In a week marked by political turbulence and public outrage, the British government has been rocked by the sacking of Lord Peter Mandelson as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States, following revelations about his long-standing ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The fallout has been swift and fierce, with questions swirling around the vetting process, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s judgment, and the wider culture of accountability at the highest levels of government.
As reported by the BBC, the controversy erupted after a cache of emails surfaced, published by Bloomberg, which revealed that Lord Mandelson had sent a series of supportive messages to Epstein—even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. In one message, Mandelson urged Epstein to “fight for early release”, and in another, sent the day before Epstein began his prison sentence, he wrote, “I think the world of you.” These communications, which painted a far deeper and more personal connection than previously understood, did not appear during two separate government vetting processes prior to Mandelson’s appointment.
The scandal broke into the open on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, when the Foreign Office received a media inquiry outlining the damning details of the emails. The inquiry was quickly escalated to No 10 Downing Street, but it wasn’t until Wednesday evening—after Sir Keir Starmer had publicly expressed confidence in Lord Mandelson during Prime Minister’s Questions—that the prime minister reportedly saw the emails for himself. According to sources cited by the PA news agency, Mandelson was asked to resign that same day. When he refused, a “furious” Sir Keir made the decision to sack him on Thursday morning, September 11.
The prime minister’s office has maintained that the full extent of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein only came to light in the week leading up to his dismissal. Downing Street and Mandelson himself have declined to comment publicly, but government sources have told the BBC that the emails were sent from a defunct account and were not available during the original vetting process. A senior Whitehall figure, however, suggested that more rigorous background checks might have uncovered the correspondence: “It would have been possible to locate those messages had more questions been asked, and forensic background digging been done.”
Before Mandelson’s appointment, the Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics Team prepared a file for Sir Keir Starmer that flagged the peer’s links to Epstein. In response, the prime minister, via his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, sent Mandelson three pointed questions: why he continued contact with Epstein after his conviction, why he was reported to have stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan apartment while Epstein was in prison, and whether he was associated with a charity founded by Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s close associate. Mandelson reportedly told No 10 he had not stayed in Epstein’s apartment during that period, a claim corroborated by another source, but documents from 2023 showed Epstein telling his banker that Mandelson was planning to stay. No 10 sources have since described Mandelson as having been “economical with the truth” in his responses.
The fallout has not been confined to government circles. The family of Virginia Giuffre, widely recognized as Epstein’s most prominent victim, gave an emotional interview to the BBC on Sunday, September 14, 2025, condemning Mandelson’s appointment. Giuffre’s brother, Sky Roberts, declared, “It speaks to how deep the corruption goes in our systems.” His wife, Amanda Roberts, added, “Why does it take us to have to pull out the skeletons for people to be held accountable? Our governments have allowed these people to hold their status and their title without shame.” They called for greater transparency and accountability, sentiments echoed by many across the political spectrum.
Business Secretary Peter Kyle, appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, admitted that it was “highly unlikely” Mandelson would have been appointed if the full extent of his relationship with Epstein had been known at the time. He described the interview with Giuffre’s family as “extremely distressing” and acknowledged that, while much was known about Mandelson’s association with Epstein during the vetting process, the newly uncovered emails represented a “material difference” in the government’s understanding.
The scandal has also reignited debate over the culture of decision-making at the top of British politics. Shadow education secretary Laura Trott vowed that the Conservatives would “use every mechanism” to uncover what advice was given to the prime minister and when, calling for “full transparency.” Labour peer Baroness Harriet Harman was blunt in her assessment, writing in The Mirror: “Even I could not believe that he’d written to his millionaire friend Jeffrey Epstein offering him love and support when he was in prison awaiting trial for more crimes, when he’d already been convicted of sex offences against young girls.”
The opposition has not missed the opportunity to press for answers. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch accused the prime minister of lying about what he knew regarding Mandelson’s emails, demanding “full transparency” and suggesting that No 10 had the emails for 48 hours before acting. The Liberal Democrats have called for an independent inquiry into what was known about Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein at the time of his appointment.
Within the Labour Party itself, the episode has sparked soul-searching and criticism. Labour MP Dr Rosena Allin-Khan stated that Mandelson “should never have been appointed” and that the prime minister would need to “do a lot of proving to the public to show he’s up to the job.” Backbencher Olivia Blake described the situation as “really embarrassing” and called for better information flow to the prime minister. Lucy Powell, a candidate for deputy leader, argued for a “change of culture” within the party.
Lord Mandelson, for his part, has repeatedly expressed regret about his relationship with Epstein, telling the BBC he relied on assurances of Epstein’s innocence “that turned out later to be horrendously false.” He has also stated, “perhaps as a gay man,” he never sought or was offered introductions to women from Epstein, distancing himself from the sexual misconduct at the heart of the Epstein scandal. There is no suggestion that Mandelson ever met Virginia Giuffre, and the names of those who contributed to Epstein’s infamous birthday book—apart from Mandelson and other public figures—have not been accused of legal wrongdoing.
The reverberations of the scandal are likely to be felt for months to come. The decision to sack Mandelson has been described by Giuffre’s family as “a step in the right direction,” but they insist it is not enough. “There are still people out there, still people in that book who could be doing this to other young women and children right now,” said Sky Roberts. As calls for independent inquiries and greater transparency grow louder, the episode serves as a stark reminder of the importance of rigorous vetting and the need for those in power to be held to the highest standards of accountability.
With the dust far from settled, the political fallout from Mandelson’s dismissal continues to test the resolve and credibility of Britain’s leaders, raising uncomfortable questions about judgment, transparency, and the enduring shadow cast by Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.
