A second batch of Mandelson files has revealed new material on his US ambassador appointment while leaving major questions over messages, vetting and Epstein.
A newly released batch of documents on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the US has widened the public record while leaving significant gaps over private messages, vetting advice and his disclosures about Jeffrey Epstein.
The release totals more than 1,500 pages and follows a February vote by MPs seeking more information about behind-the-scenes discussions that led to Mandelson’s appointment. He was sacked from the post last year by Sir Keir Starmer after revelations in the United States about the extent of his relationship with Epstein, the late convicted sex offender.
The files include more than 160 pages of messages and WhatsApps between Mandelson and government ministers and officials. But they do not include material from Mandelson’s personal phone after he declined a request from officials to hand it over.
Only six messages between Mandelson and Starmer appear in the released material, covering two brief exchanges about campaigning in Bury before the general election and praise for former Conservative prime minister John Major. Downing Street confirmed on Tuesday that the prime minister uses the disappearing messages function on his phone, and refused to say whether Starmer had deleted messages that could have appeared in the published documents. A spokesman said use of the function was permitted as long as it did not affect “record-keeping or transparency”, and said Starmer had handed over all relevant communications available to him.
There are further gaps around Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s former chief of staff, who resigned after Mandelson’s sacking amid scrutiny of his role in supporting the appointment. McSweeney reported that his government phone was stolen last year, and police say it has not been recovered. Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds has also said his personal phone was stolen last year and would have contained messages with Mandelson; an ally said he shared details of messages he could recall. Some released messages were redacted on national security or diplomatic grounds.
The government has said Mandelson received security clearance from the Foreign Office despite a recommendation against clearance from United Kingdom Security Vetting. Downing Street has said neither Starmer nor any other government minister knew that at the time. The latest papers include a blank template version of the vetting form but not Mandelson’s completed form or a summary of his vetting, understood to run to nine pages.
The released files also do not include Mandelson’s completed declaration of interests, including any conflicts and steps agreed to manage them. Nor do they include his answers to three follow-up questions McSweeney asked during due diligence about his relationship with Epstein. McSweeney has said those documents are among material withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police, which is investigating Mandelson over allegations of misconduct in public office. Mandelson denies wrongdoing, and the BBC reported that his view is that he answered vetting questions about Epstein accurately.
Another unanswered thread concerns Mandelson’s messages with Lord Matthew Doyle, then No 10’s communications chief, about the UK’s proposed Chagos Islands deal. On 18 January 2025, during a discussion about US-UK relations shortly before President Trump’s inauguration, Mandelson wrote: “I am getting very worried about Chagos.” The next five messages are redacted.
The Chagos agreement would have ceded sovereignty to Mauritius while allowing the UK to lease back the Diego Garcia military base for an average of £101m a year. The deal has since been shelved after the US did not formally confirm its approval.
The files provide a larger documentary record of the appointment process, but the central questions now turn on what remains outside the release: missing phone material, unrecovered devices, undisclosed vetting records, withheld Epstein answers and redacted diplomatic exchanges.
Comments (0)