British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has issued a public apology to victims of Jeffrey Epstein, acknowledging that he “believed Peter Mandelson’s lies” and expressing regret over his appointment of the former minister as UK ambassador to the United States.
Speaking on Thursday, Starmer said he was aware that Mandelson maintained a relationship with Epstein after the financier was convicted of soliciting sex with a minor, but claimed he had no knowledge of “the depth and darkness” of that connection.
“Epstein’s victims have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend, and accountability has too often been delayed or denied,” Starmer said. “I am sorry — sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him.”
The controversy stems from publicly available information dating back to 2023. In June of that year, court filings in a New York case between the US Virgin Islands and JP Morgan Chase referenced internal JP Morgan findings, indicating that Epstein maintained a “particularly close relationship” with Mandelson and Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
JP Morgan Chase settled the case later that year for $75 million without admitting liability.
Starmer emphasised that new details, including leaks of sensitive government business and payments to Mandelson and his partner, have only recently come to light.
“This information wasn’t known at the time of his appointment,” he said, adding that Mandelson “portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew,” a claim later proven false.
The prime minister also stressed his commitment to justice. He announced plans to release the Mandelson files “as quickly as possible” but said doing so immediately could “prejudice future investigations or legal processes.”
Starmer defended his broader record, noting that he entered politics late in life, after a career in the criminal justice system, and not for personal gain or status.
He framed the Mandelson appointment as a failure of judgment by those involved, rather than a reflection of his own motives.
“No one should hold public office if they can’t meet the basic test of honesty,” he said.
The political fallout has been swift. Labour MPs have expressed anger and frustration at the decision to appoint Mandelson, with some calling it a breach of trust.
York Central MP Rachael Maskell told BBC Radio York that the revelations make Starmer’s position “untenable,” describing his potential resignation as “inevitable.”
Other figures in the party have focused on advisers rather than the prime minister himself. Labour MP Karl Turner said Starmer had been “persuaded to appoint Mandelson against his better judgment,” but criticised the quality of advice provided, particularly by chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has publicly backed Starmer, acknowledging that Mandelson should never have been given the ambassadorial role.
Outside the party, critics have been scathing. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Starmer and McSweeney “have a lot to answer for,” noting that the Downing Street team cannot place full blame on Mandelson.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage dismissed Starmer’s apology as “weak” and “not quite believable,” describing the situation as a “really, really, really big scandal” that could damage the government’s reputation.
Scottish First Minister John Swinney added that the revelations have left Starmer’s administration “in tatters.”
Mandelson himself has not responded to repeated requests for comment but reportedly maintains that he acted within the law and was not financially motivated.
The scandal highlights ongoing concerns about vetting processes, transparency, and accountability in public office.
Labour networks have called for a comprehensive overhaul, arguing that a “corrosive political culture” prioritising loyalty over integrity allowed the appointment to occur.
Starmer’s handling of the fallout — including the apology to Epstein victims, promises of document disclosure, and defence of procedural integrity — will likely dominate British political discourse in the coming days as both Parliament and the public assess the implications of the Mandelson affair.
