Downing Street faced mounting pressure on Sunday after reports that officials learned days before Lord Mandelson’s removal that he had suggested Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged — information that, according to the Daily Mail, was not passed to Prime Minister Keir Starmer before he publicly expressed confidence in his ambassador.
The revelation intensified a growing revolt in Parliament and renewed questions about who in No 10 knew what and when, with some Labour MPs warning the prime minister’s position could be weakened before the next general election. Tory critics demanded Mr. Starmer appear in Parliament to explain the handling of the matter.
According to the report, Downing Street was notified on Tuesday of a 2,000-word Bloomberg News memo that sought comment from Lord Mandelson and included the allegation about Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The prime minister, the paper said, told MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday that he had "confidence" in his envoy in Washington. The report said officials in the Foreign Office only received a response from Lord Mandelson on Wednesday afternoon, and the envoy was withdrawn on Thursday morning after the Foreign Office described the suggestion about the earlier conviction as "new information."
No 10 would not disclose on Sunday who had withheld the memo or the allegation from the prime minister. Sources cited by the report said the information reached Downing Street on Tuesday but was not shared with Mr. Starmer before his Commons appearance. The prime minister’s office denied there had been a row between Mr. Starmer and his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, though the Mail on Sunday reported an exchange in which the prime minister told an aide: "You are supposed to protect me from things like this!"
The episode prompted criticism from opposition and backbench MPs. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the prime minister had been "missing in action" and demanded he come to Parliament to "come clean." Several frontbench and backbench Labour MPs described disquiet over the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as ambassador and over the timing and handling of his removal. Business Secretary Peter Kyle, an ally of Lord Mandelson’s, suggested pre-appointment security checks had only turned up material already in the public domain and said the discovery of the unpublished emails had changed the situation.
Labour figures were reported to be concerned about the political fallout. One MP said the parliamentary party was unhappy with the handling and that it would be "incredibly difficult for the prime minister to survive in the long term." Labour MP Graham Stringer was quoted saying Mr. Starmer was "supping in the last-chance saloon," and Rosena Allin-Khan warned public opinion in May would indicate whether voters still had confidence in his leadership.
Officials involved in vetting and the Foreign Office declined to comment on internal deliberations beyond confirming that Lord Mandelson had been withdrawn from his ambassadorial post after the new information emerged. The report said the Foreign Office permanent secretary, Sir Oliver Robbins, sought a formal response from Lord Mandelson about the emails before the decision to withdraw him.
The published emails, which prompted the controversy, included messages in which Lord Mandelson was said to have sent supportive communications to Epstein while the latter faced conviction for sex offences. The content of the Bloomberg memo that alerted Downing Street reportedly contained the claim that Lord Mandelson suggested Epstein’s earlier conviction was wrongful and should be challenged. The Foreign Office described that suggestion as "new information" when announcing the withdrawal.
The episode has intensified scrutiny of the prime minister’s chief of staff, with critics asking whether Mr. McSweeney or others in Downing Street should have ensured Mr. Starmer was informed sooner. Calls for clarity over who knew what and the timing of disclosures were echoed across the political spectrum. Downing Street said it would not reveal who had been aware of the memo.
The controversy follows a high-profile appointment that some ministers defended as a calculated risk given Lord Mandelson’s experience. A cabinet minister was quoted as saying Mandelson’s "singular talents" made him worth the appointment, while acknowledging the emerging material had altered the assessment.
Labour faces political pressure to explain both the initial appointment and the sequence of events that led to the ambassador’s abrupt withdrawal. The prime minister was expected to address the matter in Parliament following the weekend coverage.
Parliamentary observers said the incident could have longer-term consequences for Mr. Starmer’s leadership depending on the answers provided and the public reaction to the handling of the Mandelson appointment. No formal challenge to the prime minister’s leadership had been reported as of Sunday night, but allies and critics alike signalled the episode had heightened strain within the party and across Westminster.
The Mail report is the primary source of the timeline and claims about Downing Street’s knowledge. Officials and ministers quoted in the coverage declined to provide further detail beyond confirming that the envoy had been withdrawn and that the Foreign Office had described the relevant claim as new information that required immediate action.