BRUSSELS — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned Friday that as many as 20 million Ukrainians could be forced to flee to Europe if his country falls to Russia. “Russia is killing us,” Zelenskyy told reporters at a press conference on Friday during a summit of European Union leaders, adding Ukrainians were being “pushed” out of their country. “They [Russia] don’t want to stop.” In the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, millions of Ukrainians fled their homes in Europe’s fastest and largest refugee crisis since World War II. Today, over 4 million Ukrainians live in EU countries under temporary protection status, with the largest populations in Germany, Poland and Czechia, according to Eurostat.  Zelenskyy’s stark warning comes as Ukraine heads into a brutal fifth wartime winter under Russian bombardment. Kyiv faces a budget shortfall of $30 to $35 million next year, according to projections from the International Monetary Fund — even accounting for a €90 billion loan Brussels agreed to provide last year.  The Ukrainian president traveled to Brussels to meet with European leaders and shore up financial support for his embattled country. While the EU is Ukraine’s staunchest backer, the bloc’s list of priorities is stacked with rising energy costs, looming elections, geopolitical crises and an impasse over its €2 trillion budget. 

BRUSSELS — The leaders of Denmark, Italy and Poland are pushing the European Union to significantly harden its stance on irregular migration, according to three EU diplomats and draft language seen by POLITICO. Migration “represents a concern for many European citizens and poses a challenge for the cohesion of our societies … and [is] negatively affecting crime rates,” reads a draft of summit conclusions circulated ahead of a lunchtime discussion on the topic at a leaders’ summit in Brussels, backed by Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen and Poland’s Donald Tusk. “The European Council further underlined the importance of ensuring full control of irregular arrivals, including by avoiding measures that could create incentives for illegal migration,” reads the draft seen by POLITICO. The bloc’s 27 leaders were due to discuss migration during a special session on Thursday requested by Meloni and Frederiksen following a tense back-and-forth with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez in June. Tensions have risen further after Spain’s Ceuta exclave was overwhelmed by migrants during the summer and as far-right parties have made gains around the bloc. The draft also “calls the Commission to explore [a] possible consultation mechanism to encourage coordination on national measures potentially affecting other Member States while respecting national competencies.” While the last phrase does not name any one country, Sánchez has clashed with Meloni over his handling of the Ceuta migration crisis as well as Spanish measures to regularize around 1 million migrants. However, language discussing the impact of migration on social housing was removed from the draft over concerns that it could be perceived as provocative toward Spain. One of the diplomats — who, like the others, was granted anonymity to discuss confidential information — said the updated draft was unlikely to win unanimous support from all the leaders, but had been proposed to bring the language closer in line with political sentiment and spark debate.

LONDON — Britain’s Labour MPs are talking furtively about ousting their leader. There’s just one hurdle: they need to work out how. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing renewed outrage in his party after he admitted knowing that Peter Mandelson continued his friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but appointed him as ambassador to the U.S. anyway. It’s the latest crisis for Starmer, whose personal popularity has tanked despite Labour winning in a 2024 landslide. Yet while MPs have anonymously thrown around potential challengers’ names for months, nothing has happened. They include former Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Defence Secretary John Healey and 2024-entry minister Al Carns. (All publicly insist they are loyal to Starmer.) The upshot is that Starmer could remain in office for months or even years, even while his own MPs drift from his leadership. The hurdles are mostly political, given local elections looming in May and there is no single heir apparent, but procedure is to blame too. Labour’s internal rules, which have changed since the last time a sitting leader was challenged in 2016, are notorious for being far more opaque than in the opposition Conservative Party. Challengers need 80 fellow MPs to back them in order to trigger a contest, but the exact process is “concerningly vague” and “muddy,” one Labour official said. They added: “Everyone is fumbling around in the dark, hoping that they get enough momentum that it’s overwhelming and carries them over the line.” A second Labour official said: “I would assume that 95 percent of MPs don’t actually understand how this works, hence there are widespread fantasies about being able to have a coronation.” They added: “I’m reasonably confident that people just won’t get their shit together.” So POLITICO is here to help. We spoke to four Labour officials with knowledge of the process to clarify exactly how a hypothetical challenge would unfold, if it ever happens. All were granted anonymity to discuss internal processes. STEP 1: FIND 80 FRIENDS — IN SECRET It will kick off a mile and a half from Downing Street, in the office of a Labour Party official who is seldom seen in the public eye. Any challenger or their supporters must write to General Secretary Hollie Ridley with the names of 81 MP backers, including the challenger themselves. This can happen either by email or with signatures on paper delivered to the party’s London headquarters. “I assume they would walk in and dump 80 letters on Hollie’s desk,” said one of the four officials noted above. It’s unclear whether challengers should send one message signed by 81 people, or 81 letters (some officials who spoke to POLITICO were unsure; others thought either would be fine). Either way, this means plotters must sign up one fifth of their party to a coup … without their efforts leaking and fizzling out midway through. And backers must be ready to be named publicly hours later. Given the level of gossip among Labour MPs, good luck with that. These are much higher hurdles than in Britain’s Conservative Party, whose MPs can submit no-confidence letters anonymously and don’t need to attach them to a named challenger. Politics will probably overtake the process in the end. The last leadership challenge, against left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in 2016, was plain for all to see before it reached the formal stages — because a wave of ministers resigned and MPs passed a symbolic no-confidence vote in his leadership. STEP 2: A PAUSE — THEN A WHIRLWIND  There will be a short pause while Ridley seeks internal and legal advice before the 81 names are published — and Labour hits a thousand miles per hour. The party will convene a meeting of the 10 officers of Labour’s ruling national executive committee (NEC), which will make recommendations on the timetable and procedure to the wider NEC to wave through. Other MPs will be invited to nominate rival challengers. As the sitting prime minister, Starmer will have a place on the list automatically. But they will have to act fast. During the contest to find Labour’s new deputy leader in the fall, formal MP nominations were only open for three days and the entire contest was over in eight weeks. NEC officers are largely pro-Starmer — they include Starmer himself, though any candidate would be recused from discussions — and were the same people who blocked Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham from attempting to return to parliament in January. They may have an interest in moving quickly, to avoid destabilizing the prime minister on the world stage or allowing a left-wing candidate to gain traction. STEP 3: CHOOSE YOUR FIGHTERS CAREFULLY One piece of advice to warring MPs: Get it right first time. The four officials all said that once MPs pick who to nominate, they are “locked in” and cannot transfer to another candidate unless their pick drops out of the race. The full tally of MP nominations — with names — will be published daily on the Labour Party website, unlike the Tory system which uses a secret ballot. STEP 4: GET YOUR RUBBER CHICKEN OUT Candidates who pass the 81 MP threshold will then go through to a second stage, where they spend weeks touring the country to persuade local parties and unions to back them. They must win the support of 5 percent of Labour’s constituency parties, or at least three of the party’s formal “affiliate” bodies including two trade unions. This is not always a formality, as Emily Thornberry — now chair of the Commons’ foreign affairs committee — discovered when she failed to reach the local party threshold when running against Starmer in 2020. Two of the four officials noted above suggested that Wes Streeting — despite being widely seen as a frontrunner — could struggle during this stage, as many unions and constituency parties regard his politics as not left-wing enough. A third official said this was inaccurate, given there has been an exodus of left-wing members from the party. STEP 5: GO TO THE PARTY Whoever pulls through the initial stages — probably three candidates at the most — will go through to a final vote of Labour’s members. The result is difficult to predict, as many of the most left-wing members who joined under Jeremy Corbyn in the late 2010s have exited the party. In October’s deputy leadership vote, Bridget Phillipson — who was widely painted as being aligned to Starmer — lost by only a small margin. The winner will be Labour leader, and therefore prime minister. If Keir Starmer wins, he will stay in No. 10, secure until the next time a critic is strong enough politically to come for him. If a rival wins, Starmer will visit King Charles III to tender his resignation as PM.

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.

Mujtaba Rahman is the head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice. He posts at @Mij_Europe. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has only four months to save his premiership. After the U.K. parliament’s return from Christmas recess, Starmer marked his first 18 months in Downing Street with a speech touting his Labour party’s efforts to ease the cost-of-living crisis. But behind the scenes, anxiety is growing that voters won’t feel any meaningful relief before the decisive regional and local elections on May 7, which could seal the prime minister’s political fate. And the outlook is bleak: After placing third in the Welsh Parliament elections behind Plaid Cymru and far-right leader Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, failing to unseat the Scottish National Party in Scotland, and bleeding support to both the Greens and Reform UK in English council contests, Labour risks humiliation across the U.K. And national polling only underscores the danger, with Reform UK now averaging close to 30 percent, and Labour languishing in the teens alongside the Greens and the Conservatives. Still, Starmer’s advisers privately argue that “less bad than expected” results might be enough to save him. But many Labour MPs expect a leadership challenge regardless, as it would require only 81 out of 404 MPs to initiate one — and Starmer is hardly popular with the wider party. Then there’s the unfolding scandal over Labour stalwart and former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson. Mandelson was appointed by Starmer before being removed from his position in September once the extent of his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein became clear. Under mounting pressure, Starmer has been strong in his criticism and push for transparency — but that may not be enough, as Mandelson’s now under investigation for misconduct while in public office. A challenge may not come immediately, or even right after polling day in May. But the sense that Starmer’s authority is waning is unmistakable. For one, the prime minister is already preparing his defense. A King’s speech designed to reset the agenda ,outlining proposals on special education needs and digital ID, is now penciled in for mid-May. A cabinet reshuffle may follow, and some in Labour believe Starmer might even sacrifice his chancellor if he thinks it would placate restive backbenchers. He’s also expected to recall former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to the cabinet, hoping her return could blunt any leadership ambitions. Labour’s traditions may offer Starmer only limited protection.While the party prides itself on avoiding the “regicide” that’s plagued the rival Conservatives, this instinct will weaken if electoral defeat looms. Labour MPs may dread a destabilizing leadership contest, but many have already concluded Starmer won’t lead them into the next general election. And privately, some ministers believe it’s no longer a question of if the prime minister falls, but when. Their concerns are understandable: Energized by new leadership, the Greens are siphoning some progressive voters, while Reform UK is eroding Labour’s traditional working-class base. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have stabilized enough under Kemi Badenoch’s leadership to reduce the likelihood of another revolt — a development that leaves Starmer more exposed. So, if a contest is triggered, he’s unlikely to survive it. Party members — roughly 250,000-strong — tend to favor the soft left. And that dynamic would advantage Rayner, should she stand. Last week’s events in Greater Manchester only further crystallized this perception of Starmer’s weakness. His decision to block Mayor Andy Burnham from contesting a parliamentary by-election was a lose-lose proposition: Either deny Burnham a Westminster platform and risk a party backlash, or enable a future leadership challenger. And Starmer chose the former, provoking fury while reinforcing the perception that he’s defensive and frail. Then came news of Mandelson. Starmer was elected on the promise of ending the chaos of government sleaze, and this saga will only foment questions about his judgement when appointing Mandelson ambassador. And the prime minister may well end up having to sacrifice his beloved advisor Morgan McSweeney, who lobbied for Mandelson to be picked for the plum Washington post. Labour MPs may dread a destabilizing leadership contest, but many have already concluded Starmer won’t lead them into the next general election. | Lukas Coch/EPA Meanwhile, foreign policy — the one area where Starmer’s performance has proven more assured — is offering Number 10 no relief either. U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has distracted him from and sometimes undermined his domestic agenda, particularly in the case of tariffs. And the latest crisis over Greenland was no exception. Managing relations with the U.S. under Trump has forced Starmer into awkward contortions, attempting to respond to provocations while trying to preserve his strategy of staying close to both Washington and Brussels, where his government is trying to reset relations. As it stands, the debate inside Labour over whether to pivot toward the EU is intensifying, and there’s now growing support within the party for a customs union with the bloc. But Starmer’s preference for incremental sector-by-sector alignment risks satisfying no one, viewed in Brussels as cherry-picking and at home as timid. Even loyalists concede a damaging story has taken hold: A prime minister unable to impose a vision or discipline, haunted by his early decisions, buffeted by U-turns and trapped by his own party. Starmer wanted to avoid a Tory-style drama. Instead, he’s now heading one of Labour’s own — slower, quieter but no less brutal. And four months isn’t long to change the narrative, especially when so many in his own party have already turned the page.

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 — 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.

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.

LONDON — The European Commission is looking into whether former British politician Peter Mandelson broke EU rules over his contact with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Even though the U.K. left the EU six years ago, Mandelson remains bound by obligations that he signed up to during his time as a commissioner, from 2004 to 2008. Newly released files suggest Mandelson in 2010, while he was a senior minister in the U.K. government, may have given Epstein advance notice of a €500 billion bailout to save the euro at the height of the spiraling Greek debt crisis. European finance ministers agreed the deal overnight amid fears that the failing Greek economy could trigger a wider crisis across the eurozone. According to the files released in the U.S., Epstein, who was a financier, sent Mandelson an email the previous night saying: “Sources tell me 500 b euro bailout , almost complete.” Mandelson replied: “Sd be announced tonight.” The cabinet minister then said he was just leaving 10 Downing Street and “will call.” The British government decided not to take part in the bailout for the euro but was part of the talks that paved the way for the emergency measure, so would have known how events were progressing. On Tuesday, Balazs Ujvari, a spokesperson for the Commission said: “We have rules in place emanating from the treaty and the code of conduct that commissioners, including former commissioners, have to follow.” When there is an indication that the rules may not have been followed, the Commission looks into any potential breaches, he said. “We will be assessing if, in light of these newly available documents, there might be breaches of the respective rules with regard to Peter Mandelson.” Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims.

LONDON — Peter Mandelson said he has nothing new to tell U.S. lawmakers about Jeffrey Epstein, as he branded his sacking as Britain’s Ambassador to Washington over his links to the convicted sex offender a “life-changing crisis.” “There is nothing I can tell Congress about Epstein they don’t already know,” he told the Times in an interview published Monday night. “I had no exposure to the criminal aspects of his life,” he added. Britain’s Metropolitan Police said Monday it is reviewing reports relating to alleged misconduct in a public office. Newly-released Epstein files appear to suggest Mandelson passed information from inside the U.K. government to the convicted sex offender while he was business secretary. In the same Times interview, Mandelson, who twice resigned from the New Labour government, said being sacked as U.S. ambassador last September “felt like being killed without actually dying.” “I’ve had a lot of bad luck, no doubt some of it of my own making,” he said. The Times interview was conducted on January 25 — before the latest tranche of documents was published – and the paper also spoke to Mandelson on Sunday. U.K. minister Karin Smyth, speaking for the U.K. government on Tuesday morning, criticized Mandelson’s lack of self-awareness. “I’m sure you’ve seen and interviewed over time, men that have been involved in similar sorts of behavior, seem to not be able to recognize their own self in that,” Smith told Sky News presenter Sophy Ridge. Smith said Mandelson should testify before U.S. Congress, if asked, adding: “Anybody who’s got information should support the investigation, should be as open as they can be.” Newly released Epstein files appear to show Mandelson shared sensitive government policy decisions with the disgraced financier. They also suggest Epstein made payments linked to Mandelson. Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has asked Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald to investigate the apparent government leaks. Politicians from across the political spectrum have called on Mandelson, who resigned from Labour, to retire or be removed from the House of Lords.