The Epstein Files Have Reached Westminster

Peter Mandelson’s case exposes how Britain vets power, and how little margin remains for trust

The latest release of U.S. Department of Justice material connected to Jeffrey Epstein was never going to remain an American problem. Epstein’s network, by design, crossed borders, institutions, and decades. What is now unfolding in the United Kingdom is not a sudden scandal, but a delayed reckoning with decisions taken years ago and defended for too long.

At the centre of it stands Peter Mandelson, a senior figure of the New Labour era whose long acknowledged association with Epstein has been re examined in light of newly released correspondence. The documents do not accuse Mandelson of sexual crimes. They raise a different and more politically dangerous question: whether senior office holders were held to a meaningful standard of judgement and disclosure once inside the system.

That distinction matters. It is where the real crisis lies.

The files released in late January and early February include emails and contact records from 2008 and 2009, after Epstein’s Florida conviction for soliciting a minor. They reinforce earlier reporting that Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein during that period. A 2003 entry in Epstein’s birthday book, already public but newly contextualised, records Mandelson referring to Epstein as his “best pal”.

Those details are not new on their own. What has changed is how they sit alongside material suggesting Epstein was, at minimum, being kept unusually well informed by a serving British cabinet minister during a period of financial crisis.

According to the documents, Mandelson forwarded government emails to Epstein while serving as Business Secretary during the 2008–2009 financial crash. Reporting has consistently described those emails as potentially sensitive or market relevant. Investigators have not concluded that classified material was shared, nor that any crime was committed. That uncertainty is central to the current investigation and cannot be elided.

What is no longer disputed is that Epstein was receiving internal government correspondence from a senior UK minister years after his conviction.

On 3 February, the Metropolitan Police confirmed it had opened a criminal investigation into Mandelson for possible misconduct in public office. The inquiry is ongoing. No charges have been brought. Police have also asked the government to withhold some documents from publication while the investigation proceeds, citing the risk of prejudicing active lines of inquiry.

That request has placed ministers in a difficult position. The political demand is for transparency. The legal obligation is to avoid contaminating evidence. Both cannot be fully satisfied at once.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly apologised to Epstein’s victims and acknowledged that appointing Mandelson to senior roles was a mistake. Starmer has said he was aware of Mandelson’s past association with Epstein but was misled about its extent and persistence. He has stopped short of accusing Mandelson of criminal conduct, but has been explicit that the relationship should have disqualified him from public appointment.

That admission has not contained the fallout.

Opposition figures have framed the affair as evidence of systemic failure in Labour’s vetting processes, with some describing it as one of the most serious political scandals of recent decades. These claims are overtly partisan, but they have found traction because the underlying facts are uncomfortable. Mandelson was not a marginal figure. He was repeatedly trusted, repeatedly rehabilitated, and repeatedly defended on the basis of experience and usefulness.

Mandelson resigned from the Labour Party earlier this month and stepped back from the House of Lords. The government has indicated it is examining mechanisms that could allow his peerage to be removed, a rare step that reflects political toxicity rather than any legal finding.

In statements issued since the files were released, Mandelson has expressed regret for his association with Epstein and said he was deceived about Epstein’s character. He has denied wrongdoing and insists he was unaware of Epstein’s continued criminal behaviour. These claims have not been tested in court. They form part of the record, not the conclusion.

The temptation, particularly in a media environment shaped by the Epstein story’s ugliness, is to treat this as another morality play about elite corruption. That misses the more durable problem.

The UK’s political system relies heavily on discretion, trust, and informal assurances when appointing senior figures. Once someone is inside the circle, past decisions are often reframed as errors of judgement rather than disqualifying failures. The Epstein files have stripped away the comfort of that ambiguity. They show how long reputational risk can be deferred, and how abruptly it returns when documentation surfaces.

This is not only about Mandelson. It intersects with wider questions raised by Epstein’s network, including repeated references to other senior public figures and the state’s broader reluctance to confront reputational damage until forced to do so by external disclosure.

For Starmer’s government, the immediate challenge is procedural: managing an investigation, releasing material lawfully, and stabilising confidence ahead of local elections. The longer term challenge is structural. If the standard for senior public office is merely that no criminal charge has yet been brought, the system will continue to fail in precisely this way.

The Epstein files did not create that weakness. They exposed it.

What follows now will determine whether this episode becomes a contained scandal or a turning point. That will depend less on what the investigation uncovers than on whether the government is willing to accept that judgement, not just legality, has consequences.

Fidelis News is independent and reader-supported. Our reporting is free to read, but not free to produce. Reader support helps us remain independent and publish in-depth journalism. Support our work via Buy Me a Coffee.