No. 10 and the Foreign Office knew of Mandelson’s supportive emails to Epstein before the PM defended him

LONDON — Officials in Downing Street and the Foreign Office had access to emails showing Lord Peter Mandelson offering support to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, before Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer publicly defended him at Prime Minister’s Questions. Despite that awareness, Starmer said he stood by Mandelson, only to sack him shortly afterwards once the full extent of the messages emerged.

The chain of events is sharply embarrassing for the government. A media enquiry that included details of the emails was sent to the Foreign Office on Tuesday; it was then passed on to Number 10. On Wednesday, at Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer publicly defended Mandelson — saying he had been fully vetted and expressing confidence in him — without knowing the full contents of the emails.

Meanwhile, Sir Oliver Robbins, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, asked Mandelson about the emails on Tuesday but did not receive a response until the following day. Late on Wednesday evening, the emails were published by Bloomberg and The Sun.

One particularly damning email, sent in June 2008 after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting sex from a minor, showed Mandelson writing: “You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release … Your friends stay with you and love you.” He also described himself as feeling “hopeless and furious about what has happened.” Another document published earlier — a “birthday book” from 2003 compiled by US congressional overseers — shows Mandelson addressing Epstein as his “best pal.”

When the revelations hit, pressure mounted from across the political spectrum. Some within Labour, including backbench MPs, said Starmer’s judgment was in question. Critics asked what Starmer and his senior officials knew, and whether they misled the public in defending Mandelson before seeing the evidence.

On Thursday morning, after reviewing the newly published material, Starmer removed Mandelson from his post as UK Ambassador to the United States, saying the emails revealed a link materially different in depth and extent than when Mandelson was appointed. The Foreign Office released a statement explaining that this newly surfaced correspondence showed Mandelson had made suggestions that Epstein’s first conviction may have been wrongful and should be challenged — information that was unknown at the time of appointment.

Mandelson expressed regret, saying he had taken at face value lies fed to him by Epstein’s legal team and others. He said he never witnessed the wrongdoing himself, but deeply regretted having met him and the things he had written.

Starmer now faces growing calls to explain his judgment and oversight. MPs from his own party, as well as opposition figures, demand transparency: when did he learn of the emails, and why did he defend Mandelson before having full knowledge?