UK PM Starmer says he shouldn’t have appointed Epstein-linked pick for US ambassador

By Issy Ronald, CNN

London (CNN) — When Keir Starmer was elected Britain’s prime minister nearly two years ago, his promise to a public weary of political scandals and turmoil was that his government would be different.

Yet the furor over Starmer’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson – whose close ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein would be detailed in files released by the US Department of Justice – as Britain’s ambassador to the United States is once again threatening to engulf his premiership.

On Monday, Starmer admitted to parliament that he shouldn’t have appointed Mandelson to the plum diplomatic role, from which he was sacked after seven months.

That admission came days after it emerged Mandelson had failed in-depth security vetting conducted before his appointment in early 2025. Citing multiple sources, the Guardian reported on Thursday that officials at the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office then used a rare authority to override that recommendation, since Starmer had already announced Mandelson’s appointment.

Starmer insisted he was unaware of the failed vetting, but acknowledged that “at the heart of this is also a judgment I made that was wrong.”

“I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson,” he told parliament Monday. “I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologize again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.”

He detailed the process of Mandelson’s appointment and vetting, referencing several occasions when he might have been informed the former ambassador failed to pass the in-depth security process.

However, that vetting only began after the government had publicly announced Mandelson’s new role as the US ambassador, Starmer confirmed.

“I know many members (of parliament) will find these facts to be incredible, to that I can only say they are right. It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our government,” he said.

Starmer’s statement laid the blame at the feet of senior officials in the Foreign Office, days after Downing Street effectively fired the department’s top official, civil servant Olly Robbins, while briefing media that he and his staff had not informed Starmer of Mandelson having failed the security vetting.

But these steps have not halted the questions leveled against the government by opposition lawmakers and its own backbenchers.

“It’s one thing to say, as (Starmer) insists on saying, nobody told me… Why didn’t the Prime Minister ask?” said Diane Abbott, a former Labour and now independent lawmaker.

And Starmer will face further challenges on Tuesday when Robbins testifies in front of a parliamentary committee.

There, Robbins will be questioned over his earlier assertion that Mandelson’s “security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy.”

What Robbins says on Tuesday will determine the next chapter of this affair. The Financial Times reported Sunday that he is taking legal advice and “feels aggrieved over his dismissal,” citing people close to him.

All this comes only weeks ahead of local elections in which Starmer’s Labour Party is expected to suffer heavy losses. If ever someone were to mount a leadership challenge against Starmer, as the conventional thinking went before the war with Iran unleashed huge geopolitical uncertainty, it would come after those elections. So, the most damaging scandal of Starmer’s premiership rears its head again at a profoundly unstable time for the government.

Still, key ministers have publicly defended Starmer, indicating he retains some measure of support within his cabinet. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy told the Guardian on Saturday that Starmer would “never ever have appointed” Mandelson had he known about the former ambassador’s failure to pass security vetting.

Technology minister Liz Kendall echoed that message on Sunday, telling Sky News that Starmer is a “man of integrity” who would have reversed course if required.

But his political opponents say the latest revelations are further evidence of a serious judgement lapse by Starmer and have called on him to resign, claiming he misled parliament when previously detailing the process before Mandelson’s appointment as having followed standard procedure.

Either Starmer is “lying or grossly incompetent,” said Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, on Friday.

Even before further details about his ties with Epstein emerged in recent months, Mandelson was seen as a risky bet – someone who could hold his own with US President Donald Trump, but who also had a habit of becoming embroiled in controversy.

During a career in which he built a reputation as a canny political operator who helped remake the modern Labour Party, Mandelson was also forced to resign from government twice, in the 1990s and early 2000s.

British police arrested Mandelson in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, after documents released by the US Department of Justice showed he appeared to leak sensitive British government data to Epstein. He was released after questioning but remains under investigation. Mandelson has denied any criminal wrongdoing.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.