UK Government Says Starmer 'Deeply Regrets' Mandelson Appointment

A senior UK government minister told parliament that Prime Minister Keir Starmer “deeply regrets taking him at his word” regarding Peter Mandelson’s representations about his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, marking the government’s sharpest public break with the former ambassador.¹

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones made the statement during parliamentary questions on March 12, describing his own “disgust and horror” at the extent of Mandelson’s Epstein ties as revealed in recently released documents.¹

The remarks represent the most direct acknowledgment by a serving minister that Starmer relied on Mandelson’s personal assurances about the nature of the relationship when appointing him as UK ambassador to Washington in early 2025.

The Ambassador’s Downfall

Mandelson was removed from the ambassadorship in September 2025 after emails emerged showing he had maintained contact with Epstein after Epstein’s 2008 sex offense conviction in Florida.² The communications contradicted Mandelson’s public statements that his interactions with Epstein had been minimal and had ceased after the conviction.

ITV News reported that the emails, which surfaced as part of document releases under the U.S. Epstein Files Transparency Act, showed a pattern of continued engagement that extended well beyond what Mandelson had disclosed to government officials during the vetting process.²

Jones’s parliamentary statement suggested that Mandelson had actively misrepresented the scope of his Epstein relationship to Starmer and other senior government figures. The phrase “taking him at his word” implied that the prime minister had accepted Mandelson’s personal account without sufficient independent verification.¹

Parliamentary Reaction

Opposition members pressed the government on why the due diligence process had failed to uncover the full extent of Mandelson’s ties before the appointment, given that a December 2024 checklist had flagged reputational risks.¹

Jones did not directly address whether the government had conducted additional inquiries beyond the standard vetting process. He focused instead on expressing the government’s current position that the relationship, as now understood, was unacceptable for someone holding a senior diplomatic post.¹

Conservative MPs called the episode a failure of judgment by Starmer, arguing that publicly available reporting at the time of the appointment had already raised significant questions about Mandelson’s Epstein connections.²

Mandelson’s Response

Mandelson has not issued a public statement in response to Jones’s parliamentary remarks. Through representatives, he has previously maintained that his relationship with Epstein was not as extensive as some media reports have suggested and that he was never aware of Epstein’s criminal activities.²

The Metropolitan Police have faced growing calls to open a formal investigation into Mandelson’s conduct in connection with the Epstein network. Senior officers have said they are reviewing materials released under the U.S. transparency law to determine whether a UK criminal investigation is warranted.

Jones’s use of the word “regrets” stopped short of a formal apology from Starmer, but it represented a significant shift in the government’s posture. Previous statements had focused on the facts emerging from document releases rather than directly acknowledging a failure in the appointment decision.¹

The government has not indicated whether it plans to conduct an internal review of the vetting procedures that cleared Mandelson for the ambassadorship despite the documented warnings about his Epstein ties.

References

1. TIME — “UK Government Says Starmer ‘Deeply Regrets’ Mandelson Appointment Over Epstein Ties”
2. ITV News — “Mandelson Fired as Ambassador After Epstein Emails Revealed”