British politics has been rocked by a scandal involving former US ambassador Peter Mandelson and his connections to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, raising difficult questions about Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s judgment and the government’s vetting processes. The controversy erupted after emails surfaced showing Mandelson’s supportive correspondence with Epstein in 2008, ultimately leading to Mandelson’s dismissal and a wave of criticism directed at Downing Street.
On September 15, 2025, Prime Minister Starmer publicly acknowledged, “Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him.” This statement, reported by both Bloomberg and Anadolu Agency, came after days of mounting pressure and scrutiny over Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. Starmer explained that while Mandelson underwent a proper due diligence process before his appointment, the full extent of his relationship with Epstein was not known at the time. “The emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment,” the UK Foreign Office confirmed in a statement on September 11, 2025.
The emails in question, first reported by Bloomberg, date back to 2008, when Epstein was facing jail time for sex offenses. Mandelson’s messages included encouragement for Epstein to “fight for early release” and expressions of personal support, such as “I think the world of you,” sent just before Epstein began his 18-month sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor. According to Starmer, these communications “cut across the whole approach that I’ve taken on violence against women and girls for many years and this government’s.” He added that the emails showed Mandelson “was not only questioning but wanting to challenge the conviction of Epstein at the time.”
Starmer’s handling of the situation has drawn fire from multiple directions. He initially defended Mandelson in the Commons on September 10, 2025, only to sack him the following day after the emails’ contents became clear. Starmer insisted he was unaware of the emails’ details until “very late” on the evening of September 10, at which point he determined that Mandelson had to be removed. However, The Times reported that both Downing Street and the Foreign Office were aware of the emails as early as September 9, raising questions about the timeline and the Prime Minister’s assertions.
This sequence of events has fueled criticism from opposition parties and within Labour itself. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch accused Starmer of “lying to the whole country” about his knowledge of Mandelson’s Epstein links. In Parliament, Tory MP Alex Burghart formally requested the release of documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment, pressing the government for transparency on what Starmer knew and when. Meanwhile, Labour’s own Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Dame Emily Thornberry, demanded the government provide evidence on how Mandelson was cleared and appointed, signaling discontent within the party’s ranks.
The controversy comes at a particularly sensitive time for Starmer’s government. With US President Donald Trump’s state visit scheduled for the week of September 15 and the Labour conference looming at the end of the month, the scandal threatens to overshadow key political moments. The situation has also emboldened Labour MPs who have been privately and publicly frustrated with Starmer’s leadership and the broader Downing Street operation. According to BBC, Labour backbencher Richard Burgon told Radio 4’s Today programme that Starmer “would be gone” if the party performed poorly in the upcoming May elections in Scotland, Wales, and parts of England.
Compounding the government’s woes, on September 15, senior aide Paul Ovenden resigned following the leak of explicit messages about veteran MP Diane Abbott from eight years ago. This latest resignation added fuel to the fire, painting a picture of a Downing Street struggling to maintain discipline and cohesion amid multiple crises.
Starmer has repeatedly emphasized that Mandelson’s appointment followed a proper due diligence process, but the emails changed everything. “The nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson had with Epstein was far different to what I had understood to be the position when I appointed him,” he told reporters. Starmer also expressed dissatisfaction with Mandelson’s responses to government inquiries, stating he was “not at all” satisfied with the answers provided by the former ambassador.
The fallout from the scandal has not been limited to political infighting. The Speaker of the House has granted the Conservatives an emergency debate on Mandelson’s appointment, scheduled for Tuesday. This debate is expected to intensify pressure on the Prime Minister, as opposition MPs seek to capitalize on the government’s perceived missteps.
For many observers, the episode has highlighted the challenges of high-level appointments and the importance of rigorous vetting, especially when past associations can have profound implications for public trust. Mandelson, a veteran of the Blair and Brown governments, was a high-profile choice for the US ambassadorship. His long-standing friendship with Epstein was already public knowledge, but the supportive nature of his private communications with the disgraced financier took many by surprise.
As the government braces for further scrutiny, questions remain about how such information escaped the initial vetting process and whether other appointments could face similar retrospective examination. The Foreign Affairs Committee’s demand for evidence and the Conservatives’ push for document disclosure suggest that the issue will not fade quickly from the public eye.
With key events on the horizon and party unity under strain, Starmer’s leadership faces one of its stiffest tests yet. The handling of the Mandelson affair will likely shape perceptions of his judgment and crisis management for months to come. Whether the Prime Minister can draw a line under the scandal and refocus his administration remains to be seen, but for now, the reverberations of Mandelson’s emails continue to echo through Westminster.
