Keir Starmer Says Foreign Office Cleared Peter Mandelson Against Security Vetting Recommendations

Britain’s political crisis over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States deepened after Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Monday that foreign office officials did not inform him, or any ministers, that they had granted security clearance to Mandelson in January 2025 against the recommendations of the U.K. Security Vetting agency.

Mandelson, 72, was sacked in September 2025 after revelations about the depth of his ties to the late U.S. sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and Starmer has since apologized for appointing him in the first place.

1News

Starmer told lawmakers it was “staggering” that he had not been told Mandelson had failed his security vetting clearance, even after he ordered a review into the process.

He said he had updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers “the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting,” and he also asked the Cabinet Office security group to look at any security concerns raised during Mandelson’s tenure.

The government said last week it had found out that Mandelson had failed a security vetting process carried out before he took up his post in February 2025, and it sacked top foreign ministry official Olly Robbins.

Opposition figures pressed the case further, with Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey calling Starmer’s judgment “catastrophic misjudgment” and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch saying he had been “recklessly negligent.”

The dispute has been framed around whether Starmer was told about a vetting failure before Mandelson’s appointment and whether the Foreign Office acted against the U.K. Security Vetting agency’s recommendations.

In Starmer’s account, he told Parliament that he was not informed of the problem until the 14 April, even though the nomination of Peter Mandelson as ambassador had taken place in December 2024 before the end of the checks.

Al Jazeera

The French-language report from l'Opinion says Starmer argued that the procedure was “habituelle” and that he “a depuis changé le protocole pour que les nominations aient lieu seulement après les vérifications nécessaires.”

It also says Starmer did not understand why he was not informed once the procedure was finalized, or even during revelations in September 2025 and February 2026.

The HuffPost report says Starmer admitted “une erreur de jugement” and told MPs, “Je n’aurais pas dû nommer Peter Mandelson. J’assume la responsabilité de cette décision,” while also rejecting accusations of lying.

Meanwhile, Sud Ouest reports Starmer said, “If I had known […] that the vetting service's recommendation was to refuse the security clearance, I would not have proceeded with this appointment,” and he said “That opinion should have been communicated to me.”

Starmer’s remarks in Parliament and the competing opposition narratives have centered on communication failures and the meaning of the vetting process.

CBC reports that Starmer apologized again to Epstein's victims and said Mandelson should never have been appointed as the U.K.'s ambassador to the U.S., adding that his judgment was wrong.

It also says Starmer told lawmakers it was “unforgivable” he was not told about the vetting failure until last week, and it notes that opponents accused him of lying and incompetence.

In the same CBC account, Scotland Minister Douglas Alexander said, “I think he will lead, and I think he should,” while also telling Sky News: “I think that there are rightfully and reasonably important questions that need to be answered today.”

The Conservative Party’s Kemi Badenoch said in an open letter that “This has been a tawdry and shaming affair for you and your party, and for this country,” and she added that Starmer had “undermined our national security by giving the highest diplomatic post to an individual that the security services found to be of 'high concern.'”

Sud Ouest adds that Starmer accused Mandelson of having 'lied repeatedly' about the extent of his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and it quotes Starmer telling the House of Commons, “I should not have named Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for this decision, and I again apologize to the victims of the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.”

While all the accounts revolve around Mandelson’s security clearance and Starmer’s response, they diverge in emphasis and in how they describe the underlying process.

CBC foregrounds Starmer’s claim that he was not informed by foreign office officials and highlights the government’s decision to sack Olly Robbins after it found out Mandelson had failed a security vetting process before he took up his post in February 2025.

Anadolu Ajansı

The HuffPost report focuses on Starmer’s parliamentary defense that he did not know about the unfavorable opinion until later, and it quotes him describing the situation as “défie l’entendement” because officials allegedly hid information from “les ministres les plus haut placés.”

Sud Ouest frames the controversy around Starmer’s admission of “misjudgment” and quotes his statement that “That opinion should have been communicated to me,” while also describing the political fallout including calls for resignation and the dismissal of Olly Robbins.

l'Opinion emphasizes a specific date sequence, saying Starmer claimed he was informed only on the 14 April and that Mandelson’s nomination had occurred in December 2024 before the end of the checks, and it reports that Starmer said he had changed the protocol so nominations happen only after necessary checks.

Boursorama, using information provided by Reuters, stresses that Starmer attacked Foreign Office officials and says he repeated that they concealed information from the highest ministers in the government, adding that he would never have appointed Mandelson if he had known Mandelson had not passed the security clearance.

The immediate consequences described by the sources include dismissals, parliamentary testimony, and a police investigation tied to the Epstein-linked revelations.

CBC says top foreign ministry official Olly Robbins was sacked, and it reports that Starmer had asked the group overseeing security standards across government to examine any security concerns raised during Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador to the United States.

BBC

It also says Starmer told lawmakers he had updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting, and it notes that opponents have accused Starmer of lying and incompetence.

l'Opinion reports that the police opened an investigation and perquisitioned two residences of the ex-ambassador in February after the publication of new documents drawn from the Epstein files, published fin janvier by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Boursorama adds that Robbins was to be heard on Tuesday by a parliamentary committee, and it describes Starmer’s “apologies” to Epstein’s victims and condemnation of Mandelson’s “lies” in February, without resigning at the time.

The sources also tie the stakes to national security and the U.K.-U.S. relationship, with Badenoch saying Starmer damaged the relationship with the United States and insulted Epstein’s victims, and with her claim that Starmer undermined national security by appointing someone deemed “highly concerning” by security services.