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.

DUBLIN — The Irish capital, which doubles as Europe’s de facto tech capital, hosted two very different AI summits in the past week. Most eyes were on the International AI Summit, the signature tech event of Ireland’s six-month presidency of the Council of the EU, where top brass from the world’s biggest tech firms discussed ways to harness artificial intelligence and minimize safety risks. But the weekend before, a very different conversation was taking place at the Workers’ AI Counter Summit, as Ireland’s tech workers demanded a say in how the burgeoning technology reshapes the workplace and society. Ireland’s lucrative tech sector has been rattled by waves of AI-driven layoffs — and the country’s fledgling tech union has seen an exponential spike in sign-ups from workers who are worried about their future.   There’s an “awakening” happening right now among workers in Ireland’s tech sector, and a growing “awareness that they’re not bulletproof,” said Sinéad Gibney, a social democrat lawmaker who previously worked for Google.   “I do think what we will see is that parts of roles will be automated, which means that people will be competing more heavily for the same roles,” she said. “They won’t have the same labor power and therefore we’re going to see a drop in quality of work, we’re going to see more zero-hour contracts, in more places than we already see it.” The labor movement brewing in Ireland, where many of the world’s tech giants have their EU bases, is part of a wider trend among tech workers globally, who have seen their work disrupted by rapidly evolving AI. RISE IN LAYOFFS Ireland’s dedicated union for tech workers, the Digital and Techworker Alliance (DATA), has seen a five-fold increase in membership since it was first founded in 2023.   In its first year and a half of existence, membership hovered around 270 people. In the past year-and-a-half, it’s jumped to more than 1,350 members, DATA organizer John Bohan told POLITICO.  He added that this number tends to spike around layoffs and other actions. “The tech industry was founded on the idea that it would never have a union, because they’re making people rich, and treat them really well,” Bohan said.  “But post-Covid, workforce adjustments happened again and again, with layoffs and declining conditions in the sector. We started to see more people wanting to get organized around redundancies.”   The spike in sign-ups coincides with a wave of layoffs in Ireland’s tech bubble (and the tech sector globally), as companies corrected pandemic-era overhiring, and diverted investment to AI.   Ireland hosts the EU headquarters of most of the world’s largest tech companies, and more than 170,000 people are employed in the tech sector, according to the country’s statistics institute. Social media giant Meta has roughly halved its workforce in Ireland since the pandemic, axing well over 1,000 roles to offset AI investment and boost efficiency. Separately, Meta subcontractor Covalen also announced massive layoffs earlier this year, cutting more than 700 people.   Video-sharing platform TikTok announced this year it would shed around 300 Irish jobs, mostly from its trust and safety team, shifting the work to other countries, outsourced vendors or automated AI solutions.   A report by the IMF earlier this year warned that Ireland’s labor market is “relatively more exposed” to AI than many advanced economies, partly due to its concentration of tech workers.   The AI race is also creating new jobs on the Irish market – as AI firms like Anthropic and OpenAI are setting up Irish bases and trying to lure Big Tech workers with even bigger salaries.   Amid the uncertainty and volatility of the AI boom, tech workers are turning to unions for the first time as a safety net. One tech worker who used to work in trust and safety at a big tech firm told POLITICO that there used to be a feeling that as a “pampered” tech worker you “can’t ask for your rights, because you already have it so much better.”  But as layoffs continue and teams get leaner, workers in fields like trust and safety “now have to deal with these issues with fewer and fewer resources”, and face a “constant threat of being chopped,” the worker said.   That’s causing an “undoing of a certain perspective that we have of ourselves as tech sector workers,” they said, “because of undeniable experiences that now put us in situations where we clearly see our rights being violated, even if we may have it so much or somewhat better than most people.”  A different tech worker who currently works for Covalen told POLITICO that there is a sense that “if they believe they can replace you with AI, they will do that.”   “All these Big Tech firms only care about profit, and what I have realized is the Irish government protects that Big Tech capital [rather than workers],” the Covalen worker said. “But the question is, what’s the government going to do when the tech bros change their mind and move elsewhere?”   WORKERS AT THE CENTER The speaker list at this week’s AI summit was a flex of the country’s strength as a tech hub, as top names from the world’s biggest companies like Google and Microsoft took to the stage. Fionnuala Ní Bhrógáin, head of organizing and campaigning at Ireland’s Communications Workers’ Union (DATA’s parent union), was the only union voice on the line-up. “The fact that 36 executives and industry bosses featured on the program, compared with just one trade union speaker — invited at the last minute after attention was drawn to the absence of workers’ voices — says a lot about the value the Irish government places on AI’s impact on workers,” she told POLITICO. “The reality is that a meaningful conversation about AI’s future can only happen through genuine engagement with workers and collective bargaining,” Ní Bhrógáin added. “Without that voice, we risk deepening mistrust and resistance rather than creating the conditions for workers to shape these changes collectively.” DATA organized its counter-AI summit the previous weekend, to put “workers at the center of the debate about power, AI, technology and the future of work.”  The event cut through the “hype and futurism of politicians and industry figures to focus on the real present harms faced by ordinary workers and communities,” DATA’s Bohan said.   The union is pushing for stronger legal protections for tech workers caught up in AI-driven layoffs in Ireland, including making it mandatory for employers to recognize unions during collective bargaining. It is also calling for a ban on cooling-off clauses that prevent laid-off workers from moving between Big Tech subcontractors.   A spokesperson for Ireland’s department for enterprise told POLITICO in a written statement that the government is “committed to strengthening collective bargaining and industrial relations” and has published an action plan to do so between now and 2030.   They said that employers already have to comply with obligations under Irish employment law, including consultation and notification procedures for collective redundancies, and workers who feel those rules have been broken can complain to the Workplace Relations Commission.  Firefighting to future-proofing  Naoise Ó Cearúil, a center-right Fianna Fáil lawmaker who chairs the AI committee, pointed out that while there have been high-profile job cuts in Ireland’s tech sector, “the actual net is that there has been an increase [in jobs], particularly over the past year and even five years.”  According to Ireland’s central statistics office, total employment in tech and related sectors surpassed 177,000 in the second quarter of this year, up from around 144,000 at the same time in 2021.   Ó Cearúil pointed out that many job losses were in trust and safety jobs like content moderation that are “very difficult mentally,” and now tech firms are able to “utilize AI and software to be able to do a lot of detection, rather than using humans.”   He has called for a national program to be established, to support workers whose jobs are at risk due to AI and automation.   A spokesperson for Ireland’s department of enterprise acknowledged that the country’s tech sector has “experienced significant adjustment in recent years,” but said the changes were generally part of wider global restructuring “rather than reflecting any Ireland-specific weakness.”  They said the Irish government is currently focused on “ensuring workers and businesses are equipped to adapt to technological change through investment in education, training, lifelong learning and digital skills.”  

FIFA President Gianni Infantino expressed regret to the organization’s board on Thursday regarding his plan to sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors. “I apologized for the mistakes that we made in relation to the communication and consultation process related to the … project, which then led to many consequences,” said Infantino after the meeting, adding that his proposal had dominated discussions. “But what is important to remember is that it was a proposal — so in no way a done deal — just a proposal that actually intended to enable FIFA to invest more in our member associations, as opposed to replacing support from existing resources,” he added. Thursday’s meeting in Zurich was the first time FIFA’s Council convened since the 2026 World Cup ended and details of Infantino’s controversial proposal came to light. The plan was hit with immediate backlash from football associations around the world, as well as high-profile figures like EU Sports Commissioner Glenn Micallef and U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham. The sell-off plan also prompted calls for Infantino to resign as FIFA president, while U.S. President Donald Trump stepped in to defend him. FIFA Council Vice President and Football Association Chair Debbie Hewitt expressed disappointment that documents about the plan had not been shared with the board, saying many questions remained unanswered after the meeting. “I’ve repeatedly asked for the papers to be shared … In spite of the request today, I haven’t received them,” she told the BBC. During the three-and-a-half-hour meeting, Infantino was also pressed about the contentious decision to suspend the red-card ban given to U.S. player Folarin Balogun during this summer’s tournament. FIFA said in a statement its legal committee would undertake a review of the body’s disciplinary procedures, and “a presentation will also be made at the next FIFA Council meeting in December 2026.”

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.  

BRUSSELS — The World Economic Forum is investigating its president and CEO, Børge Brende, after his relationship with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein came to light in newly released documents.  Brende, a former Norwegian foreign minister, dined with Epstein three times in 2018 and 2019, and the two exchanged texts and emails.  As recently as November, Brende denied having any contact with Epstein — but has now admitted to knowing him after their relationship came to light in the latest document release by the U.S. Justice Department. Epstein was a wealthy U.S. financier who pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor for prostitution and was later arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in July 2019 before dying in jail. The WEF confirmed to POLITICO that Brende had taken part “in three business dinners with Jeffrey Epstein, along with subsequent email and SMS communications.” It has opened an independent review into the relationship, which it said Brende requested and is cooperating with.  Brende said he had been “completely unaware of Epstein’s past and criminal activities” and would have declined any invitations or communication had he known.  “I recognize that I could have conducted a more thorough investigation into Epstein’s history, and I regret not doing so,” he said.  The first dinner, with diplomats and business leaders at Epstein’s New York townhouse, took place in 2018. Ahead of the meeting the two exchanged views on the future of Davos, with Epstein saying the elite gathering in Switzerland “can really replace the UN.” The pair also dined together in June 2019, weeks before Epstein was arrested. Epstein also offered to use his connection with Brende to lobby for his friends to be invited to Davos. In a separate email exchange in 2018 with former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, Epstein offered to “inquire” with his “good friend,” Brende, after Summers complained of not being invited to Davos that year.  Epstein also offered to introduce tech billionaire Peter Thiel to Brende.  Thiel and Summers did not respond to requests for comment.   Brende has steered the WEF through a turbulent period after its founder Klaus Schwab resigned in April 2025 amid whistleblower allegations over his management of the forum. A WEF probe found “no evidence of material wrongdoing.” The organization has yet to appoint a new permanent chair, with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink serving as interim co-chair. The WEF confirmed that Brende will continue as president and CEO during the investigation “without involvement in the review process.” The decision to open the investigation “underscores the Forum’s commitment to transparency and maintaining its integrity. Our aim is to handle this matter thoughtfully and efficiently,” the WEF said.

BRUSSELS — Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein kept a network of contacts in Brussels over the course of a decade, corresponding with powerful people and with modeling agencies about women, documents show. The latest tranche of files released by the U.S. Department of Justice indicate the late American financier planned several trips to the Belgian capital, where many of the EU’s most important offices are based, and had contact with people in the city between 2010 and 2019. None of his meetings were publicly disclosed, but the emails lay out a series of potential visits by him and alleged intermediaries. Epstein, who prosecutors allege “created a vast network of underage victims for him to sexually exploit,” had repeated correspondence about women in Europe. A 2010 email chain sent to Epstein includes a description of a woman identified as “Kelly C.” provided by a Brussels-based “models agency” called Casting Factory. Kelly’s body measurements are provided along with an attestation she had a “very nice temper.” POLITICO was unable to reach Casting Factory, which no longer has a functioning website. A visit to  the address associated with it in the exchange of messages, in Brussels city center near Avenue Louise, revealed a building that now appears empty. Included in the exchange is a representative identified as being from MC2 Model Management — an agency co-founded by Epstein’s long-time associate Jean-Luc Brunel. Brunel was found hanged in his Paris prison cell in 2022 where he was being held on suspicion of raping minors and trafficking children for the purpose of sex. MC2 is now defunct and could not be reached for comment. Also in 2010, Epstein received a message from a redacted address informing him that the sender was “getting ready for tmrw flight)” and “will send you my new number from Brussels!” A single bracket is frequently used as a text shorthand for a smiley face in Eastern Europe. Another message to Epstein, also from a redacted address, simply reads “miss you))))) bisous from Brussels.” Bisous means kisses in French. In another exchange, an unknown sender reported to Epstein they had held a video call with a woman who appeared “pretty nice,” even if they “couldn’t see her face very well.” The woman, who was said to be “waiting for the visa”, was described as having previously been “a booker for a modeling agency (might have other candidates?) I think she will do well after our conversation.” The sender then asked to fly to the Belgian capital. Epstein replied: “Yes to Brussels trip.” A year on, in 2011, Epstein got an email from his assistant notifying him that “Jean Luc called to say hi and let you know that he is leaving tonight [for] Brussels.” No further identifying details for the caller were given in the email. One purported visit by Epstein to Brussels was scheduled for only a few hours. According to a booking note sent by an assistant to Epstein, in January 2019 he intended to travel by train from Paris alongside unnamed French and Ukrainian companions, arriving at Brussels’ Gare du Midi around 5 p.m. and departing again just after 8 p.m. The purpose of the trip is unclear. BELGIAN RENDEZ-VOUS Epstein received a series of restaurant recommendations for the Belgian capital. One redacted contact told Epstein that Belga Queen, an elegant converted bank in the historic center, was one of the “best” in Brussels. In 2019, when Slovakia’s then-foreign minister, Miroslav Lajčák, wanted to meet with the disgraced American financier, he said he’d booked a table at La Brasserie des Étangs Mellaerts, an upscale eatery in the leafy Brussels suburb of Woluwe-Saint-Pierre. The restaurant declined to confirm to POLITICO whether the booking was made. Lajčák resigned from his latest post as national security adviser to the Slovak prime minister on Saturday after the documents showed he kept up close relations with Epstein after the financier’s 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. Lajčák said he did nothing wrong and feels like a “fool” for maintaining contact. “My favourite restaurant was L’Idiot Du Village,” Peter Mandelson, a former British government minister and European commissioner from 2004-2008 ― and a regular contact of Epstein’s ― told a redacted contact who asked for suggestions after Epstein said Mandelson knew the city well. The now-closed bistro was secreted away down a cobblestone alley in the neighborhood of Marolles and prized for its seafood dishes. Peter Mandelson will retire from public office, he said on Tuesday. | Pool photo by Bonnie Cash via EPA Mandelson will retire from public office, he said on Tuesday. The U.K. police and European Commission are investigating whether he broke the law when he gave Epstein advance notice in 2010 of a planned €500 billion bailout during the Greek debt crisis. Epstein — who had a reported personal fortune of $440 million at the time of his death and commercial interests across financial markets — repeatedly commented on EU policy in the emails. In 2018, Epstein traded emails with Steve Bannon, a former top aide to U.S. President Donald Trump who had left the White House the year prior, about Commission plans to revisit regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies designed to prevent their use in illegal activities. “We need to stop this dead in it’s tracks,” Bannon wrote, with Epstein replying “EU regs. battle lines being drawn … ping me when your italians are finished with you.” It’s not clear which Italians he was referring to. One document shows an account belonging to a cybersecurity researcher inviting Epstein to feed into a policy talk. “Jeffrey, I’m giving a 15min speech at the EU parliament next week on the regulation of intrusion/surveillance software,” the email reads. It was sent in 2015, as the EU firmed up preparatory work on landmark data protection rules passed the following year. “Attached my notes for the talk, if you have time to go through them and have some feedback that would be great. I think you’d be a good example of the target audience. Thank you!” Inclusion in the released documents does not automatically imply wrongdoing and the researcher, through his lawyer, declined to comment. On Monday, Belgium’s Prince Laurent — the brother of the country’s king — issued a statement confirming he met Epstein twice, after his name was included in the tycoon’s now-released address book. Laurent maintains he did nothing untoward and insisted he was speaking out to put an end to “rumors” around his involvement.

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.

London’s Metropolitan Police on Tuesday evening opened an investigation into former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson over alleged misconduct in public office. “Following the further release of millions of court documents in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Department of Justice, the Met received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office, including a referral from the U.K. government,” the Metropolitan Police said in a statement. “I can confirm that the Metropolitan Police has now launched an investigation into a 72-year-old man, a former Government Minister, for misconduct in public office offenses,” said Police Commander Ella Marriott. The police didn’t give a name, but 72-year-old Mandelson — a central figure in the politics of the U.K’s ruling Labour party for decades — has appeared in the latest tranche of Epstein-related documents. Files released by the U.S. Department of Justice show emailed communications between Mandelson and Epstein, including discussions about sensitive government policy. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday evening. A government spokesperson told POLITICO on Tuesday: “The government stands ready to provide whatever support and assistance the police need.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer — who appointed Mandelson as the U.K.’s ambassador to the U.S. a year ago — told his Cabinet on Tuesday that the fresh allegations were “disgraceful,” according to people familiar with the meeting. Joe Stanley-Smith and Andrew McDonald contributed to this report.

LONDON — Peter Mandelson spent four decades helping build Britain’s Labour establishment. Now it’s decisively cutting him adrift. Former colleagues in the Cabinet and Labour Party officialdom lined up to blowtorch Britain’s former ambassador to the U.S. on Tuesday after newly released files suggested he leaked sensitive government financial discussions to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2009. “The latest revelations are materially different to the unpleasant sleaze of previous revelations,” David Blunkett, a former home secretary under Tony Blair, told POLITICO. “This is about conduct in a public office, betrayal of colleagues and a dereliction of duty.” Geoff Hoon, Blair’s former defense secretary, told GB News it was “very disturbing,” while Labour grandee Harriet Harman told BBC radio: “I was of the view that Peter Mandelson was untrustworthy from the 1990s.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer sacked the so-called “prince of darkness” as Britain’s envoy to Washington in September as the extent of his friendship with Epstein became clear. But to many former colleagues, Monday’s revelation that Mandelson allegedly disclosed internal emails went much further — and will trigger, they believe, the end of his time in public life.  Mandelson declined to comment for this piece. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. Starmer said on Saturday that he had “nothing more to say” on Mandelson. That didn’t last. Smelling public outrage, the PM told his Cabinet Tuesday that the fresh allegations were “disgraceful.” Mandelson, 72, quit his seat for life in the House of Lords on Tuesday after Starmer — having earlier declined to do so — said ministers would draft a law to remove him from the upper house. Police are reviewing whether the allegations could amount to misconduct in a public office. Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who brought Mandelson back into government in 2008 — issued a statement tearing into the “shocking” revelations, and revealing he asked civil servants to investigate Mandelson’s communications with Epstein in September. Brown also contacted police Tuesday. One former diplomat, granted anonymity to speak undiplomatically, called the flurry of statements a “public lynching.” They added: “He’s going now through Dante’s seven circles of hell, and every time it looks like he’s reached the bottom, another circle appears.” One of British politics’ greatest survivors, Mandelson has not arrived at the last circle yet. Prime Minister Keir Starmer sacked the so-called “prince of darkness” as Britain’s envoy to Washington in September as the extent of his friendship with Epstein became clear. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Several of his close personal allies kept their counsel when contacted on Tuesday. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has not yet decided to comment. Another of Labour’s most senior figures told POLITICO that they had no publishable comment. But Luke Sullivan, who was a junior special adviser in the late 2000s, and later became Starmer’s political director in opposition, said: “I cannot tell you how angry people are.” Another former aide from the New Labour years, granted anonymity to speak frankly, added: “Bloody hell, it is worse than we thought. People feel justifiably sad and angry. This is not a story of people turning on him. It’s more like a Greek tragedy — Peter has been brought down by his fatal flaw, and it’s a flaw that people were always aware of.” AT THE HEART OF POWER Whenever Labour reached a turning point in its recent history, Mandelson was somehow there. Pairing a smooth-talking style with ruthless maneuvering behind the scenes, he began as the party’s communications director in 1985 and embarked on a mission with then-leader Neil Kinnock to drag his party back from the left. He became MP for Hartlepool in 1992, playing a key role in Blair’s 1994 election as party leader and Labour’s 1997 general election landslide. He was never far from scandal, resigning from the Cabinet first in 1998 over a loan he took from a colleague, then again in 2001 in a row over a passport application from an Indian billionaire. Yet his attraction to power and strategic skills made his return inevitable. In 2008, already back as Britain’s EU trade commissioner, he repaired ties with Brown, who had recently become prime minister, in an hour-long private meeting in Brussels, before returning to the heart of government. The next year, when Cabinet minister James Purnell resigned and called on Brown to stand aside, Mandelson is said to have come into No. 10 and persuaded the rebels to back down. Peter Mandelson began as the party’s communications director in 1985 and embarked on a mission with then-leader Neil Kinnock to drag his party back from the left. | Will Oliver/EPA Nigel Farage, leader of the populist right-wing party Reform UK, said on Tuesday: “He’s very articulate. He’s highly intelligent. He’s incredibly well-briefed, probably the best networker in Westminster in the last 30 years.” “[On] the actual subject, the brief … I’d never heard anybody as impressive in all my 20 years in the European Parliament. The guy is very, very bright, but clearly has a taste for money, and has a taste for bad company.” Labour went on to lose the 2010 election — though by a slimmer margin than many expected — and Mandelson co-founded a lobbying firm, Global Counsel. (The firm began cutting ties with him last year.) But in the late 2010s, he returned to politics, striking up a close professional relationship with Morgan McSweeney, now Starmer’s chief of staff. Along with other Labour aides, the pair attended dinners at the south London home of the Labour peer Roger Liddle to discuss how best to wrestle Labour back (again) from the left. His advice became more valued in the run-up to the 2024 election. He even co-presented a podcast, produced by The Times newspaper, called “How To Win An Election.” And late in 2024 — at the suggestion of McSweeney, despite concerns elsewhere in government — Mandelson bagged his biggest prize yet: the ambassadorship to Washington. Starmer jokingly compared Mandelson to Donald Trump in a February 2025 speech at the embassy: “You can sense that there’s a new leader. He’s a true one-off, a pioneer in business, in politics. Many people love him. Others love to hate him. But to us, he’s just … Peter.” TURNING ON MANDELSON In four decades, Mandelson made plenty of enemies who are now glad to see his demise. The difference with this scandal may be the reaction of those close to him. Nigel Farage, leader of the populist right-wing party Reform UK, said on Tuesday: “He’s very articulate. He’s highly intelligent. He’s incredibly well-briefed, probably the best networker in Westminster in the last 30 years.” | Andy Rain/EPA Wes Streeting, Starmer’s telegenic health secretary, who shares many aspects of Mandelson’s politics and is widely expected to be a future leadership contender, was at some of the Liddle dinners. He told the BBC: “This is a betrayal on so many levels. It is a betrayal of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein that he continued that association and that friendship for so long after his conviction. It is a betrayal of just not one, but two prime ministers.” Privately, Mandelson is said to believe he was simply casting around for advice during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. He told the Times: “There was no reason to shun his advice, but I was too trusting.” He added: “Work has always defined me. Everything else has always been an add-on. So I will find things to do.” But one serving Labour official in government said the revelations were “qualitatively (and quantitatively) worse” than what was known before. A second Labour official added: “The latest revelations have put him beyond what most people are willing to accept.” One person who speaks to No. 10 regularly said: “There are people who have known him for a long time who are very hurt and angry. He has upset people.  “He had a much reduced reservoir of support coming into this anyway, and the question is — who is going to touch him now?” Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who brought Mandelson back into government in 2008 — issued a statement tearing into the “shocking” revelations. | Will Oliver/EPA A person who knows Mandelson well drew a distinction between the reaction to his sacking in September, when some colleagues felt concern for Mandelson on a “human level because of the very public nature of his sacking,” and the “shock and real anger” at the revelations of the last few days. “It felt like a kick in the gut to read it and has brought his behavior as minister into question in a way no one could possibly have imagined,” they said. Sullivan said: “People thought that he had been characteristically not as frank as he could be with his relationship with Epstein … but I don’t think people had clocked just quite how big the significance of those revelations [Monday] are. “Any one of those, if it had come out at the time, would have brought the government down. I was a very junior Spad in the last Labour government. [With] Gordon Brown, you could hear the anger in his statement.” “I think the potential ramifications of this not just for the Labour Party but for politics and politicians in general could be understated. It is serious,” Sullivan added. The former diplomat quoted above added: “People are genuinely astonished at the sort of stuff he told Epstein. He always had a reputation of being relatively indiscreet, but some of that stuff, I mean, why Epstein? I don’t know why Epstein seemed to have had such a grip on him.” John McTernan, who served as a senior aide during the New Labour years, said: “It turns out that Peter’s actions are those of an avaricious man — which makes it really sad, because he did so much to make Labour electable, not once but twice.” WHERE DOES IT GO FROM HERE? Britain’s opposition Conservative Party is likely to apply fresh pressure on Wednesday by formally demanding that ministers release the details of Mandelson’s vetting for the ambassador post. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper revealed in September that Mandelson was not subjected to full national security vetting until after his appointment had been announced.  One government official said: “If there wasn’t any real vetting until after the appointment, that could be very damaging in my view.” Labour officials also smell danger in the fact that Gordon Brown asked the government to investigate Mandelson’s communications on Sept. 10 — a day before Starmer resolved to sack Mandelson as ambassador. The Labour Party has said disciplinary action was underway against Mandelson before he resigned his party membership on Sunday, but has not said when it began — days, weeks, or months ago. One former Labour official said: “The problem for the government as a whole and the civil service is Gordon clearly clocked something had gone on, had some concerns, and raised them last September, and it’s unclear exactly what has happened to dig it out.” No. 10 went nuclear in its response on Tuesday, saying the government was investigating and had contacted the police. Starmer’s spokesperson said: “An initial review of the documents released in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Department of Justice has found that they contain likely market-sensitive information surrounding the 2008 financial crash and official activities thereafter to stabilize the economy.  “Only people operating in an official capacity had access to this information, [with] strict handling conditions to ensure it was not available to anyone who could potentially benefit from it financially. It appears these safeguards were compromised.  “In light of this information, the Cabinet Office has referred this material to the police.” Starmer and McSweeney can maintain that they — like the rest of the press and British public — knew nothing of the emails revealed this week when they appointed Mandelson. Whether they can prevent the saga raising questions about their judgment may be another matter.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s national security adviser, who resigned on Saturday over his messages to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, said he feels like a “fool” after reading them again. “When I read those messages today, I feel like a fool. It was a private conversation, let’s be honest, who would be happy if the whole nation were reading their messages? At the very least, I exercised poor judgment,” Miroslav Lajčák, who served as Slovak foreign minister in multiple Fico governments between 2009 and 2020, told Radio Slovakia on Monday evening. In the newly released files, Epstein bantered with Lajčák about women while discussing Lajčák’s meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The exchanges also show Lajčák suggested a meeting between Fico and Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, which he refuted in the radio session. “This meeting did not happen … nor did I organize it,” Lajčák said. Lajčák denied any wrongdoing but subsequently resigned, saying he wanted to prevent political blowback on Prime Minister Robert Fico. He went on to say that he “does not recall and therefore cannot confirm or deny the authenticity of the texts.” According to Lajčák, Epstein was a well-known figure accepted among high-profile politicians, and he looked at him as a “valuable contact that could open a lot of doors.” “But that does not absolve me of responsibility,” he said. “I showed poor judgement and inappropriate communication. Those messages were nothing more than foolish male egos in action — self-satisfied male banter,” he added, refering to conversation about women. Lajčák added that his communication with Epstein was limited to words, not actions. “There were no girls … the fact that someone is communicating with a sexual predator does not make him a sexual predator,” he said, condemning the crimes that came to light after Epstein’s arrest in 2019. The messages were included in Friday’s release by the U.S. Justice Department of investigative materials related to Epstein.