New papers, old problems
Government documents published today show that Keir Starmer was warned about the reputational risk of naming Peter Mandelson as the United Kingdom's ambassador to the United States. The concern: Mandelson's past closeness to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted in the United States for crimes involving minors.
What the briefing said
Nine days before Mandelson's appointment was formalised in December 2024, the prime minister's cabinet office prepared a briefing that flagged "general risks" to Mandelson's reputation. That briefing referenced a 2009 JP Morgan inquiry that described Mandelson's relationship with Epstein as "particularly close," and noted that the relationship continued after Epstein's first conviction.
The papers also point to a document in the UK National Archives that records at least one meeting between then-prime minister Tony Blair and Epstein, a meeting the files say was helped along by Mandelson.
Starmer's position and the fallout
These findings complicate the prime minister's public defence that he was not fully aware of the extent of Mandelson's past and that Mandelson had misled him. Opposition parties seized on the newly released material in the Commons, pushing the government on why the risks were not better managed before the appointment.
Officials also confirm that what was published today is only a portion of the material due to be released, so more details may follow.
Money and timing
The released papers include awkward details about Mandelson's exit pay when he was removed from a previous role: an initial claim of £547,000 after just nine months, later reduced to a £75,000 payment from the Treasury as part of a negotiated settlement during that earlier controversy.
Red flags from security advisers
Jonathan Powell, a former national security adviser, described the political appointment as "strangely hurried" in notes of a conversation with the prime minister's legal adviser, Mike Ostheimer. That comment appears among the documents now available.
What it means
The newly published notes do not prove wrongdoing by anyone involved, but they do show that Downing Street had material pointing to reputational risks before the decision was finalised. For a government that promised transparency, the timing and content of these papers will keep the story alive as more documents are released.
In short: the files add fresh detail to an already awkward appointment. More revelations may be on the way, and they are likely to keep both opponents and commentators busy for a while.
