Starmer Was Informed of Mandelson’s Ties to Epstein Before His Appointment as Ambassador

According to senior officials, Keir Starmer was informed about Peter Mandelson’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein before deciding to appoint him as Britain’s ambassador to the U.S.

The prime minister received a Cabinet Office report that included a “summary of reputational risks” associated with the appointment. The document referenced both “past associations with Jeffrey Epstein” and Mandelson’s previous resignations from ministerial posts in Labour governments.

Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald told MPs that the report contained “direct excerpts from media publications” and highlighted the “overall reputational risk” linked to the decision. He added that the final decision to proceed with the appointment was made personally by Starmer.

Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein, which continued even after Epstein was convicted of procuring a minor for prostitution, was a matter of public record. Open sources noted that in 2009 Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse—a year after his imprisonment.

The briefing for the prime minister also cited official records confirming that in 2002 Mandelson arranged a meeting between Epstein and Tony Blair. These documents were later released by the National Archives.

Wormald set out in detail the vetting process that accompanied Mandelson’s appointment: first, an integrity and ethics report was prepared; then he completed a conflict-of-interest declaration and underwent enhanced security screening carried out on behalf of the Foreign Office. The department has since acknowledged that the appointment was announced before this process had been completed.

Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office Oliver Robbins said that Mandelson is no longer employed in the civil service and that the process of his dismissal has been completed. He declined to say whether Mandelson received any severance payment.

When asked by MPs whether the Foreign Office had another candidate for the ambassadorship, Robbins replied: “At that moment, the prime minister made it clear that he intended to make this appointment personally, and the department simply implemented his decision.” He added that Starmer had listened to the advice, formed his own view, and issued the instruction accordingly.

Last month, Mandelson was dismissed after leaked emails showed him expressing “love and support” for Epstein and urging him to “seek early release” in 2008, when the financier was charged with sex crimes involving minors.

Wormald explained that it was the publication of these “new and previously unknown letters” that led to the ambassador’s recall from Washington. He stressed that the emergence of the correspondence was “a turning point in light of what had previously been known.”

Wormald and Robbins acknowledged that Starmer was unaware of the contents of the letters before the parliamentary session at which he publicly voiced his support for Mandelson. Robbins added that after Bloomberg requested comment about the letters, officials sought to verify their authenticity without involving ministers. At that stage, the prime minister had only been informed of the media inquiry. Bloomberg published the full set of letters only after Starmer had expressed his confidence in Mandelson.

Robbins admitted that, “although it may sound naïve,” Mandelson was “in an extremely vulnerable position” and remained an employee to whom the department “owed a duty of care.”

Following the scandal, the government approved new rules for appointing political ambassadors. Under the updated procedure, candidates nominated by ministers from outside the civil service must now undergo a preliminary interview with a senior official and an informal “fireside chat” with the responsible minister.