Badenoch accuses PM of misleading MPs over Mandelson vetting

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has leveled accusations against the prime minister, claiming they misled the House of Commons regarding Lord Mandelson’s security vetting for the U.S. ambassador role. A recent report by The Guardian indicated that the Foreign Office intervened in the vetting process to allow the peer to assume the position despite initial concerns.

Vetting Process Details

According to the report, the United Kingdom Security Vetting agency, part of the Cabinet Office, initially denied Lord Mandelson clearance in late January 2025. This decision followed a thorough vetting process that examined his credit history, criminal record, and personal background, including health, friendships, and sexual history. However, the Foreign Office overruled this, enabling Mandelson’s appointment as the UK’s ambassador to the U.S. in December 2024.

PM’s Claims and Backlash

During Prime Minister’s Questions on 10 September 2025, Sir Keir Starmer asserted that “full due process” was adhered to for Mandelson’s selection. Badenoch challenged this, referencing Starmer’s earlier remarks and stating:

“We now know the prime minister misled the House. The prime minister must take responsibility.”

The incident raises questions under the Ministerial Code, which mandates ministers to resign if they knowingly mislead Parliament.

Documents and Transparency

The government has already shared documents from an earlier due diligence check conducted by the Cabinet Office, sent to the prime minister on 11 December 2024. These highlighted Mandelson’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein as a potential “reputation risk.” Further documents are set to be released, though The Guardian reported that senior officials may consider withholding information about the vetting approval decision.

Background on Mandelson’s Sacking

Lord Mandelson was previously dismissed as U.S. ambassador in 2024 due to his connections with Jeffrey Epstein. Now, the controversy resurfaces as his recent appointment is questioned. The vetting process, designed to prevent abuse of secret material or susceptibility to blackmail, remains a focal point of the debate.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to stay updated on developments in Westminster and beyond.