfully signals loyalty or doubt about a conviction. Yet it also invites scrutiny. In this case, it could mean trading one courtroom for another — and amplifying diplomatic tensions at a moment when both governments are navigating delicate legal and political terrain.
In the end, a pardon might not bring finality. It could instead reopen questions many hoped were settled — this time, under the jurisdiction of British justice.