He has insisted that, despite previously stating that “all due process” had been followed, he would not have allowed the appointment to proceed if he had known that independent vetting officials had recommended that a security clearance be denied.
Starmer told MPs that Robbins had clearly answered “no” when asked if he had shared the recommendation “with me, No 10 or any other ministers”.
“That puts to bed all the allegations levelled at me ... in relation to dishonesty,” he said, adding that a week ago opposition politicians “were all saying that it must have been shared with me ... It was not”.
Opposition pressure
Mandelson was named to the top diplomatic post in December 2024, just weeks before US President Donald Trump was inaugurated the following month. He took up the job in February 2025.
The exact nature of the risks raised by vetting officials has not been made public, but Robbins has said that they did not relate to Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein.
Kemi Badenoch, leader of the main Opposition Conservative Party, dismissed Starmer’s denial, demanding why he had not ditched the appointment when he found out about other controversial issues.
A document produced during the appointment process “said Mandelson remained on the board of a Kremlin-linked defence company long after Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014”, Badenoch claimed.
“The Prime Minister told us on Monday [local time] that he’d read that due diligence report. Why did the Prime Minister want to make a man with links to the Kremlin our ambassador in Washington?” she added.
Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s former top aide, who resigned over his role in the crisis, is to appear before MPs next week.
Robbins said yesterday that Starmer’s Downing Street office put constant pressure on civil servants to approve Mandelson’s appointment and seemed to dismiss security concerns.
Robbins described the tone not as “just please get this done quickly” but “get it done”.
“I think, a pretty unmistakable feeling,” he said.
-Agence France-Presse