London, United Kingdom. The British government on Wednesday published the first documents covering the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, renewing scrutiny of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s judgment due to Mandelson’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The documents also come as Starmer faces criticism over the appointment and policy reversals.
Initial documents and stated concerns
The more than 100 pages of records indicate that concerns were raised about “reputational risks” linked to appointing Mandelson, including his friendship with Epstein, his previous resignations from government, and his support for closer ties with China.
A document titled “Advice to the prime minister, checks conducted on 4 December, 2024” stated that after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for procuring an underage girl, the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson continued during 2009-2011, starting while Mandelson was business minister and continuing after the Labour government ended. The document also said Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s house while Epstein was in jail in June 2009.
Process described as rushed
A summary of a September fact-finding call between the prime minister’s general counsel and national security adviser Jonathan Powell said Powell found the appointment process “unusual” and “weirdly rushed.”
According to the note, Powell raised concerns about Mandelson’s “reputation” in conversations with Morgan McSweeney, then the prime minister’s chief of staff. The note also said Philip Barton, then the most senior government official at the foreign ministry, had “reservations around the appointment.”
Investigation-related limits and further releases
Starmer’s allies have sought to downplay the significance of the initial release, saying an ongoing police investigation into Mandelson for allegedly leaking government documents meant some of the more revealing exchanges were being withheld.
Additional documents are due to be released later, with Starmer’s team saying they will show Mandelson lied to Starmer about the extent of his relationship with Epstein before his appointment as ambassador in December 2024.
Darren Jones, Starmer’s chief secretary, told lawmakers last month that the first tranche would not include correspondence between Starmer’s Downing Street office and Mandelson in response to follow-up questions, citing the investigation.
What do you think the next tranche of documents should clarify about the appointment process?
