United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer finds himself in turbulent waters following revelations that a man he appointed as the country’s ambassador to the United States had maintained close ties with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The controversy erupted last September, casting a shadow over Starmer’s leadership.
Initially, the appointment of Peter Mandelson, a seasoned figure within the UK Labour Party known for his charismatic presence and extensive trade experience, was heralded as a strategic political move. However, this decision is now proving to be a double-edged sword, with potential ramifications severe enough to jeopardize Starmer’s political future.
In the face of mounting pressure, Starmer has persistently deflected calls for his resignation. On Monday, he addressed the UK Parliament, standing firm against adversaries who argue that this debacle raises significant doubts about his judgment and integrity.
For those seeking to understand the unfolding drama, it all traces back to the release of Epstein’s infamous ‘birthday book’ in September, a development that ignited the current scandal. As the situation continues to unfold, it remains a contentious issue at the heart of British politics.
What do we know about Mandelson’s links to Epstein?
The scandal erupted in September, when Epstein’s so-called ‘birthday book’ was released.
It included a letter purportedly from Mandelson to the late paedophile describing him as “my best pal”.
Mandelson said he “deeply regretted” ever meeting Epstein and said that he carried on the association “far longer” than he should have.
The following day, it was revealed that Mandelson had encouraged Epstein to fight for early release in 2008 when he was due to be sentenced to 18 months in jail for soliciting a minor, prompting Starmer to fire him from his diplomatic post.
But that’s not the end of the story. In February 2026, more documents came to light, including some that appeared to show that Mandelson had received money from Epstein and leaked a confidential government briefing to him.
Mandelson said he had no recollection of any payments but left the Labour Party to “prevent further embarrassment”, while Starmer said Mandelson should be removed from Britain’s upper house of parliament.
The following day, police launched an investigation into alleged misconduct in public office to examine whether Mandelson had leaked market-sensitive information to Epstein.
Mandelson was later arrested but was released the following day pending further investigation, and Starmer’s government soon after agreed to publish “all papers” related to Mandelson’s appointment.
This is where the political scandal really kicks off.
Why do some people think Starmer should quit?
While Starmer had been fielding calls to resign over revelations linking his US ambassador to Epstein since the ties were first made public, things really started to heat up for the UK prime minister in March 2026, when government documents suggested Starmer had been warned about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein before Starmer appointed him.
A document released by the UK government and labelled as “Advice to the prime minister, checks conducted on 4 December, 2024”, said: “After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was business minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government.”
The document also said Mandelson had “reportedly stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail in June 2009”.
Other documents released by the government indicate that a senior UK national security advisor found the vetting process “weirdly rushed” and that Starmer’s chief of staff had been told there were concerns about Mandelson’s “reputation”.
These documents prompted Starmer’s political opponents to suggest that the prime minister had known about Mandelson’s ties to Epstein before his appointment.
Starmer defended himself at the time, saying that Mandelson had lied to him about the extent of their relationship.
Why is this story back in the news now?
Last week, the Guardian reported that Mandelson failed security vetting for the role but foreign ministry officials proceeded with the appointment anyway.
Citing multiple unnamed sources, reporters found officials at the foreign office had intervened to override the recommendation and let Mandelson take up the post.
This directly contradicts what Starmer said three times in September — when the ties between Manelson and Epstein first surfaced — that “full due process” had been followed before the high-profile appointment.
On Monday in London, Starmer fronted the UK parliament to put the blame firmly on foreign ministry officials, saying they had withheld information about Mandelson that would have halted his employment.
Starmer again expressed anger over not being told by foreign ministry officials that in January 2025, they had disregarded advice and decided to grant Mandelson what is known as developed vetting clearance, a status that allows individuals access to information regarded as top secret.
“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 system in government,” Starmer told parliament.
“That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work.”
What does all this mean for Starmer’s political future?
Opponents have accused Starmer of lying and incompetence, and say his position is no longer tenable.
Three weeks before local elections in which Starmer’s once-popular Labour Party is expected to suffer heavy losses, the resurgence of the scandal has triggered new questions about his grip on government, although no senior Labour politicians have urged him to go.
Kemi Badenoch, leader of the main opposition in the UK, the Conservative Party, accused Starmer of failing to face up to the consequences of his actions.
“It is how you face up to those mistakes that shows the character of a leader,” she told parliament.
“Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the prime minister has thrown his staff, and his officials, under the bus.”
— With additional reporting by the Reuters news agency.
For the latest from SBS News, download our app and subscribe to our newsletter.
