UK Prime Minister Claims Officials Hid Former Ambassador's Epstein Ties from Him: Report
Fresh controversy is engulfing the office of Keir Starmer, as new reports suggest a breakdown inside Britain’s bureaucratic machinery may have kept the prime minister in the dark on a highly sensitive national security matter.
According to Sky News Political Editor Beth Rigby, senior officials within the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office allegedly failed to inform Starmer that former ambassador Peter Mandelson had been granted security clearance despite red flags raised during the vetting process. Those concerns reportedly included issues tied to Mandelson’s background checks and alleged associations involving disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
NEW: Anger in No 10 tonight - am told by a source that neither the PM nor his advisors were told, over a series of months, that Mandelson had been granted security clearance against the recommendation of UK security vetting. That suggests this information was held in foreign…
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) April 16, 2026
The situation has raised serious questions about transparency and accountability within the upper ranks of the U.K. government. Officials now claim that neither Starmer nor Foreign Secretary David Lammy were made aware that Mandelson’s clearance allegedly contradicted the recommendations of Britain’s own security vetting authorities.
At the center of the controversy is Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office’s top civil servant, who has reportedly been dismissed after it emerged that security advice may have been overridden. The fallout underscores growing concerns about unelected bureaucrats exercising significant influence over critical national security decisions—often without proper oversight from elected leadership.
Rigby reported that Starmer had already begun probing the vetting process internally following initial revelations published by The Guardian. Yet, even amid those inquiries, officials allegedly withheld the crucial detail that Mandelson’s clearance had been approved against expert objections.
When pressed on March 16 about Mandelson’s appointment, Starmer maintained that “due process was followed,” while conceding institutional shortcomings. He later described the outcome as “my mistake” and issued an apology—remarks that may now take on new significance as more facts come to light.
Understand PM will come to HoC on Monday to give statement. He will need to correct the record given that he has given parliament incorrect information.
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) April 16, 2026
FCDO spox tonite: “PM has initiated a process to establish the facts of the granting of developed vetting and we are working… https://t.co/GPMnL1MPWk
BREAKING: Downing Street says that neither Keir Starmer nor David Lammy knew that Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting - and lays blame with Foreign Office official for overruling the decision.
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) April 16, 2026
Further reporting from The Guardian’s political editor Pippa Crerar indicates that 10 Downing Street now acknowledges that key information was not shared with the prime minister, even as he addressed Parliament.
Under U.K. parliamentary rules, ministers are only considered in breach if they knowingly mislead the House of Commons. Starmer’s allies are already signaling a defense based on that standard, arguing that he could not have misled lawmakers if critical details were deliberately withheld by government officials.
The prime minister is expected to face lawmakers in the House of Commons on Monday, where pressure is likely to intensify. The episode has reignited longstanding concerns about the accountability of entrenched government institutions—and whether elected leaders are truly in control of the systems they are tasked with overseeing.
Starmer’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.