Thousands of internal communications, including emails and WhatsApp messages, have shed new light on the sensitive Mandelson affair, revealing internal anxieties and potential cover-up attempts within government circles. The documents surfaced following revelations concerning Peter Mandelson’s potential appointment as ambassador to the US and subsequent vetting issues.
Starmer’s Team and Mandelson’s Concerns Emerge
Among the released communications are WhatsApp exchanges between Matthew Doyle, formerly Sir Keir Starmer’s director of communications, and Peter Mandelson. These conversations took place prior to the inauguration, in the wake of reports that the incoming Trump administration was considering rejecting Mandelson’s credentials for the ambassadorship. Doyle shared a tweet from a prominent political commentator, which detailed the story, prompting Mandelson to question the identity of the journalist involved.
In the same exchange, Doyle, who has since been suspended by the Labour party, expressed concerns about potential leaks. He warned of “a lot of loose lips at assorted receptions over the next few days, with Johnson, Farage etc making mischief.” He also noted that the Sunday Times was reportedly investigating the matter.
Mandelson’s Frustration and Diplomatic Pressure
As the situation escalated, a reportedly furious Mandelson demanded action, stating, “I think this is turning into something big. Why isn’t Karen [Pierce, the outgoing UK ambassador to the US] calling Susie Wiles [Trump’s chief of staff] and making it stop?”
Core of the Controversy: Business Links and Vetting Failures
Initial reports indicated that Mandelson’s business ties with China were a significant concern for the incoming Trump administration. However, it was later revealed that his connections to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein ultimately led to his disqualification from the ambassadorship. The issue of his business dealings with individuals in Russia and Israel, alongside the China connections, also formed the basis of further reporting concerning the security vetting process for the role.
Sir Keir Starmer has maintained that Downing Street was unaware of the vetting failure for seven months, only becoming informed in April of the current year. This led to the dismissal of Sir Olly Robbins, the then chief mandarin at the Foreign Office (FCDO), for allegedly withholding the information. Doubts have been raised, however, about why Starmer was not informed sooner by his communications director.
Downing Street’s Response and Evidence of a Potential Cover-Up
The released papers appear to confirm that initial exclusive reporting and subsequent inquiries triggered an operation to manage the narrative and prevent special advisers in Downing Street from disseminating inaccurate information. A communication from Tim Allan, then director of communications, on September 11, 2025, stated, “Vetting done in normal way by FCDO.” This assertion later caused alarm among FCDO officials.
An email on September 13, 2025, from Caroline Hurdall, principal private secretary to the Foreign Secretary, to Sir Olly Robbins and others, expressed concerns that Number 10 special advisers were not verifying information before responding to inquiries. Hurdall emphasized the need for accuracy, stating, “it’s very important for accuracy sake that our team have chance to check those lines before they are used, including on background.” She added, “We’re keen to stay in lockstep and be speaking with one voice.”
Minimizing Ministerial Involvement
Further evidence within the email thread suggests an effort to shield ministers from blame. Ailsa Terry, private secretary for foreign affairs for the prime minister, wrote, “We will need to be definitive / clear that Ministers and No 10 are not involved in the vetting process in anyway.” This message seems designed to distance Sir Keir from any knowledge of the vetting issues, despite indications that Downing Street was indeed aware.
Legal Considerations and Information Control
Sir Olly Robbins, in the same communication thread, raised legal concerns about the dissemination of information. He stated, “I can understand why people are interested in questions like these [on vetting], but I think we need to be very careful about sharing such information. If this ends in court, this department will be the defendant.” He indicated he would discuss limiting the creation of new disclosable evidence with a senior colleague.
The unfolding events surrounding the Mandelson affair have accelerated the timeline for validating concerns, demonstrating the significant impact of these revelations on the current government’s stability.
