BRUSSELS — The European Union is under pressure to keep Ukrainian troops fully online after Elon Musk’s Starlink was restricted amid volatile U.S. support for Kyiv. “It was a very dangerous and unpleasant surprise,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters after EU leaders met in Brussels, referring to Starlink speed limitations experienced by military troops in recent days. “We were using Starlink to intercept jet-powered Shaheds [combat drones] that are attacking our civilian infrastructure and killing our families … When the speed limits were lowered, we became incapable of shooting [them] down.” Ukraine has long relied critically on Musk’s satellite constellation for wartime efforts. Reuters reported Friday that the order to slow Ukraine’s military-grade Starshield service came from the White House, days after Washington pressed Kyiv to halt strikes on Russian refineries, amid soaring energy prices and ahead of November’s midterm elections. “It is unacceptable for Ukraine’s defense — and therefore Europe’s security — to depend on the goodwill of a single American billionaire or on Donald Trump’s decisions,” French centrist Member of the European Parliament Christophe Grudler told POLITICO. Ahead of Thursday’s high-level meeting, European lawmakers had been calling on the EU executive to fast-track Kyiv’s access to satellite capabilities already pooled under the bloc’s Govsatcom program — which gives participating governments secure communications capabilities. Negotiations between the EU executive and Ukraine over this access have been ongoing since March, with no breakthrough. Norway and Iceland secured such an agreement earlier this year. “What I don’t understand is why the European Commission and the Member States have not done everything possible to quickly reach an agreement that would allow Ukraine to benefit from it,” added Christophe Grudler, who wrote to EU leaders. He also called on them to speed up work on IRIS² — the EU’s in-house, planned satellite network and full-fledged match to Starlink, which is only expected to come online in 2030. Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier confirmed in a statement that it is “currently in talks with Ukraine to fully associate” the country with the EU’s Govsatcom program. “The war in Ukraine shows that our security also depends on space. And the EU has been doing quite a lot. We are ready to support Ukraine where we can support Ukraine,” he added. Calls to crack down on dependence on foreign providers and boost alternatives to Starlink also come at a time when legislators are negotiating a series of laws that could tame Musk’s ambitions in Europe. “Ukraine’s dependence on Starlink highlights the vulnerability of European defence systems that rely on U.S. technology, Another reminder that Europe must reduce its dangerous technological dependencies — ASAP,” center-right Finnish lawmaker Aura Salla said on social media. Policymakers across Europe have been joining forces to curb Starlink’s dominance in low-Earth orbit, where satellites fly close to Earth to deliver faster connections. “As legislators, we must ensure that European operators are well positioned in the market and limit the dominance of foreign players,” German center-left lawmaker Matthias Ecke said. In Brussels, lawmakers, including Ecke, are backing European telcos gunning for prized satellite frequencies, currently licensed to U.S. operators until next year and eyed by Starlink. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy said Ukraine was working bilaterally with EU countries to secure more capabilities, citing France. He also expressed hopes that Starlink restrictions could be lifted. “My partners told me there were signals from the White House that they would return these capabilities.” SpaceX — Starlink’s parent company — didn’t respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

LONDON — Keir Starmer has successfully won Donald Trump back around to supporting his controversial Chagos Islands deal, rescuing a key foreign policy goal that the U.S. president blasted last month as an “act of GREAT STUPIDITY.” The U.K. prime minister’s plan to hand over sovereignty of the archipelago in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius while retaining use of a joint U.S.-U.K. military base on the island of Diego Garcia was thrown into disarray a fortnight ago by the president’s surprise criticism. But Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social, the same platform where he had unleashed his criticism, that he now understands it’s the best deal Britain was able to get after he had “very productive discussions” with Starmer — though he warned he wouldn’t hesitate to get involved if he felt U.S. interests were at risk.   “If the lease deal, sometime in the future, ever falls apart, or anyone threatens or endangers U.S. operations and forces at our Base, I retain the right to Militarily secure and reinforce the American presence in Diego Garcia,” the president added.  To the ire of British officials, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and the Conservatives’ Kemi Badenoch had lobbied Trump to oppose the deal, which will cost Britain around £3.4 billion over the initial 99-year lease.  But official diplomatic channels have won the debate, and Starmer will take Trump’s backing as a modicum of sweet relief during a dire moment in which his authority is being questioned. Government officials, speaking under condition of anonymity to avoid further fraying diplomatic relations, had ascribed Trump’s Jan. 20 criticism of the Chagos deal to Starmer’s public defense of Greenland from American threats to seize the Danish territory. Starmer broached the agreement with Trump in a call over the weekend, as well as during another on Thursday.  Downing Street’s account of the call said the leaders had “agreed on the importance of the deal to secure the joint U.K.–U.S. base on Diego Garcia, which remains vital to shared security interests.” The men also agreed that both sides would “continue to work closely on the implementation of the deal,” the statement added.

LONDON — Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s carefully built relationship with Donald Trump could be torpedoed by the disclosure of Peter Mandelson’s communications as ambassador, U.K. officials fear. Starmer will have to publish documents relating to the ex-Labour peer’s appointment as ambassador after demands from MPs across the political spectrum for greater transparency about the process. While it is not yet known exactly what will be published, the files may include messages from Mandelson to officials at No.10 Downing Street and the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office.  Two senior Whitehall officials, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, told POLITICO they are concerned about what the former envoy — known for his ruthlessness and candor — may have said about Trump to his colleagues, and how they responded to him. One of the officials said there is “lots which could be damaging” and “he [Mandelson] used to download his thoughts in real time.” They point out that parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, which will sift through the documents before publication, will only be looking for matters that could jeopardize national security, rather than cause embarrassment or rifts. In a further sign of the shockwaves going through the diplomatic establishment, FCDO permanent secretary Oliver Robbins wrote to all departmental staff Wednesday night to reassure them over the “anxiety” caused by the whole affair. He asked civil servants approached about communications that may be disclosed to refer all requests to his office. In the message, obtained by POLITICO, Robbins said, referencing the PM’s earlier expression of regret for appointing Mandelson: “I am also sorry about this episode, which I know will have affected staff particularly in our U.S. team but also across the workforce. “I want to acknowledge that anxiety and reassure you that my recommendations as head of the diplomatic service to the foreign secretary for the many roles in our department carrying enormous trust and leadership responsibility are guided by my deep concern to preserve and enhance our service’s reputation for merit, professionalism and integrity.” NATIONAL SECURITY EXCEPTIONS The ISC has specified that papers which are national security related should be sent to them unredacted, and the government should provide an explanation as to exactly why pieces of information are prejudicial. “We believe the motion is clear that those papers which the government is required to provide to the ISC must be disclosed, unredacted, to the ISC,” the committee said in a letter to the PM and cabinet secretary. “The government may not decline to disclose any in scope material altogether” Kevan Jones, chair of the committee, told the BBC that the panel would put “as much as possible in the public domain.” One of Mandelson’s predecessors as ambassador, Kim Darroch, was forced to resign in 2019 over his criticism of Trump’s “dysfunctional” administration, made in confidential diplomatic cables that were made public.  But both senior officials cited above made it clear that Mandelson may not have always used cables for his musings on Trump, instead often using email and texts. Mandelson, one of the architects of New Labour who helped bring Tony Blair to power in 1997, returned to high office last year when he was named as the British ambassador to Washington despite his known links to the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.  He was forced out of that role in September after it was reported he had continued a closer relationship with Epstein after the late financier’s conviction than was previously publicly known.  Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has not commented on the police investigation, but has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. The scandal was reopened Monday when emails released as part of the Epstein files appeared to show Mandelson leaking internal government discussions in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.  Police are now investigating allegations of misconduct in public office against him, which they have warned may limit some of the information which is made available.  

LONDON — Keir Starmer apologized Thursday to the victims of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for choosing Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington. The prime minister has faced heavy criticism after documents in the most recently released Epstein files appear to show the late financier was leaked sensitive government policy discussions by Mandelson, who was the U.K. business secretary and a senior member of the government at the time. The British prime minister, who sacked Mandelson as ambassador last September over the extent of his friendship with the late sex offender, directly addressed Epstein’s victims during a visit to the seaside town of Hastings on the south coast of England. “I am sorry,” Starmer said. “Sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him and sorry that even now you’re forced to watch this story unfold in public once again.”  The PM said his government will “not allow the powerful to treat justice as optional,” and will do everything in its power to “ensure accountability is delivered.”  He spoke against a backdrop of anger from some Labour MPs who are infuriated the PM appointed Mandelson and want Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, who they see as having been instrumental to that decision, to leave No 10. Veteran Labour MP Karl Turner told Times Radio that Starmer should “get rid of those advisers who frankly have given terrible advice.” Keeping Morgan in post puts Starmer “up against it in a way that he doesn’t need to be,” Turner said. But government ministers insist McSweeney’s position is safe. “The person at fault here is not the prime minister or his team,” Communities Secretary Steve Reed, a close ally of the No. 10 chief of staff, told Sky News. “It is Peter Mandelson who lied, manipulated and deceived everybody.” 

BRUSSELS ― The EU’s conservatives are convening for the second time in a week as they increase internal coordination after a tough first year of Ursula von der Leyen’s second term at the head of the European Commission. After last weekend’s meeting of European People’s Party leaders in Croatia, this week sees EPP members of the European Parliament gather in Slovenia, where they will discuss policy with the bloc’s commissioners in charge of defense and regional development. The party has powerful national chiefs, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, but is up against surging opposition figures across the political spectrum. “Populists on the left and right oppose everything without proposing anything,” said European People’s Party Vice Chair Romana Tomc in a statement. The party “will discuss who we will work with to deliver real change in Europe.” Von der Leyen has seen off four no-confidence votes since the start of her second term on Dec. 1, 2024 while the EPP has been boosted since May by the return of a German chancellor from its ranks. But the group’s traditional Brussels allies from the center left and liberal center have distanced themselves from some EPP policies, especially those supported by the far right such as the rollback of EU green rules, including cuts to corporate sustainability and deforestation legislation. The Ljubljana meeting is another example of how Manfred Weber, chair of the EPP and head of its European Parliament faction, is trying to tighten decision-making and bring more central control over policy in the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of the EU, which represents national governments, according to two EPP officials. Weber wants to use the different iterations of EPP gatherings to increase the number of touch points for center-right leaders and senior EU officials to meet and coordinate policies ahead of big moments on the calendar, they said. Next week’s EU diplomacy is particularly intense, with a meeting of defense ministers in Brussels on Wednesday, a summit of EU leaders in the Belgian countryside on Thursday, and the Munich Security Conference, which brings together some of the world’s most powerful decisionmakers, from Friday to Sunday. COMING TOGETHER The EPP is well represented in Brussels, with von der Leyen and Parliament President Roberta Metsola its two leading figures. In addition to regular pre-summit gatherings, where EPP leaders meet on the morning of European Councils, Weber has inaugurated annual meetings of national chiefs, of which last weekend’s gathering in Zagreb was the most recent. “The more coordination we can have between various groups of people, the better,” said an EU official granted anonymity to speak freely, like others in this story. “Because then you have the relationships and the format to stop the wheels coming off completely.” At informal dinners held on the Tuesday ahead of the Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg, the EPP’s commissioners, among them von der Leyen, as well as economy chief Valdis Dombrovskis and tech boss Henna Virkkunen, sit down with Weber and his Parliament vice presidents. These dinners “were set at the beginning of the term and structured in a way that allowed [the party] to have greater influence on the work of the Commission,” said an EPP official. “The goal — I won’t hide it — is to know in advance the direction the Commission is heading and to have an impact already at the preparatory stage, even before proposals are formally presented,” they added. IRONCLAD SECURITY The summit of MEPs in the Slovene capital, which kicked off Wednesday and runs until Friday, is aimed at what the organizers call “strategic planning.” Party members also pointed to the increasingly important role of policy position papers that the EPP now regularly publishes. | Marko Perkov/AFP via Getty Images In Zagreb last weekend, leaders agreed to work on making the EU’s mutual-defense clause operational, and tasked two national leaders, as yet unidentified, with spelling out how to make it an ironclad security guarantee. It’s never been used because NATO has a similar provision, but leaders are worried U.S. President Donald Trump will make that obsolete. Such moves highlight how the EPP is trying to influence wider EU policy and get ahead of security or economic decisions taken by the Commission or by leaders, where opinions from parties opposed to the center right have to be taken into account. Party members also pointed to the increasingly important role of policy position papers that the EPP now regularly publishes, which give direction to the party’s senior officials and leaders. The push to water down planks of the Green Deal, as well as an ongoing deregulation drive, both originated in policy papers drafted by the EPP following coordination meetings, two party officials said. In its 2024 manifesto the party called for the creation of a defense commissioner role, which von der Leyen made a reality when she took office. The party also called for deregulation and watering down the EU Green Deal, which became a central part of von der Leyen’s policy agenda during her second mandate. Gerardo Fortuna contributed reporting.

BERLIN — A German parliamentary delegation visiting Washington late last month saw center-left MPs frozen out by the U.S. State Department, people familiar with the matter told POLITICO. German MPs refused to take part in the meeting after their colleagues were blocked — a highly unusual step. U.S. authorities insisted there had been no effort to favor right-leaning parties and that they speak to a “wide spectrum” of politicians during such visits. In a separate encounter, an MP with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), Peter Felser, who was also part of the delegation, arranged a meeting at the Pentagon where he talked with a U.S. official about Germany’s defense posture. The clash over the visit comes in the wake of a new National Security Strategy from December that harshly criticized U.S.-allied nations in Europe for their efforts to rein in far-right parties; denounced their high rates of migration; and called for the continent to “correct its current trajectory.” The German lawmakers were supposed to be on a routine visit, during which they would take part in the German-American Dialogue on China. The delegation included two senior lawmakers from Germany’s governing coalition — Norbert Röttgen with the center-right Christian Democrats and Siemtje Möller for the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), as well as MPs from the opposition center-left Greens and the AfD. The plan had been for lawmakers from all parties to attend a meeting with Brendan Hanrahan, a senior official at the State Department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, on Jan. 21 before the China event. Five people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity, said the planned meeting collapsed after State Department officials told the German Embassy in Washington that it was prepared to receive only Christian Democratic and AfD lawmakers, excluding the SPD and the Greens. Röttgen rejected that format, saying he would not proceed without his coalition partner, four people familiar with the matter said.  It’s unclear, however, who ultimately cancelled the appointment. In response to POLITICO’s request for comment, Germany’s foreign ministry declined to explain the cancellation, saying only that the State Department had called off the meeting for “scheduling reasons.” The State Department denied any preference for particular parties during delegation visits, saying in a statement that “senior State Department officials engage regularly with representatives from a wide spectrum of political parties and leaders, and we do not comment on private diplomatic meetings.” Norbert Röttgen, who rejected the meeting format, saying he would not proceed without his coalition partner, four people familiar with the matter said. | Elisa Schu/picture alliance via Getty Images Such parliamentary trips are normally built around engagement with both sitting governments and opposition — and the episode left German officials privately uneasy about how parts of the Trump administration are approaching Europe. Möller and Röttgen nonetheless went on to hold meetings with U.S. lawmakers and officials at the National Security Council during their visit. Röttgen’s office did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.  In a statement to POLITICO, Möller said the episode showed that “even a year into office, parts of the U.S. administration still lack clear coordination and reliable alignment,” but stressed that talks with administration officials and Republican members of Congress nevertheless took place. PENTAGON BRIEFING In the separately arranged Pentagon visit, the AfD’s Felser held a one-on-one meeting with David A. Baker, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy.  Felser had requested the appointment roughly two weeks earlier through the German embassy, people familiar with the arrangements on both the U.S. and German side said. The conversation focused on the new U.S. National Security Strategy and Washington’s expectations that Germany take on a greater leadership role in European defense. The AfD has surged in popularity and is now Germany’s most popular party, according to POLITICO’s poll of polls. Last year, Vice President JD Vance sharply criticized European centrists for excluding the far right and later met with AfD national co-leader Alice Weidel.  Felser told POLITICO that Washington’s willingness to meet him showed the U.S. was not “falling for” what he called the coalition’s attempt to sideline the AfD, adding that the “channel of conversation” the U.S. had opened amounted to “important support” for his party. Speaking about the Pentagon meeting, a Department of Defense official said that its officials “meet with allied parliamentarians regularly to discuss defense issues of mutual concern.” Both Felser and Gerald Otten, the other AfD politician who was present in Washington with the parliamentary delegation, said that U.S. officials had over the last months actively reached out to their party to establish whether future cooperation would be viable. For now, the conversations revolved around pinning down the AfD’s positions on a range of issues that included the EU, NATO, and the promise of NATO member countries to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP.  Back in Berlin, Röttgen told reporters he had been surprised at what he described as the “entrenched, virtually impenetrable worldview” of members of the pro-Trump MAGA camp — including the diplomats, politicians and lobbyists the German delegation had met over a lunch in the U.S. That was something, Röttgen said, he had “never encountered in all the years I have traveled to Washington.”

Finland has urged U.S. officials not to describe future security pledges to a postwar Ukraine as “Article 5-like,” implying that doing so could undercut the mutual defense clause at the heart of the NATO military alliance, according to a State Department cable obtained by POLITICO. The Jan. 20 cable hints at worries in some corners over the labels used during peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow. They show how sensitive some phrases can be in the national security realm, even when officials are merely trying to offer an analogy to various audiences. According to the cable, sent from the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki to Washington, Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen discussed the issue on Jan. 19 with U.S. Reps. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.) and Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), both of whom are members of the House Armed Services Committee. Valtonen underscored Finland’s view that Russia is a “long-term strategic threat” and cautioned against a “weak” peace deal for Ukraine that would hinder its ability to defend itself against future Russian aggression, the cable states. But Valtonen cautioned against any suggestions of “Article 5-like” security guarantees in a postwar Ukraine, the cable adds. She warned that it risked conflating NATO’s Article 5 guarantees with whatever bilateral promises are made to Ukraine. It also quotes her as saying there should be a “firewall” between NATO and future security guarantees to Ukraine. Finland’s defense minister made similar points in a later meeting, according to the cable. Article 5 is a critical clause in the NATO pact that means an armed attack on one member of the 32-member alliance will be treated as an attack on all members. NATO has invoked the article only once: after Islamist terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. The documents’ contents offer insight into concerns voiced by other Finnish leaders who have said that, while they want to help Ukraine protect itself, the concept of a security “guarantee” is a more serious matter they’re not ready to agree to just yet. A Finnish official said Valtonen’s office wouldn’t comment on confidential discussions, though underscored Helsinki’s long-standing goal of eventually accepting Ukraine into the NATO alliance. “Finland’s objective is to ensure that Ukraine receives the strongest possible security arrangements and guarantees in support of a sustainable and lasting peace,” the official said, who was granted anonymity to speak about sensitive policy matters. “Finland’s position is that Ukraine’s future lies within NATO.” Former NATO officials and analysts said the cable reflects growing concerns in various capitals about how engaging with a postwar Ukraine could affect individual countries in the long run. One potential problem is that “using the term Article 5 in other contexts implies NATO involvement that is not in fact a part of any of these proposed arrangements,” said Edward Wrong, a former NATO official. “Finland and many other NATO members want to ensure it is understood that Article 5 is unique to NATO.” The State Department declined to comment. Elfreth, one of the U.S. lawmakers Valtonen met with, did not address the session with the Finnish foreign minister directly, but said in a statement: “From our many meetings, it was clear to me that our NATO allies, new and old, are committed to advancing shared goals of defending our partners from Russian and other adversarial influences. Bergman declined to comment. Using Article 5 as a parallel has multiple upsides and downsides, especially given the range of attitudes toward Ukraine in NATO, the former officials and analysts said. That’s further complicated by the likelihood that individual countries, or select groups of countries — but not NATO itself — will offer Ukraine security aid in the near future. One challenge is that by referring to Article 5, even with the “like” attached to it, national leaders could hand political ammunition to opposition groups, said Josh Shifrinson, a scholar with the University of Maryland, College Park, who advocates for a more restrained foreign policy. There’s also the possibility that framing a security pledge to Ukraine as “Article 5-like” will entice Russia to test what that truly means. If Russia stages some sort of an armed attack and the countries backing Ukraine struggle to respond, that could raise questions about the strength of NATO’s Article 5, said Rachel Ellehuus, a former Biden administration Defense Department official assigned to NATO. On top of that, other members of NATO, especially those in Europe, are acutely aware of President Donald Trump’s dim views of the alliance. They are reacting to his demands that they step up defense spending and have taken on the lion’s share of aid to Ukraine. Given economic uncertainties in the years ahead, just how much they can support Ukraine is in question. “I’m guessing the Finns don’t want to overpromise and under-deliver,” Ellehuus said. Spokespeople for NATO declined to comment. Finland is one of NATO’s newest members, having joined after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Finnish foreign minister comes across in the cable as tough on Russia, a country with which Finland shares an 830-mile border. “We should not be naïve in thinking they will change, especially if sanctions get [lifted]” and Russia becomes “empowered politically and economically,” Valtonen is quoted as saying. Although there are ongoing talks among the U.S., Ukraine and Russia in various formats, Russian leader Vladimir Putin has not committed to a substantial cease-fire and has made demands that many Ukrainians consider unacceptable for a peace deal. Victor Jack contributed to this report from Brussels.

LONDON — For Keir Starmer, the crises and climbdowns just keep getting faster. The British prime minister, facing questions about his judgment in appointing Peter Mandelson as U.K. ambassador to Washington despite his Jeffrey Epstein links, pledged on Wednesday to publish a cache of emails and texts between the ex-Labour peer and his top team — on his own terms. But hours later he was forced to toughen up independent scrutiny of this document release in the face of a revolt by his own MPs, who are horrified by the scandal and fear opposition accusations of a cover-up will stick. Taken alone, this technical U-turn will not enter any history books. But the last-minute drama around it puts the already weak Labour leader in further peril. Nervous MPs in his governing party, now awaiting the document dump with deep unease, are rounding with renewed ferocity on the PM and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. POLITICO spoke to 20 Labour MPs and current and former officials for this piece. “We need a head,” said one moderate Labour MP who entered parliament in 2024 and was, like others quoted, granted anonymity to speak frankly. “Someone has to pay the price for this failure,” a second, usually loyal, MP from the 2024 intake said, adding they “wouldn’t care” who exactly it was. In the minds of many of Labour’s own MPs and officials, the Mandelson affair has further weakened Starmer and McSweeney, who pushed for the appointment of his close ally and friend as ambassador in late 2024. After rows over a succession of tax and policy U-turns, some believe the Mandelson crisis exemplifies their criticisms of Starmer’s leadership — paying too little attention to a potential problem until it blows up into a full-blown scandal. “I love Morgan, but Keir has to sack him and he should have sacked him a long time ago,” said one Labour official who has long been loyal to the leadership. “The problem is, who does Keir replace him with?” TAINTED BY MANDELSON Starmer defended McSweeney to the hilt on Wednesday. “Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team,” he told MPs. “He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him,” the PM said. Some MPs also rallied around Starmer, blaming an overexcited media narrative and MPs on edge for the next scandal. “This feels like a Westminster story at the moment rather than something terminal for the PM in the eyes of the public,” said a third Labour MP elected in 2024. But the mood in large parts of the party on Wednesday night was bleak. The latest round of bloodletting began in earnest on Monday, when emails released as part of the Epstein files appeared to show Mandelson leaking government financial discussions in the wake of the 2008 banking crash. Police are now investigating allegations of misconduct in public office. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the police investigation Tuesday evening. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. Starmer, like the rest of the British state and public, insists he did not know about the bombshell emails, and would never have appointed Mandelson if he did. Having already sacked Mandelson in September he is now obliterating his reputation, saying on Wednesday that Mandelson “lied repeatedly” during his appointment as ambassador.  Yet it was well known that Mandelson came with baggage. Starmer knew the former Labour Cabinet minister had been repeatedly sacked in scandal — and confirmed at the weekly Prime Minister’s Questions session on Wednesday that he had known Mandelson was friends with Epstein. “That was the moment,” said a fourth, moderate Labour MP. “The mood was awful. I had opposition MPs saying to me that they had not seen one that bad in decades.” Several Labour MPs and officials who spoke to POLITICO voiced fears that revealing details of the vetting process will paint Starmer and his chief of staff as too incurious about the wider situation. Mandelson had worked closely with McSweeney since the late 2010s and gave Labour informal advice in the run-up to its 2024 election landslide. One former No. 10 official said Mandelson was not on the list of potential ambassadors until McSweeney took over as chief of staff in October 2024, claiming: “Morgan didn’t do anything without speaking to Peter.” “Once the timeline — and the degree to which searching questions were asked — become clear, I think Morgan might be in trouble,” one U.K. government official added. Mandelson went through at least three layers of checks, a second U.K. government official said. Before his role was announced, the Cabinet Office carried out due diligence. Afterward, he was subjected to full deep security vetting. The third layer — and potentially the most problematic for Starmer and McSweeney — was a letter to Mandelson before his appointment from the chief of staff on the PM’s behalf. It asked three questions: why he continued contact with Epstein after his conviction, why he was reported to have stayed in one of Epstein’s home when the financier was in prison, and whether he was associated with a charity founded by Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell. A No. 10 official said reports that linked Mandelson to Epstein, including after he was first convicted, had been looked into as part of the appointment process. “Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister, hid information that has since come to light and presented Epstein as someone he barely knew,” the No. 10 official added. HURRY UP AND WAIT Some Labour MPs — spooked by consistent polls putting Labour behind Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK — are so angry that they want to see regime change immediately. For many on Labour’s left or “soft left” flank this was simply a chance to push their campaign against No. 10. One former minister, already hostile to the leadership, said it felt like the worst part of Starmer’s premiership and McSweeney should go now. Left-wing former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn, long cast out of the party over comments on antisemitism, went on Sky News to say Starmer may even be challenged before local elections, which will be held across the U.K. in May. Others were new converts to immediate action. A fifth Labour MP, a moderate who entered parliament in 2024, also said McSweeney should go now. They lamented the “blind spot for many in the leadership” who allowed Mandelson to become ambassador. It has left some MPs angry and dejected. One, Sarah Owen, made an impassioned intervention in Wednesday’s debate: “Don’t we need to put the victims at the heart of this, not just ourselves?” But they will have to wait if they want the facts behind the case to become clear. MPs agreed on Wednesday night to release a series of documents concerning the diligence and vetting around Mandelson’s appointment, as well as communications he had with McSweeney, ministers, civil servants and special advisers in the six months before his appointment. Starmer had intended to block the release of any documents that would prejudice U.K. national security or international relations. But No. 10 staged a late climbdown after Angela Rayner — a key figure among MPs on Labour’s “soft left” who resigned as deputy prime minister amid a housing scandal in September — called for parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) to have a role. Officials scrambled to compile a new amendment that would give the ISC the final say on what is blocked. It will likely take days or weeks for the government to work through what needs to be released, and far longer for the ISC to work through the most contentious documents after that. The Met Police also released a statement on Wednesday night warning the release of specific documents “could undermine” its current investigation into Mandelson’s alleged misconduct in public office. The releases — which could include Mandelson’s private messages to friends in the Cabinet, such as Health Secretary Wes Streeting — will provide easy fodder to a British media gripped by the stories of Epstein’s friendships with Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew. But most MPs and officials who spoke to POLITICO agreed that No. 10 and McSweeney stand to lose the most. A second former No. 10 official said: “Lots of people are nice to creepy people in politics. But when it comes down to the brass tacks of who knew what or did what when they made the appointment — that’s the chopping block stuff.” A sixth Labour MP, on the left of the party, said even frontbenchers were “questioning why they should jeopardise their own positions to protect one individual [McSweeney].” But the question of “when” remains a key one.  One Labour figure loyal to Starmer’s No. 10 admitted there will be pressure for McSweeney to go now, but insisted anyone with an ounce of political sense would delay any move against him until after local elections in May — so that he could absorb the blame for any losses and protect the PM. Even a staunch ally of McSweeney — who has been at Starmer’s side since he first ran to be Labour leader — said they had no idea if he will survive. But a seventh Labour MP, elected in 2024, thinks questions over McSweeney’s future are a red herring. “It’s ultimately about the PM’s judgement,” they said. The fourth Labour MP quoted above added: “If one of them goes, the other one has to go too.” Esther Webber contributed reporting.

The EU’s top sports official has sharply criticized FIFA President Gianni Infantino for saying that world football’s governing body should lift its ban on Russia competing in international tournaments.  Infantino said Monday that Russia, which was banned by FIFA following the country’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, should be allowed to compete again, claiming that bans and boycotts “create more hatred.” It would send a positive message to have “girls and boys from Russia” participating in football tournaments across Europe, he added.  European Sport Commissioner Glenn Micallef pushed back Wednesday, calling for the ban to remain in place in a social media post with the hashtag #YellowCardForFIFA.  “Sport does not exist in a vacuum. It reflects who we are and what we choose to stand for,” Micallef said. “Letting aggressors return to global football as if nothing happened ignores real security risks and deep pain caused by the war.”  Infantino’s remarks also drew a furious response from Ukraine.   “679 Ukrainian girls and boys will never be able to play football — Russia killed them,” said Ukraine’s Foreign Affairs Minister Andrii Sybiha on social media. “And it keeps killing more while moral degenerates suggest lifting bans, despite Russia’s failure to end its war.”  Moscow, unsurprisingly, embraced Infantino’s suggestion. “We have seen these statements [by Infantino], and we welcome them,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. “It’s high time to think about this.”  The U.S. is hosting the men’s World Cup this summer together with Mexico and Canada. Even if the ban were lifted, Russia could not compete as it did not take part in the qualifying rounds.  Infantino maintains close ties with Donald Trump and in December gave him the newly created FIFA Peace Prize — widely seen as a token honor — after the American president was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The sporting world is increasingly softening in its stance on Russian participation in tournaments, with International Olympic Committee President Kirsty Coventry signaling that Russian athletes shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of their government.

LONDON — Keir Starmer will strive for “maximum transparency” when releasing files on Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the U.S., a senior U.K. minister said Wednesday. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the prime minister wants to release as much information into the public domain about how Mandelson was appointed, his correspondence with ministers and his subsequent sacking last September over the former Labour peer’s friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “The prime minister’s going for maximum transparency here,” Streeting, a former friend of Mandelson, told Sky, though added the PM is “obviously drawing a line” by “not releasing information where it might compromise our national security and our security services, or where there may be information in there that might undermine international relations with other countries.” The opposition Conservatives have put forward a humble address — a parliamentary message to King Charles that was favored by Starmer during his time as leader of the opposition — calling for “all papers” relating to Mandelson’s appointment last year to be published. These include “due diligence which was passed to Number 10,” conflict of interest forms over his work in Russia and China, and correspondence (including electronic communications) between Mandelson, ministers and the PM’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney — who encouraged Starmer to send the then Labour peer to Washington. The government has published an amendment to the address accepting the Tories’ request, with the caveat that it will exclude “papers prejudicial to U.K. national security or international relations.” U.K. lawmakers will debate the substance of what should be released this afternoon. “What we’ve seen in recent days also is a prime minister acting rapidly to make sure that Peter Mandelson is stripped of all of the titles and privileges that were conferred on him through public service,” Streeting told the BBC, calling his behavior “so jaw-droppingly stupid and outrageous.” The Metropolitan Police confirmed Tuesday evening that Mandelson is under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office after it appeared he leaked sensitive government discussions at the height of the financial crisis to the late financier. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. And in a Times Newspaper interview that was conducted before the most recent batch of Epstein files were released, Mandelson attempted to explain his historic association with the disgraced financier. “I don’t know what his motives were — probably mixed — but he provided guidance to help me navigate out of the world of politics and into the world of commerce and finance,” Mandelson told the newspaper. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. Mandelson also resigned from the House of Lords and left Labour following the latest tranche of correspondence in the Epstein Files.