Starmer Faces Calls To Quit After Mandelson Fails Security Vetting For U.S. Ambassador Role

Britain’s political crisis over security vetting deepened after reporting that Lord Peter Mandelson failed developed vetting before being appointed ambassador to the United States.

“United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer is under renewed pressure over UK media reports that former ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson failed security vetting but was cleared to take on the role by foreign ministry officials”

Al Jazeera

The BBC said the prime minister will appear before MPs on Monday to explain what went wrong, after it emerged that Lord Mandelson did not pass initial security vetting checks ahead of taking up the role of ambassador to the United States.

Al Jazeera

The BBC described developed vetting as “an intrusive process designed to ensure that people with access to secret information, like ambassadors, do not pose a potential security risk,” and said the government has said officials at UKSV recommended against granting Lord Mandelson security clearance.

The BBC also reported that the government has not divulged why, even as it said security clearances can come with strings attached such as restrictions to manage conflicts of interest.

The BBC further stated that the BBC has been told that UKSV presented the Foreign Office with a list of potential risks and a recommendation that can fall into categories described as “yes”, “yes with caveats” and “no,” adding that sources say the recommendation given to the Foreign Office by the vetting services was a “no.”

The Guardian reported that the top civil servant in the Foreign Office was forced out after a Guardian investigation revealed his department overruled a decision to deny Peter Mandelson security vetting clearance.

In the same Guardian account, Downing Street said “Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week.”

The dispute centers on how the vetting decision was handled inside government and when ministers learned about it.

The BBC said that a day before Lord Mandelson was sacked last September, the prime minister told MPs that “full due process” had been followed during his appointment, while a day after the peer was dismissed, The Independent raised questions about the process, reporting that Lord Mandelson may not have passed security checks.

BBC

The BBC also said that at a press conference in February this year, Sir Keir said the vetting process “gave him clearance for the role,” and on Friday insisted he “was not told” the peer had failed vetting, describing that as “staggering” and “completely unacceptable.”

The Guardian added that Mandelson had in January 2025 failed a developed vetting process, described as “a highly confidential background check by security officials,” and that officials at the Foreign Office used “a rarely used authority to override the recommendation from security officials.”

The Guardian reported that Robbins was the department’s top civil servant in late January 2025 when the decision was made, having taken up the role earlier that month.

The BBC said the security vetting took place alongside a separate process run by the Foreign Office to assess Lord Mandelson’s financial conflicts of interests, and that Sir Olly told MPs he had put “some measures” in place to mitigate potential conflicts arising from the peer’s links to Global Counsel, the lobbying company he co-founded in 2010.

The BBC also said the government has said no ministers, including Sir Keir, knew that Lord Mandelson had failed the vetting process at the time and were not made aware until earlier this week.

The BBC further reported that the government has said the decision to grant his security clearance was made by “officials” within the Foreign Office without specifying who exactly made the call.

The Guardian said it is not known who in the Foreign Office made the decision to overrule UKSV, and that further documents are due to be released.

Opposition leaders and government figures have clashed over whether Starmer misled Parliament and who should be held responsible for the vetting override.

“Former UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson UK Prime MinisterKeir Starmerfaced renewed calls from opposition leaders to quit after revelations that his former envoy to the US failed security vetting and was still allowed to take up the post”

Bloomberg

The BBC said opposition parties have cast doubt on the prime minister’s version of events, and it quoted Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch branding his explanation “completely preposterous.”

The BBC also asked why the PM said “full due process” had been followed and why, in February, he said there was “security vetting carried out independently by the security services... gave him clearance for the role.”

The Guardian reported that after the disclosure, Downing Street insisted that the prime minister had no knowledge that security officials advised Mandelson should not be given clearance, and said responsibility lay with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).

The Guardian also quoted Kemi Badenoch saying that if the prime minister had misled the House of Commons over Mandelson’s vetting he “must take responsibility,” and it quoted Ed Davey saying: “If Keir Starmer has misled parliament and lied to the British people, he has to go.”

The Times of India said Ed Davey alleged that the prime minister had misled both Parliament and the public, a violation that under the Ministerial Code could warrant resignation, and it said Darren Jones described the situation as “utterly unacceptable.”

The Times of India also said the government confirmed that it suspended the ability of departments, including the Foreign Office, to override security vetting recommendations, and that an urgent review had been ordered into past cases where such overrides occurred.

CNN reported that Starmer expressed anger over not being informed that Mandelson had failed security vetting before being handed the job, and that he told reporters it was unforgivable he had not been told about Mandelson having failed security vetting “when I was telling parliament that due process had been followed.”

CNN also reported that Starmer said he would “set out the relevant facts” on Monday to parliament, while a spokesperson said the prime minister had no plans to resign.

The scandal has produced personnel changes and a fight over what information will be released to Parliament and security committees.

POLITICO reported that Olly Robbins was dismissed late Thursday as Starmer’s government reeled from the Mandelson scandal, and it said Starmer and foreign secretary Yvette Cooper lost confidence in Robbins after a new report revealed details of his role in the security vetting for Mandelson.

Modern Diplomacy

POLITICO also said second permanent secretary Nick Dyer confirmed in a message to staff Friday that he would take over from Robbins on an interim basis “while we work through this period of change,” and that he would “share more about arrangements in the coming days.”

The Guardian said Robbins’ forced departure came after the Guardian investigation revealed his department overruled a decision to deny Mandelson security vetting clearance, and it described the decision as based on multiple sources.

The Guardian reported that Downing Street spent much of Thursday battling demands for the prime minister himself to resign, and it said No 10 insisted that the prime minister had no knowledge that security officials advised Mandelson should not be given clearance.

The Guardian also stated that any attempt to withhold documents from the intelligence and security committee (ISC) could amount to a breach of a parliamentary motion to release “all papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment.”

In the Guardian’s account of the government’s statement, Downing Street said: “Any documentation within the scope of the humble address that requires redaction on the basis of national security or international relations will be provided to the ISC.”

The Guardian added that this will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting, and it said the government was “committed to complying” with the parliamentary motion called a humble address.

The BBC said the government has said UKSV recommended against granting clearance but has not divulged why, and that the BBC understands UKSV presented the Foreign Office with a list of potential risks and a recommendation summing up those risks.

The reporting frames the next phase of the crisis around accountability, investigations, and the political calendar.

“Keir Starmer is facing renewed calls for resignation after fresh revelations surrounding the appointment and vetting of former UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson”

Modern Diplomacy

The BBC said the prime minister will appear before MPs on Monday to explain what went wrong, and it laid out a series of unanswered questions including whether the PM and government misled MPs and the public and why more questions were not asked by the PM and his team.

POLITICO.eu

The BBC also said the government has said officials at UKSV recommended against granting Lord Mandelson security clearance but has not divulged why, while sources say the recommendation given to the Foreign Office by the vetting services was a “no.”

The Times of India said the government confirmed that it suspended the ability of departments, including the Foreign Office, to override security vetting recommendations, and that an urgent review had been ordered into past cases where such overrides occurred, alongside a broader independent probe into the vetting system.

CNN said Starmer would “set out the relevant facts” on Monday to parliament and that a spokesperson said he had no plans to resign, while opposition leaders continued to demand he quit.

The Guardian said further documents are due to be released and that senior government officials were considering whether to withhold from parliament documents that would reveal Mandelson was not given vetting approval from security officials.

The Guardian also reported that Starmer will be pressed over whether he misled the public in remarks about the security vetting process, which he said had given Mandelson “clearance for the role.”

The Straits Times reported that Starmer was expected to make a statement in Parliament as soon as April 20, and it said he learnt of the vetting decision on the evening of April 14.

In CNN’s account, the pressure is also tied to local elections, with the report saying Starmer faces new questions just three weeks before his party is expected to be punished in local elections in England and regional votes in Scotland and Wales, and it cited May 7 as the date of local elections.