What we know about the scandal over UK's ex-US envoy Mandelson

___________

LONDON — The ill-fated 2024 decision to appoint veteran Labour politician Peter Mandelson to be Britain's ambassador in Washington has plagued Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with allegations this week causing a fresh political storm.

Here are some of the key facts about the sacked envoy, his close ties to late US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and what Starmer knew about his background.

Chequered history

Along with Tony Blair, Mandelson was one of the co-architects of "New Labour", which transformed the UK centre-left Labour Party in the 1990s.

Dubbed the "Prince of Darkness" of British politics for his fondness for operating behind the scenes, he served twice as a minister during Blair's premiership, covering trade and then Northern Ireland.

Both times, he was forced to quit over minor scandals linked to questionable associates.

A vociferous supporter of the UK's participation in European politics, Mandelson became an EU trade commissioner in 2004, before returning to UK politics amid the financial crash of 2008 as a minister in Gordon Brown's government.

Starmer confirmed Mandelson's appointment as the next ambassador to the United States in December 2024, and he took up the post in February, 2025.

He was sacked in September that year, just seven months later, following fresh revelations about his relationship with Epstein.

Ties to Epstein

The latest Epstein files released by the US in January revealed how close ties were between the men, despite Mandelson's claim to have distanced himself from the late financier following his conviction in 2008 for sex crimes, including soliciting a minor.

The emails and photos suggested that Mandelson stayed in Epstein's apartment in New York while he was serving his prison sentence and appeared to have received payments from the financier amounting to $75,000 between 2003 and 2004.

Mandelson has told the BBC he had no memory of the money transfers and did not know whether the documents were authentic.

The files also appeared to show that Mandelson leaked sensitive documents to Epstein while he was a government minister from 2008 to 2010.

Police opened an investigation into allegations of misconduct in office and Mandelson was arrested and released on bail in February. He has not been charged and denies criminal wrongdoing.

Starmer's involvement

Up till this week, the main accusation against Starmer was that he appointed Mandelson as ambassador to Washington despite knowing of his ties to Epstein, raising questions about his judgement.

Starmer resisted calls to resign over the scandal in February, when he insisted that Mandelson had "lied repeatedly" to officials about the extent of his friendship before and during his time as ambassador.

But the crisis deepened, leading the prime minister's chief aide, Morgan McSweeney, to quit along with two other top officials.

In March, under pressure from lawmakers, the government published documents related to Mandelson's appointment.

They showed Starmer was warned that appointing Mandelson carried a "reputational risk".

Fresh revelations

Since the first revelations emerged last autumn, Starmer has repeatedly said that "full due process" was followed in appointing Mandelson.

But The Guardian newspaper on Thursday revealed that foreign ministry officials allowed the appointment to proceed despite Mandelson failing a background check carried out by UK Security Vetting.

A "furious" Starmer insisted Friday that neither he nor any other government minister were "aware" of this advice, calling that "completely unacceptable".

The foreign ministry's top civil servant, Olly Robbins, was ousted late Thursday over the botched process.

Starmer's defence

Starmer has insisted he did not knowingly mislead parliament when he said Mandelson was appointed in the correct way, because he had not been told.

According to the British ministerial code on standards of conduct, ministers who "knowingly mislead" parliament are expected to resign.

But Starmer's detractors have argued that even if he was not dishonest, his lack of curiosity about Mandelson's background and vetting shows a level of incompetency that requires him to step down.