Mandelson vetting scandal: ‘Starmer is either a gullible fool, or he’s lying’

What’s the story?

Peter Mandelson, friend to Jeffrey Epstein, failed security vetting to become US Ambassador in 2025 – but was given the job anyway.

It has been claimed the Foreign Office did not tell Keir Starmer about the failure, who has repeatedly told the British public that all "due processes" were followed in appointing the former Labour MP.

Speaking to journalists on Friday 17 April, Starmer said it was "staggering" and "unforgivable" that he wasn't told, describing the situation as "totally unacceptable".

"This felt to me like deep faux outrage," says Lewis Goodall.

"The government line today has been that it cannot believe how bad their own vetting process is – a vetting process that they themselves pointed to during the Mandelson affair.

"A process they're now saying they were ignorant about the particulars of, or they didn't understand nor, crucially, did they seek to understand it."

It has been claimed that Starmer learned of the situation on Tuesday 14 April, but government sources told The Independent in September 2025 that Mandelson had failed security vetting.

Who is Olly Robbins, and how is he involved in all this?

Olly Robbins, was the permanent under-secretary of state for foreign affairs – until today.

He resigned when details of Mandelson failing the vetting emerged.

Jon Sopel says a source at the foreign office has told him they believe Olly Robbins is “too diligent” to have made himself the sole risk-owner for the Mandelson appointment. Another said that there was “too much risk” in putting someone in the job he didn’t personally want.

A third said that while Robbins always considered himself “the cleverest person in the room”, they doubt he would have acted in this way just three weeks into the job.

"It beggars belief that Olly Robbins unilaterally takes this decision and no one anywhere is aware of it," Jon says.

Lewis says that all evidence suggests that if there was anyone in government sceptical of Mandelson's appointment, one he says at the time was seen as a good idea, was Robbins himself.

“Why? Because much of the Civil Service wanted a civil servant in the role," Lewis says.

“They didn't want to have a political appointment. They don't like those diplomatic jobs going to political appointees."

In September 2025 Robbins said "it was clear that the Prime Minister wanted to make this appointment himself”, when it came to appointing Mandelson.

What Robbins does next, Lewis adds, is of “utmost importance”, Lewis adds, saying that if it is found that Starmer has been the one to mislead people, then this is “game over”.

Could Starmer have avoided all this?

Lewis says if Starmer admitted that at the time some of the Epstein Files were made public, he would be in a better position today.

"Instead, what he did was start to talk about the vetting process and being misled, which has created the problem that he is now in," he says.

"If he hadn't made a big thing about that to begin with, then this story will not be nearly so big.

"I think Keir Starmer has created this problem for himself, and it is a political problem that he did not need to have."

Mandelson's appointment was, he adds, "a gamble and a political calculation".

"He didn't like Mandelson personally, and  he didn't like Mandelson's past associations," says Lewis.

"Starmer knew he was risky, but he thought Mandelson would work in the court of Trump."

Are Starmer's explanations landing?

The Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed he was misled, repeating this over and over.

The News Agents are struggling to buy the line.

"If you squint your eyes and really try, you may be able to thread the needle and say, okay, this all makes sense," says Jon.

"But if your eyes are wide open and you're looking at this in broad daylight, it's hard to believe that everything falls into place as currently explained to us."

Lewis says the 'misled' excuse may have worked for Starmer once, but every time since has been of diminishing returns for the PM.

"Starmer went to Parliament, and said there had been a full vetting process," Lewis says.

"Before he said that, might it not have been a good idea for this man – who we are consistently told is forensic, and across all of the detail – to make sure exactly what the particulars of the vetting process was?"

There are two scenarios here, he adds, and neither look good for Starmer.

"Either he looks, again, like a gullible fool who is deeply incurious about his own government – or he's lying."

Listen to the latest episode of The News Agents.