Revealed: Documents Show Epstein Links Flagged During Vetting of Lord Mandelson as US Ambassador

More than 1,500 pages of internal government emails, WhatsApps, vetting notes, meeting records and official correspondence have been released by the Cabinet Office in response to a parliamentary Humble Address, shedding new light on the appointment and subsequent withdrawal of Lord Peter Mandelson as HM Ambassador to Washington.

The documents, published across Volume II Parts I, II and III, reveal that Lord Mandelson’s past links to Jeffrey Epstein were explicitly identified as a significant reputational risk during the pre-appointment due diligence and vetting process.

Epstein concerns raised in official due diligence

Papers contained in Volume II Part I show that the government’s Propriety and Ethics Team and related security officials flagged Mandelson’s association with Jeffrey Epstein. The material was included in due diligence information passed to No.10 Downing Street. Internal emails discuss how these reputational issues should be presented to ministers and senior officials.

The original Humble Address motion, reproduced in all three volumes, specifically demanded the release of “his links to Jeffrey Epstein” along with material provided to UK Security Vetting about Mandelson’s interests in Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China.

Read more: Could Starmer’s 'Nuclear Option' Stall Any Leadership Challenge?

Despite these flagged concerns, the appointment went ahead. On 10 September 2025, Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the House of Commons that “full due process was followed during this appointment”.

Detailed vetting and security clearance process

Volume II Part I contains extensive correspondence between senior security officials, including Vincent Devine (Government Chief Security Officer), Ian Collard (former Chief Property & Security Officer, FCDO), Patricia Dreghorn (CEO, UK Security Vetting) and others. The papers document the handling of Mandelson’s DV clearance, the flow of due diligence information, and internal discussions about reputational versus security risks.

The documents also reference Mandelson’s previous role at Global Counsel and the need to examine potential conflicts arising from its international work.

Appointment, withdrawal and extensive government contact

Following his appointment, Mandelson engaged in frequent and high-level communication with senior members of the government. Volumes II Parts II and III contain hundreds of emails and WhatsApp messages between Mandelson and key figures including No.10 Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, Chancellor Rachel Reeves, several Cabinet ministers and senior FCDO officials.

Read more: Starmer's Grooming Gang U-Turn SHAMES Labour

The messages cover a wide range of diplomatic, trade and policy issues. Mandelson is shown providing advice, attending meetings and maintaining direct contact with ministers and No.10 staff both before and during his time as Ambassador.

Mandelson was later withdrawn from the post. The government has not detailed the precise reasons in the published material, but the volume of documentation released suggests the appointment became highly contentious.

Largest ever response to a Humble Address

The government describes the disclosure as “the largest ever Government response to a Humble Address”. In the methodology section that appears in all three volumes, officials explain the enormous scale of the exercise, which involved every government department and went far beyond a normal Freedom of Information request.

The majority of redactions were agreed with the Intelligence and Security Committee on national security and international relations grounds. Other limited redactions were made in line with Freedom of Information principles to protect junior officials, personal data and legal professional privilege.

Read more: Jailbreak Britain: Labour frees killers, ignores deportations

Crucially, the government states that some material has been withheld to avoid prejudicing an ongoing Metropolitan Police Service investigation. A further publication is promised once the police confirm it will not interfere with their inquiries.

Questions raised over judgment and process

The release has intensified political scrutiny of how the appointment was handled at the highest levels. Critics are likely to point to the combination of flagged Epstein links in due diligence, the subsequent withdrawal, and the need for this unprecedented document dump as evidence of serious shortcomings in judgment and process.

The documents show that Starmer’s private office and senior officials were directly involved in coordinating the appointment and managing the fall-out. The sheer quantity of material - thousands of hours of official work — underscores the scale of the controversy.

Further releases relating to the Metropolitan Police investigation are expected in due course.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a1d73d265bc5f798327f5b1/HA_Volume_II_part_I.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a1d73e065bc5f798327f5b2/HA_Volume_II_part_II.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a1d73ed916cd732dcdaad93/HA_Volume_II_part_III.pdf