Peter Mandelson was dismissed as Britain’s ambassador to the United States on Thursday after the emergence of emails in which he described convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as his “best pal,” prompting anger within the Labour parliamentary party and renewed scrutiny of how the appointment was made days before a state visit by US President Donald Trump.
Labour MPs blamed Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief aide, Morgan McSweeney, for pressing the appointment and attempting to defend the peer after the email revelations, according to reporting by the Daily Mail and comments from MPs. Some backbenchers said the peer should never have been put forward for such a sensitive role and demanded publication of vetting documents and a review of the process surrounding the nomination.
Downing Street denied reports that the prime minister overruled security advice against the appointment. Whitehall sources told the Daily Mail that senior Foreign Office figures had warned against naming Mandelson, a former European Union trade commissioner and key architect of New Labour, because of his links to Epstein. Downing Street faced cross-party calls for an inquiry, including requests to publish all papers surrounding Mandelson’s vetting.
The removal capped a turbulent fortnight for the government. Starmer had expressed "full confidence" in Mandelson less than 24 hours before the dismissal, but the decision followed public disclosure of a tranche of emails reportedly stored in an old account. Labour figures said Mandelson had been open about his friendship with Epstein in private, a source of later regret, but that the emails made his position untenable in Washington.
Opposition Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the prime minister of "dithering" and said the episode raised "serious questions over what Starmer knew and when." "Keir Starmer's in office, but not in power," she said. Several Labour MPs described the handling of Mandelson’s appointment and removal as a "shambles," saying it compounded damage from other recent personnel upheavals.
Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander, speaking for the government in media interviews, said the decision to appoint Mandelson had been a "judgment" based on the peer's international experience and political seniority and that the administration had wanted an "unconventional" envoy to engage with an unconventional White House. Alexander acknowledged that MPs were "despondent" after the resignations and said the government would "move on" once action had been taken in response to the new evidence.
The controversy comes less than two weeks after Angela Rayner’s resignation from government over questions about her tax affairs and amid a wider reshuffle in which Yvette Cooper was moved from the Home Office to the Foreign Office, a change her husband Ed Balls said had left Cooper "frustrated." Some Labour MPs asked why Mandelson had been chosen when, they said, an initial shortlist compiled by former chief of staff Sue Gray reportedly did not include him.
A Labour insider told the Daily Mail that McSweeney had personally pushed for Mandelson’s appointment, describing the peer as a political mentor. Charlotte Nichols, a Labour backbencher, said Mandelson "should never have been appointed in the first place." Allies of Mandelson said he had not had access to the email account where the messages were later found.
The Foreign Office had signalled that Mandelson would represent Britain during high-profile engagements in Washington, including meetings connected to trade relations. Alexander noted that Mandelson had recently been in the White House with President Trump and said the UK had taken early steps on trade with the administration, arguing that fostering a strong relationship with the United States remained a priority.
Calls for an inquiry into the appointment and vetting process grew as politicians from across the Commons urged transparency. Downing Street has rejected suggestions it ignored security advice but has not released details of the vetting process. Labour’s internal unease over appointments and reshuffle decisions has raised questions about the government's management style at a moment of diplomatic significance.
Parliamentary pressure is likely to focus on the timeline of the appointment, who advocated for Mandelson internally and what material was available to ministers and advisers during the selection. Government sources said action was taken once the evidence emerged and ministers were seeking to limit further disruption ahead of the president’s visit.
The Mandelson episode is likely to remain a focal point in coming days as MPs press for documents and answers and the government seeks to steady relations at home and with the United States.