Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced internal warnings before appointing veteran Labour figure Peter Mandelson as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States, according to government documents made public on Wednesday. Officials cautioned that Mandelson’s past association with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein could pose reputational risks for the government, yet the appointment ultimately went ahead.

Despite those concerns, Starmer publicly expressed confidence in his decision when the appointment was announced. He said Mandelson would bring exceptional experience to the role and help strengthen the longstanding partnership between the United Kingdom and the United States. The appointment was framed at the time as a strategic move aimed at reinforcing diplomatic and political ties with Washington.

However, newly released documents reveal that members of the prime minister’s vetting team had flagged Mandelson’s past connections with Epstein before the appointment was finalized. In a due diligence briefing delivered to Starmer in December 2024, officials highlighted previously reported details about the relationship between the two men.

According to the document, their contact continued for several years even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for procuring an underage girl. The report noted that Mandelson and Epstein remained in contact between 2009 and 2011, a period during which Mandelson served as the United Kingdom’s Business Secretary and continued his political career after the Labour government left office. It also referenced reports that Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s residence in June 2009 while Epstein was serving a jail sentence.

The decision to appoint Mandelson later became a political problem for Starmer. The controversy contributed to criticism of the prime minister’s judgment at a time when his approval ratings were already under pressure due to economic concerns and debates over policy changes.

Mandelson has never been accused of sexual misconduct. Nevertheless, documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with the broader Epstein investigation suggested that his relationship with Epstein may have been closer than previously understood. Some of the materials indicated that Mandelson had communicated with Epstein during his time in government and may have shared certain insights related to public affairs.

Political opponents of the prime minister have used these revelations to question his leadership. With the next British general election required to take place before August 2029, critics argue the controversy reflects poor judgment in making senior diplomatic appointments.

At the same time, internal discussions within the government show that Mandelson also had strong supporters inside Starmer’s political circle. One of the most influential voices backing the appointment was Morgan McSweeney, who served as Starmer’s chief of staff at the time and was known to have a long-standing political relationship with Mandelson.

Supporters believed Mandelson’s political experience and strategic instincts could be valuable in dealing with challenging international dynamics. Some officials saw him as a skilled negotiator capable of handling the assertive political style of former U.S. President Donald Trump, particularly on sensitive issues such as trade and defense.

The documents released this week suggest that McSweeney was not overly concerned by the warnings raised by other officials. Notes from internal discussions indicate that when concerns were presented, he responded that the issues had already been addressed.

Jonathan Powell, who served as Starmer’s national security adviser, later described the appointment process as unusually fast. In meeting notes recorded after Mandelson was removed from the ambassadorial position, Powell reportedly said he had previously raised concerns with McSweeney before the appointment was finalized.

The controversy escalated further in September 2025 when additional emails and correspondence surfaced, revealing more information about the length and depth of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Shortly afterward, Starmer dismissed Mandelson from his role as ambassador.

In the following weeks, British police briefly arrested Mandelson as part of an investigation into allegations that confidential government information may have been shared improperly. He was later released without charges, and the investigation remains ongoing. Mandelson has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

Pressure mounted on the government earlier this year after the U.S. Justice Department released another group of documents related to Epstein. Members of Parliament demanded clarification about how much Starmer knew about Mandelson’s past connections when he approved the appointment.

Facing criticism from both opposition lawmakers and members of his own party, Starmer agreed to release internal documents connected to the vetting process. The files made public on Wednesday represent part of that disclosure, though some materials were withheld at the request of law enforcement authorities so as not to interfere with the ongoing investigation.

Starmer has stated publicly that Mandelson misled him and senior officials about the extent of his relationship with Epstein. In a speech delivered last month, the prime minister said neither he nor his team had fully understood the seriousness of that connection at the time of the appointment.

Government aides had suggested that some of the vetting records would demonstrate that Mandelson provided incomplete or inaccurate information during the review process. However, the documents released so far did not include direct evidence of those claims, leaving several questions unresolved.

The absence of those materials has made it difficult for critics to determine exactly what information was available to the prime minister when the appointment was made. Some of the withheld records are believed to be connected to the Metropolitan Police investigation.

In response to the controversy, the British government announced that it would revise and strengthen its vetting procedures for senior public appointments. Officials said the changes are intended to improve ethical standards and restore confidence in government oversight.

Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury and a senior member of Starmer’s cabinet, told lawmakers that the prime minister deeply regrets relying on Mandelson’s assurances. He said that if the full details of the relationship with Epstein had been known earlier, the appointment would never have taken place.

Jones also confirmed that Starmer had apologized publicly and acknowledged that the decision had been a mistake.

Among the materials released this week was a reference to older correspondence suggesting that Mandelson had once helped arrange a meeting between Epstein and former British prime minister Tony Blair. Another email from 2002 showed Mandelson recommending Epstein to Jonathan Powell, who at that time served as Blair’s chief of staff. In that message, Mandelson described Epstein as someone closely connected to global financial markets.

Following his dismissal in September 2025, Mandelson’s legal representatives requested compensation equal to the remainder of his four-year ambassadorial salary, which would have totaled more than £547,000. Government officials rejected that request but approved a smaller severance payment of approximately £75,000.

The payment sparked further criticism from members of the Conservative Party, who questioned why any compensation had been granted at all. Jones responded in Parliament that the government had initially hoped to avoid making any payment but ultimately accepted legal advice that a settlement would be the fastest way to remove Mandelson from the position.

He added that the government believes Mandelson should either return the severance payment or donate it to charity. It remains unclear whether he has done so.

Internal communications also reveal that Mandelson had specific concerns about how his departure would be handled. In an email sent shortly after his dismissal, he requested arrangements that would allow him to return to the United Kingdom with what he described as “maximum dignity” and minimal media attention.

In the message, Mandelson wrote that his primary concern was leaving the United States and arriving back in Britain without unnecessary publicity. He emphasized that he still considered himself a public servant and expected to be treated accordingly during the transition.

The documents released this week shed new light on how the appointment unfolded and how warnings were handled within the government. While the investigation into Mandelson continues, the episode has already triggered a broader debate in Britain about political accountability, transparency, and the standards applied to senior diplomatic appointments.