In a candid and closely watched interview aired on January 11, 2026, Lord Peter Mandelson, the former UK ambassador to the United States and a stalwart of the Labour Party, offered a rare glimpse into his personal assessment of former US President Donald Trump. The conversation, conducted by Laura Kuenssberg on her flagship BBC program, marked Mandelson’s first public appearance since his high-profile dismissal from the ambassadorial post—a move that had attracted considerable attention in both London and Washington.
Viewers tuning in to BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg show were treated to a refreshingly direct exchange, as Mandelson, known for his political acumen and measured public persona, set aside diplomatic caution to speak openly about his experiences with Trump. Discussing the controversial American leader, Mandelson surprised many by offering praise where others might have expected criticism.
“I liked his humour, his graciousness,” Mandelson stated, reflecting on his interactions with Trump during his tenure. According to BBC, the former ambassador was unequivocal about his appreciation for the former president’s personal style. “I like his directness, you knew exactly what he was thinking and where you stood,” he explained, highlighting a quality that, for better or worse, has defined Trump’s approach to both politics and diplomacy.
Mandelson’s remarks carried particular weight given the context of his departure from the ambassadorial role. His sacking, which followed revelations about his connections to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, had cast a shadow over his otherwise distinguished career. Yet, rather than dwell on the circumstances of his exit, Mandelson used the interview to address the subject of Trump head-on, offering a nuanced perspective that defied easy categorization.
“Did I like all his language? No I didn’t,” Mandelson admitted. “Did he make me gasp in some of the things he said? Of course.” This frank admission, reported by both BBC and other outlets covering the interview, underscored the complexity of Mandelson’s view. While he acknowledged being shocked by some of Trump’s more provocative statements, Mandelson stopped short of outright condemnation, instead choosing to focus on what he saw as the former president’s strengths.
Chief among those strengths, in Mandelson’s estimation, was Trump’s appetite for risk. “He was an extraordinary risk taker,” Mandelson observed, a remark that speaks volumes about Trump’s leadership style. The characterization of Trump as a bold, even audacious, leader is one that resonates with both supporters and detractors of the former president. For some, this willingness to defy convention and take chances is precisely what made Trump a transformative figure on the world stage. For others, it is a source of concern, emblematic of a broader disregard for established norms and protocols.
Mandelson’s comments, delivered with characteristic candor, offer a window into the complex relationship between British and American political elites during the Trump era. As ambassador, Mandelson was tasked with navigating the often-turbulent waters of transatlantic relations at a time when both countries were experiencing significant political upheaval. His reflections on Trump, therefore, are not merely personal; they also shed light on the broader dynamics at play between two of the world’s most influential democracies.
The BBC interview quickly became the subject of debate among political observers in both countries. Some commentators praised Mandelson for his honesty and willingness to give credit where it was due. Others questioned whether his positive remarks about Trump’s character might overshadow the serious controversies that marked the latter’s presidency. Regardless of one’s perspective, it is clear that Mandelson’s words struck a chord, prompting renewed discussion about the legacy of Donald Trump and the nature of political leadership in the 21st century.
For Mandelson, the experience of working with Trump appears to have been both challenging and, at times, unexpectedly rewarding. His praise for Trump’s humour and graciousness runs counter to the often-adversarial tone that characterized much of the public discourse around the former president. By emphasizing these qualities, Mandelson invites readers and viewers to consider a more nuanced view of a figure who has rarely been described in such terms by European officials.
At the same time, Mandelson did not shy away from acknowledging the difficulties he faced in dealing with Trump’s more controversial tendencies. His admission that he did not care for all of Trump’s language—and that he was sometimes left gasping by the president’s remarks—serves as a reminder of the cultural and political divides that continue to shape transatlantic relations. These divides, while not insurmountable, require a level of candor and mutual respect that Mandelson clearly values.
In describing Trump as an “extraordinary risk taker,” Mandelson offers a succinct summary of a presidency defined by its unpredictability and willingness to challenge the status quo. Whether one views this as a positive or negative attribute is, perhaps, a matter of perspective. For some, Trump’s risk-taking approach led to important breakthroughs and a much-needed shakeup of the political establishment. For others, it introduced a level of uncertainty and instability that was, at times, deeply unsettling.
As the dust settles on Mandelson’s interview, it is worth considering what his remarks reveal about the evolving nature of political discourse in both the UK and the US. In an era marked by polarization and partisanship, Mandelson’s willingness to offer a balanced assessment of a divisive figure like Trump is both rare and, arguably, necessary. By acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects of Trump’s leadership, Mandelson provides a model for how public figures might engage in more thoughtful and constructive dialogue about those who shape the course of history.
For now, Mandelson’s words continue to reverberate on both sides of the Atlantic, sparking conversation and, perhaps, encouraging others to look beyond the headlines and consider the complexities that define the world’s most influential leaders. His reflections serve as a timely reminder that, in politics as in life, the truth is often more complicated than it first appears.
