A confidential letter marked "official – sensitive" has thrown the UK civil service into the spotlight, as debate rages over the potential appointment of Dame Antonia Romeo as the next cabinet secretary. The letter, distributed to some of the government's most senior officials—including Jeremy Heywood, John Manzoni, Kim Darroch, and Simon McDonald—details discussions surrounding Dame Antonia's candidacy and a past investigation into her management style during her tenure as consul-general in New York in 2017.
According to BBC News, Dame Antonia Romeo, widely considered the government's favored candidate for the top civil service post, was subject to an inquiry following a single formal complaint that contained three allegations. These allegations related to her use of expenses and accusations of bullying. The outcome? In a letter from March 2017, Rupert McNeil, then the government chief people officer, informed Dame Antonia that "there is no case to answer." The letter, also seen by BBC News, emphasized that while the process was undoubtedly distressing, it served as a valuable source of feedback about management and leadership style.
McNeil wrote, "I appreciate processes of this type are always distressing, but as discussed, they are rich sources of feedback about management and leadership style. I know from our conversation that you are very alert to this, and this process has given you rich insight." The letter was circulated to top government figures, ensuring full transparency at the highest levels.
Despite the investigation's conclusion, a source told BBC News that Dame Antonia faced "tough conversations" about her leadership style. "That was not an easy conversation. She took her medicine," the source said, highlighting that Dame Antonia was receptive to feedback and took the matter seriously. However, they also stressed that the investigation was thorough and that none of the allegations were upheld.
The emergence of the letter and renewed scrutiny come as Lord McDonald (Simon McDonald), the former head of the Foreign Office, made a rare public intervention. Speaking to Channel 4 News on February 16, 2026, Lord McDonald said, "The due diligence needs to be thorough. If the candidate mentioned in the media is the one, in my view, the due diligence has some way still to go." He revealed that he had attempted to contact No10 to express his concerns and urge further scrutiny before any appointment was finalized.
This intervention has not gone unnoticed. In fact, it has sparked fierce backlash from within government circles. Officials have vocally defended Dame Antonia, accusing Lord McDonald of a "disgusting" and "hugely irresponsible" attack. One official, who has worked closely with Dame Antonia, described her as "the most inspiring leader in the civil service"—a sentiment echoed by many across all levels of the civil service. "There are people right from the very top to the most junior staff who are outraged and completely baffled. Not only that it's an attack on a civil servant who can't defend themselves, but also that it is not remotely true. People follow her and want to work with her," the official told BBC News.
Another official added important context: since the investigation nearly a decade ago, Dame Antonia has successfully led three government departments with a combined workforce of around 150,000 people—and not a single formal complaint has been lodged against her. This track record, they argue, is evidence of her exceptional leadership and ability to inspire loyalty and respect within the ranks.
Sir Matthew Rycroft, who was the UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations at the time of the original complaint, also weighed in. He told BBC News, "The decision maker was the CEO of the Civil Service. He concluded that there was no case to answer, and he reported this to the Cabinet Secretary who agreed. I was the senior FCDO official in New York at the time, and having seen the relevant documentation myself, I can confirm that I too was satisfied there was no case to answer in relation to the single formal complaint that was made."
Rupert McNeil, the head of HR for the British government at the time, was equally emphatic. "As the head of the Civil Service Human Resources function at the time, I can confirm the investigation into the one formal complaint against Antonia nine years ago was done thoroughly and independently – and it concluded there was no case to answer. The smears being thrown against her are reprehensible and hypocritical. They undermine every investigation that the civil service has run. Former officials making these entirely inappropriate remarks were actively part of the governance of civil service processes and so it is astonishing that they feel they can make comments now which they never made to me at the time. She is an excellent public servant who has served governments of all stripes with diligence and respect."
A spokesperson for the Cabinet Office echoed these sentiments, stating, "As we have repeatedly made clear, one formal complaint was raised nine years ago and the allegations were dismissed on the basis that there was no case to answer. This letter confirms that is the case. Antonia Romeo is an outstanding leader with a 25-year record of excellent public service."
The controversy has fueled a broader debate about accountability, transparency, and the standards expected of senior civil servants. While some, like Lord McDonald, argue that further due diligence is warranted before such a high-profile appointment, others see the ongoing scrutiny as an unfair attack on a civil servant with a proven record. The fact that Dame Antonia cannot publicly defend herself—given the conventions of civil service impartiality—has only heightened passions on both sides.
For supporters, Dame Antonia's career speaks for itself. Over the past decade, she has held leadership roles in three departments, overseeing vast teams and navigating complex policy challenges. Her defenders point to her ability to inspire, her commitment to public service, and her resilience in the face of adversity. For critics, however, the mere existence of past complaints, even if dismissed, is enough to warrant pause—and a reminder of the need for rigorous vetting at the highest levels of government.
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the process for appointing the UK's most senior civil servant is under more scrutiny than ever. The outcome will not only shape the future leadership of the civil service but also set a precedent for how past investigations and internal feedback are weighed in the selection of public officials.
In the midst of all this, Dame Antonia Romeo remains at the center of a storm she can neither publicly address nor escape. The coming weeks will reveal whether the government presses ahead with her appointment—or whether calls for further due diligence will alter the course of this unfolding story.
Whatever the final decision, the episode has shone a light on the inner workings of Whitehall, the intensity of its internal politics, and the challenges faced by those who rise to its highest ranks.