UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer finally sacked his scandal-ridden ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson. It was, in truth, scandalous that Mandelson was even considered for the post.

Mandelson described President Donald J. Trump in 2019 as “Reckless and a danger to the world.” Prior to Trump’s return to the presidency this year, Mandelson publicly called Trump a “bully” and “little short of a white nationalist and racist.” Despite these incendiary attacks, the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson ambassador to the U.S. upon Trump’s return to the White House.

Starmer, who professed to be “delighted” with Mandelson and his “unrivalled experience,” ate his words when it was revealed that Mandelson had been less than forthcoming about his relationship with the late disgraced pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

When Epstein was prosecuted in 2008 for sex with a minor, Mandelson sent him a gushing 10-page letter in which he assured his “best pal” that such a case could never have happened in Britain, and he should “fight for earlier release.” Mandelson further assured Epstein that “your friends stay with you and love you.”  

Further correspondence reveals that Epstein—who affectionally called Mandelson “Petie”— remained in friendly contact with the recently sacked ambassador for many years. Mandelson even stayed at Epstein’s New York City townhouse while Epstein was incarcerated.

In addition to his dodgy relationship with Epstein, Mandelson had no diplomatic experience and was twice fired from cabinet posts amid separate allegations of corruption.

Following Trump’s reelection, Mandelson told the BBC that it is “absolutely essential that we [Britain] establish a relationship with President Trump that enables us not only to understand and interpret what he’s doing but to influence it.” He also less-convincingly declared that his harsh earlier judgments of Trump had been wrong.

Many in government and media, however, were not buying Mandelson’s change of tone.

When news broke of Mandelson’s appointment, Trump adviser Chris LaCivita—reportedly with his boss’s authorization—dismissed Mandelson on X as an “absolute moron” who should “stay home.” In the UK, the British press was relentless, commenting not only on Mandelson’s anti-Trump statements but also on his checkered political past, aspects of his private life, rumored business ties with China, and strong speculation that he would fail in his new role.

Earlier this year, British papers began touching on Mandelson’s rumored Epstein links. Mandelson apparently believed that no incriminating information was forthcoming and flippantly dismissed such concerns. Former Conservative Party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who remains a senior member of parliament, called for an investigation into “whether or not this is reliable or anyway likely to cause offense in the United States.”

This was but a prelude to the angry exchanges now reverberating through Westminster, where Starmer’s flagging government struggles to defend its actions surrounding Mandelson. Starmer claims he “never” would have appointed Mandelson had he known of his disgraced envoy’s relationship with Epstein. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, in response, dismissed Starmer’s diminished leadership as “shriveled.” A member of Starmer’s own Labour Party demanded to know “how did that mistake occur? … When Lord Mandelson was appointed, red flags were obviously missed or ignored.” Dame Emily Thornberry, chairwoman of the House of Commons’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said “something went very wrong” in the appointment process. Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney said the affair “distracted” Starmer’s government at a crucial point in ongoing trade negotiations.

Trump praised Mandelson during an April White House press conference with Starmer, where a preliminary trade deal was outlined, but nevertheless invited Mandelson’s predecessor, Dame Karen Pierce, to attend the formal banquet as a personal guest during his recent state visit to the United Kingdom.

Lord Mandelson was an arrogant, morally compromised man who publicly insulted the president of the United States. He was clearly never the right person to represent his home country—or any country—to the U.S. Hiding his horrible associations might have been even worse. There are millions of Britons who could have done better and could do better now.