Mandelson's US Ambassadorship: Documents Reveal Severance Demands and Epstein Links
The first batch of government documents concerning Peter Mandelson's appointment and subsequent dismissal as the UK's ambassador to the United States has been released, shedding light on several contentious aspects of the case. Mandelson, appointed in December 2024 and sacked in September 2025, has denied any wrongdoing, with his lawyers stating he will not comment further at this time. The 147 pages, part of a larger collection potentially numbering in the hundreds of thousands, reveal key details about severance negotiations, due diligence processes, and internal government reservations.
Severance Payout Dispute and Financial Demands
Mandelson played hardball over his severance payout, according to the documents. His contract entitled him to three months' notice or payment in lieu, but he argued this was insufficient, claiming that the government's actions had permanently damaged his employability. While controversy previously surrounded a £75,000 payoff, the files show Mandelson sought £547,000, equivalent to his total pay for the entire ambassadorial contract. He consulted a King's Counsel specializing in employment law to bolster his case.
As a civil servant, Mandelson was entitled to three months' notice payment, totaling £40,330, since he had not committed any misconduct in the role itself. The Foreign Office added a "termination payment" of £34,670, bringing the total to £75,000. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to Downing Street, defended this in the Commons, arguing it was a cost-saving measure to avoid a potentially more expensive employment tribunal case.
Epstein Links and Due Diligence Concerns
Prime Minister Keir Starmer knew about Mandelson's post-jail links to Jeffrey Epstein before the appointment. The documents confirm that Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein from 2009 to 2011, after Epstein's 2008 conviction for procuring an underage girl. This period overlapped with Mandelson's tenure as business minister and continued after the Labour government ended. Starmer acknowledged last month that he was aware of these connections beforehand.
The due diligence report highlighted "general reputational risk" from Mandelson's Epstein links, as well as his business associations and history of twice resigning as a government minister. Despite this, the appointment proceeded, with the report noting that Starmer found Mandelson's responses reassuring, though they were later deemed dishonest.
Pre-Vetting Briefings and Internal Doubts
Mandelson was offered sensitive briefings before his vetting was completed. A Foreign Office email from December 2024 outlined job details, including receiving a phone, laptop, and iPad, and informed him that confidential briefings would begin on 6 January. However, his vetting was not scheduled for completion until the end of January, raising questions about procedural adherence.
Some in government had their doubts about the appointment. Jonathan Powell, Starmer's national security adviser, described the process as "weirdly rushed" in a memo from September 2025. He noted that Downing Street and the Foreign Office jointly pushed through the political appointment, despite Philip Barton, the then-top civil servant in the Foreign Office, expressing personal reservations. Powell raised concerns about Mandelson's reputation to Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, who responded that the issues had been addressed.
Mandelson's Personal Response and Missing Information
We only hear from Mandelson himself very briefly in the documents. In a single communication, he replied to the Foreign Office's head of HR about the practicalities of his departure, agreeing to dates that accommodated veterinary clearance for his collie dog, Jock. He added a note emphasizing his desire for "maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion" upon returning to the UK, asserting his status as a crown servant.
What is missing: what Mandelson told No 10 about his Epstein links. This crucial element is absent from the released files due to a police request. The Metropolitan Police believe this material could be relevant to their ongoing investigation into allegations of misconduct in public office by Mandelson, preventing its disclosure at this time.
The documents provide a clearer picture of the complexities surrounding Mandelson's ambassadorship, from financial disputes to reputational risks, while highlighting gaps that remain due to legal constraints. Further releases may offer more insights as the investigation continues.
