Lord Peter Mandelson, a long-serving Labour grandee and former UK ambassador to the United States, has ignited a political firestorm with his first televised interview since being sacked over his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Speaking with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on January 11, 2026, Mandelson refused to issue a personal apology to Epstein’s victims for maintaining his friendship with the disgraced financier, even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
“I want to apologise to those women for a system that refused to hear their voices and did not give them the protection they were entitled to expect,” Mandelson told the BBC, echoing sentiments reported by The Guardian and The Independent. Yet, when pressed repeatedly about whether he would apologise for his personal association with Epstein, Mandelson insisted, “If I had known, if I was in any way complicit or culpable, of course I would apologise… but I was not culpable, I was not knowledgeable of what he was doing.”
Mandelson described his relationship with Epstein as “a terrible mistake” and said, “I will regret it until my dying day.” He explained that he had believed Epstein and his lawyer’s narrative that Epstein was falsely criminalized, a belief he now deeply regrets. “I wish I had not believed that story,” Mandelson admitted, according to The Independent.
The controversy that led to Mandelson’s dismissal erupted after emails surfaced in September 2025 showing Mandelson expressing support for Epstein following his conviction. In one message, Mandelson urged Epstein to “fight for early release,” and in another, he described Epstein as his “best pal”—emails Mandelson now describes as “toe-curling.” Mandelson said the publication of these emails came as a “huge surprise and a huge shock” to him, claiming they had long since disappeared from his email server. “I was unable to share emails with them that I didn’t recall,” he said.
Downing Street acted swiftly after the emails surfaced. Officials stated that the “depth and extent” of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was “materially different” from what had previously been disclosed, particularly as Mandelson had suggested Epstein’s conviction was wrongful and should be challenged. As a result, Mandelson was immediately withdrawn from his post as ambassador to the US.
In the interview, Mandelson also explained why he believed he was shielded from Epstein’s sexual activities. “Possibly some people will think because I am a gay man… I wasn’t attuned to what was going on. I don’t really accept that. I think the issue is that because I was a gay man in his circle I was kept separate from what he was doing in the sexual side of his life,” he said. He recounted stays at Epstein’s private island and visits to his New York and New Mexico properties, insisting, “The only people that were there were the housekeepers, never were there any young women or girls, or people that he was preying on or engaging with in that sort of ghastly predatory way that we subsequently found out he was doing.”
Despite Mandelson’s assertions, his refusal to apologise directly to Epstein’s victims drew swift condemnation across the political spectrum. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, interviewed on the same BBC programme, remarked, “I think what we saw there in that interview was at best, deep naivety, from Peter Mandelson. And I think it would have gone a long way for the women who were subjected to the most appalling treatment at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein for Peter to have apologised and taken that opportunity.” She also noted that the full nature of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein only became clear after the emails were published, which prompted the prime minister to act decisively.
Criticism was not limited to government officials. SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn called for Mandelson to lose his seat in the House of Lords, questioning why Labour continued to allow him to remain. Former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell expressed outrage that the BBC had given Mandelson a platform, saying, “When Keir Starmer appointed Mandelson, I said publicly it was a serious error of judgement.” Baroness Ayesha Hazarika, a former Labour adviser, called the interview “a slap in the face to Epstein victims.” Lord Kempsell, a former adviser to Boris Johnson, suggested that only Mandelson could return to prime-time political programming so soon after such a scandal.
Throughout the interview, Mandelson maintained that he had never seen any evidence of Epstein’s abuse. “I can say this absolutely, I can say it to you categorically, I never saw anything in his life when I was with him, when I was in his homes, that would give me any reason to suspect what an evil monster this man was,” he insisted. Mandelson described the price he paid for his association as “calamitous,” but said he understood why he was sacked and would not seek to relitigate the issue: “I’m moving on.”
The interview was wide-ranging, with Mandelson also offering opinions on international politics. He expressed admiration for former US President Donald Trump’s “graciousness” and “directness,” though he admitted, “Did I like all his language? No, I didn’t, did I? Did he make me gasp? Sometimes, in some of the things he said, of course. But at the end of the day, President Trump is an extraordinary risk taker.” Mandelson discussed Trump’s remarks about “owning” Greenland, dismissing the idea that the US would seize the territory by force. “He’s not going to do that. I don’t know, but I’m offering my best judgement as somebody who’s observed him at fairly close quarters. He’s not a fool,” Mandelson said, adding that the US would inevitably lead efforts to secure the Arctic against China and Russia.
Reflecting on the broader implications, Mandelson said, “We are all going to have to wake up to the reality that the Arctic needs securing against China and Russia. And if you ask me who is going to lead in that effort to secure, we all know, don’t we, that it’s going to be the United States.” He acknowledged that Trump’s approach could be abrasive but argued that “sometimes nettles have to be grasped, and that requires deterrence.”
As the dust settles from Mandelson’s contentious interview, debate continues over the lessons for political accountability and the lasting impact of high-profile associations. For many, the question remains whether expressions of regret for a “system” are enough—or whether those in power must also reckon more fully with their own choices and the signals they send to the public.
