LONDON (AP) – British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced significant criticism following the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States, despite warnings about Mandelson's long-standing relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Documents released on Wednesday revealed that Starmer was alerted to potential "reputational risk" associated with Mandelson's friendship with Epstein prior to the appointment, yet he proceeded with the decision.
Mandelson, a prominent figure within the governing Labour Party, was dismissed from his post after just nine months when additional details concerning his ties to Epstein came to light. The newly disclosed files illustrate that the Prime Minister overlooked several concerning signals raised by his staff regarding Mandelson’s suitability for what is considered the UK’s most critical diplomatic position, particularly at a time when establishing relations with then-President Donald Trump’s administration was pivotal.
The documents unveiled a two-decade friendship between Mandelson and Epstein, tracing back to at least 2002, a period in which Mandelson facilitated a meeting between Epstein and former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Notably, it was flagged in a "due diligence report" prepared by senior civil servants that Mandelson stayed at Epstein's residence while the financier was incarcerated in 2009 for sexual offenses involving a minor. A 2019 report by JPMorgan further noted a particularly close relationship between Epstein and Mandelson, as well as with the then-Prince Andrew.
Concerns about Mandelson's past also resurfaced, recalling his previous resignations from government positions due to financial matters. Despite these issues, Cabinet minister Darren Jones emphasized that the due diligence report did not adequately capture the extent of Mandelson's friendship with Epstein, suggesting that Mandelson misled Starmer about their connection. Jones condemned the appointment, stating that “Peter Mandelson should never have been afforded the privilege of representing this country,” and described Starmer’s trust in Mandelson as a significant error.
Political repercussions for Starmer continue to mount as the controversy persists. He had previously dismissed Mandelson in September after revelations emerged that Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein post his 2008 conviction. Following the release of thousands of documents detailing Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, the Prime Minister's judgment came under intense scrutiny, culminating in calls for his resignation from adversaries and even some internal party members.
Although Starmer managed to navigate the immediate fallout, his leadership remains precarious. It is worth noting that Starmer had no personal involvement with Epstein and is not implicated in any of Epstein's illicit activities. The 147 pages of documents were published in response to pressure from lawmakers demanding transparency regarding Mandelson's appointment, which took place as Trump began his second term.
The government intends to use the released files to demonstrate that Mandelson misled officials during the vetting process. However, further details remain under wraps due to ongoing police investigations, with questions regarding the integrity of the appointment process still looming. Notably, after Mandelson's termination, National Security Advisor Jonathan Powell had voiced concerns about the hastiness of the appointment.
Opposition leader Ed Davey characterized Starmer’s decisions as a "catastrophic failure of judgment," while Conservative lawmaker Alex Burghart emphasized that the responsibility ultimately lay with the Prime Minister, asserting that the trust within his party and country might be irrevocably damaged.
As for Mandelson himself, who is currently under police investigation for alleged misconduct in public office, he had previously denied any wrongdoing. Arrested on February 23 at his home in London, he was released without bail as inquiries continue. Despite the controversy, he has demanded a significant severance payment following his dismissal, although he ultimately received a much lower amount from the government.
