Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, denied trying to find a job for his ‘hero’ Peter Mandelson – as he claimed the betrayal was ‘like a knife through my soul’
Morgan McSweeney has said Peter Mandelson’s betrayal was “like a knife through my soul” as he defended his role in the scandal.
The PM’s former chief of staff, who quit in February over the shamed peer’s appointment, faced an accusation he had found a plum job for his “hero” – which he denied. Mr McSweeney said Keir Starmer would not have appointed Mandelson as ambassador to the US on his recommendation alone, appearing to question those distancing themselves.
Mr McSweeney said the so-called Prince of Darkness was picked for the role above Tory austerity Chancellor George Osborne because the PM was desperate to get a trade deal with the US. He also denied trying to find “jobs for the boys” by pushing for ex-No10 aide Matthew Doyle to get a plum ambassadorial job.
In a surprising revelation, Mr McSweeney revealed Mandelson had sent messages on the day Angela Rayner resigned as deputy PM – making suggestions about who to appoint. His testimony came after former Foreign Office chief Sir Philip Barton said he was worried about the disgraced peer’s relationship with Epstein.
READ MORE: 7 key points as ex-Foreign Office chief says he was worried about MandelsonREAD MORE: Social media ban breakthrough as Labour says it WILL bring in restrictions for kids
1. Epstein revelations ‘like a knife through my soul’
Mr McSweeney said that revelations about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was “like a knife through my soul”.
The PM’s ex-chief of staff told MPs he was horrified by reports in 2025 about the friendship. He was led to believe that the two had a “passing acquaintance”, Mr McSweeney said.
He told the committee: “When I saw the pictures, when I saw the Bloomberg questions in September 2025, I have to say it was like a knife through my soul.
“I did not expect that level of connection that he was talking about there.” He said the Met Police is looking at an exchange between him and Mandelson when he questioned him about Epstein.
He said Mandelson had led him to believe Epstein was a “passing acquaintance that he knew through somebody else”. Mr McSweeney went on: “What then emerged about the relationship in September last year was not the relationship that I was led to understand. It was very, very, very different.”
2. Mandelson messaged with suggestions on day of reshuffle
Peter Mandelson sent a number of messages Mr McSweeney on the day of a Cabinet reshuffle after Angela Rayner resigned, it was confirmed.
The PM’s former chief of staff said Mandelson had made suggestions about who was promoted. But he insisted none of his ideas got followed up, Mr McSweeney insisted.
Mr McSweeney said: “I’m very pleased I get the chance to correct the record on this. Mandelson was in the Cabinet Office and then came into No10, on the day of the reshuffle. But he was not involved in a reshuffle.
“The reshuffle was extremely challenging because it was a bad day for our party, for the government. We had just lost the Deputy Prime Minister, and we needed to reorganise the government at pace.
“And the Prime minister, wanted to go ahead and do that.” He went on: “The text messages from Mandelson to me on the day I believe will be, made available as a humble address. I can’t remember precisely what he said, but he he texted me his thoughts.
“On a reshuffle day, I get texted a lot of thoughts from from a lot of people, the people who I would respond to and get back to would be cabinet members or other senior staff to ask them their views.
“I did not respond to any of Mandelson’s texts. The text messages set out ideas of people that he thought should be in particular positions. None of his suggestions actually came out to be the case, so his ideas were not followed up.”
3. Mandelson wouldn’t have been picked if Kamala Harris won
Peter Mandelson was picked to handle Donald Trump – and would not have been if Kamala Harris had won the US election, MPs heard.
Mr McSweeney told the committee: “If Kamala Harris had won that US presidential election, I don’t think that Peter Mandelson would have necessarily been appointed – and he probably wouldn’t have been.
“I think the Prime Minister started to seriously consider names after the US election.” He went on: “I thought he was the right choice after the US presidential election.
“The reason why I thought he was the right choice is because Britain was exposed. The UK was exposed after Brexit, we left the European Union without any US trade deal.
“And for me, honestly, the top priority of the Prime Minister was to get a US trade deal with the Americans. And I thought that based on Mandelson’s experience as an EU trade commissioner, that made him the strongest candidate.”
4. Starmer aide ‘would’ve had to apply for jobs like anyone else’
Mr McSweeney claimed No10 never intended to “land” ex-comms chief Matthew Doyle in an ambassadorial job.
Last week former Foreign Office boss Sir Olly Robbins revealed he had been asked about finding a post for him. And he claimed he was urged to keep the request from Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
He said: “It was clear that Matthew Doyle’s time in government was coming to an end, and the Prime Minister wanted me as part of that to discuss with Matthew Doyle next steps, because these are difficult conversations.
“And the Prime Minister wanted me to convey to him that if you’d wanted to stay in government, that he should consider doing so because he had extensive experience in government. The private office asked what vacancies that Matthew Doyle might apply for.
“There was no suggestion at any point that he would be imposed in if he had wanted to work in the Foreign Office, Matthew Doyle would have had to apply for any of those posts the same as anybody else.”
5. Did he give his ‘hero’ a job?
In a blistering exchange, Dame Emily questioned whether Mr Sweeney had set the country’s interests aside to give his “hero” a job.The committee chair asked: “So do you think that when the chance came for you to give Peter Mandelson his last job, you stopped thinking about what was best for the government?
“Really, you stopped thinking about what was best for the country and you just thought, I want to give this job, this great job, to one of my heroes.
“And it became an obsession. And and it may be that the Prime Minister can be criticised for giving you this leeway, but it was a leeway that you abused. And you stopped thinking strategically, you closed your eyes to the risks, you didn’t consult the necessary people – the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary – you railroaded this through as fast as you could before anyone could realised what had happened?”
Mr McSweeney denied the suggestion, responding: “I don’t regard Mandelson as a hero. I think that’s an exaggeration of the kind of relationship that I had with him. In every advice that I gave to the Prime Minister, hand on heart, I thought I was operating with a motive in the national interest.”
6. Account of phone being stolen
Mr McSweeney has given his account of what happened when his phone was stolen last year.
The former chief of staff told the committee his first call was to No10 – which was why he did not tell the 999 call handler his job title. He said: “I was a victim of crime. Somebody hopped on to the pavement and took my phone from me.
“The first thing I did was to try and retrieve it. I tried to chase, which was probably a mistake. The next thing I did was I phoned No10, and I would have done whatever they told me to do.
“Now, I thought at the time that they would be able to track the phone.” He said afterward he called 999. “If No10 had told me you need to tell the call handler what my job is, I would have done so, but otherwise I didn’t do that as a matter of course.
“I didn’t in any part of my job go around saying, I’m a very serious and senior person. If No10 had asked me to do it, I would have done that. I also thought, wrongly again at the time, I thought a squad car might come by and I could explain a bit more if a squad car had come by.”
Alarmingly he went on: “I was quite surprised by how limited the security is around chief of staff telephone.”
7. McSweeney used disappearing messages on WhatsApp
Did Mr McSweeney use disappearing messages on WhatsApp, he was asked.
“Yeah, for most people,” he said. “Yeah, I think I did.” Dame Emily then pushed him on whether he had this setting in place for messages from Mandelson.
“I probably did, yeah,” he replied. Asked if messages would have been lost thanks to the phone theft, he said: “So from October 20 to my departure, all of those messages should still be on on the phone that I gave back to the government.
“So they should have all of that for everything. Prior to that, whatever the settings were on the phone, I didn’t change them. So I didn’t change whatever default settings people have on on on WhatsApp.” He said he was unsure whether his messages were backed up before October 20.
8. No plan B if Mandelson failed vetting
Mandelson would not have been appointed as ambassador to Washington if he had failed his security vetting, Mr McSweeney said.
“I didn’t have a contingency plan in place, but was always aware that somebody could fail security vetting, was always aware that that was a possibility for any appointment that we made,” Keir Starmer’s ex-aide told MPs.
Asked whether he actively thought the peer could not be granted clearance, Mr McSweeney said: “No. And if it had happened, we’d have withdrawn the ambassadorship. It would have been a political embarrassment.”
If this had happened, previous ambassador Dame Karen Pierce would likely have been asked to stay in post for a period, he said.
9. ‘Just f***ing approve appointment’ claim
Mr McSweeney angrily hit out at reports that he had ordered a former Foreign Office chief to “just f***ing approve” Mandelson’s appointment.
The former chief of staff said it was untrue – and Sir Philip Barton, who was claimed to be on the receiving end, also said it was untrue. Mr McSweeney said: “I do not know why people do this in politics, put around untrue rumors.
“They phone lots of journalists. Those journalists then phone lots of politicians. That’s how rumors get around. It is very, very corrosive, it’s damaging for people’s reputation, and a lot of people in No10 get that.
“And I think it’s unfair for staff who can’t speak for themselves. I’m grateful as well to the journalists, the vast majority of whom never covered that story, because it wasn’t true. And I’m so glad that Philip Barton said today that I did not phone him, that he’s no recollection of me swearing at him.
“And I have no recollection of swearing at him either.”
10. Inappropriate to have asked Mandelson questions
Mr McSweeney admitted it was inappropriate for Lord Doyle, the PM’s then comms chief, and him to ask Mandelson questions about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein – as they were friends.
He says the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics (PET) team should have asked the questions. “When I look back on it, I certainly think it would have been much, much better if I’d asked PET to ask those follow up questions.
“My thinking at the time was I’d put follow up questions to him in writing, and that if a senior member of staff did that, that he would feel more obligated to give the full truth. I didn’t feel that I got that back from him.”
11. McSweeney and national security advisor appointed without clearance
Mr McSweeney told the committee that both he and national security advisor Jonathan Powell were appointed before their clearance was approved.
He told the committee: “I said I got appointed before I completed all my necessary work, Jonathan Powell got appointed too, before the necessary work. If Maddison’s DV had been a problem, it would have been an embarrassment for us. It would have been a much bigger problem for him.”
12. Trump’s team would’ve been happy for ex-ambassador to stay in place
Donald Trump’s team was content for former ambassador Karen Pierce to remain in place, Mr McSweeney admitted.
Questioned over claims the US President’s aides were not keen on Mandelson, he said Ms Pierce was well liked and would have been welcomed if she stayed in post.
He said: “They (Trump’s team) didn’t talk to me about Mandelson. They they made clear that Karen Pierce was doing a wonderful job, and that they would be content with her remaining in post.
“But I did, as part of the process, talk to Foreign Office officials that I knew, who also approached me directly as well. I spoke to people that I knew in the US system, and I got a wide range of views.
“And quite a lot of views were coming back in support of Mandelson as a candidate.”
13. Appears to question those distancing themselves
Mr McSweeney appeared to question those now distancing themselves from the appointment.
He told the committee that Keir Starmer would not have appointed the Prince of Darkness on his advice alone. Instead the PM prefers to “build consensus”, he said.
Mr McSweeney said: “I have to say, I know that a lot of people now say they told the Prime Minister they were against it at the time. Everything I know about how the Prime Minister works is he will consult widely.
“He will take a lot of views on, and if everybody else was opposed to this appointment but me, he would not have made an appointment such as that.
“He does like to try to build consensus within his team and to get a wide range of views. And he doesn’t just listen to one person on it – he certainly spoke to other ministers, other senior staff and took his time.”
14. George Osborne was a ‘very credible candidate’
Mr McSweeney said the Government gave “very serious consideration” to appointing Conservative austerity Chancellor George Osborne as ambassador to the US.
He told the committee that Mr Osborne was one of the final two candidates for the role. He said: “George Osborne was a very credible candidate.
“And part of the thinking was the relationship between sister parties or parties of a similar political persuasion (the Conservatives and the Republicans). He’s got more recent experience, the fact that he had commercial acumen, the fact that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was a very credible candidate and one that we gave serious weight to.”
15. ‘Bypassing checks wouldn’t be acceptable’
Mr McSweeney said he would not be taking responsibility for things beyond his control.
He told the committee he thought Mandelson would be a good pick – but never suggested he should not be fully vetted. In an opening statement, the former No10 aide said: “It is also important, however, to distinguish between what I did do and what I did not do.
“What I did do was make a recommendation, based on my judgment, that Mandelson’s experience, relationships, and political skills could serve the national interest in Washington at an important moment.
“That judgment was a mistake. What I did not do was oversee national security vetting, ask officials to ignore procedures, requests that steps should be skipped, or communicate explicitly or implicitly that checks should be cleared at all costs.
“I would never have considered that acceptable. These processes are in place to protect our national security.”
16. Apology to Epstein victims
Mr McSweeney opened his evidence session by giving a statement.
He started by apologising to victims of Jeffrey Epstein for his role in the Mandelson scandal. Mr McSweeney told the Foreign Affairs Committee he had made a serious error by giving bad advice to the PM.
He said: “First, I want to say something about the victims and survivors connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Often discussions of public figures and appointments can lose sight of the human suffering at the centre of these matters.
“Women and girls were abused, exploited and scarred. They deserve protection, then, and they deserve to be remembered now. I’m sorry for any part this controversy has played in causing further hurt or distress.
“I’ve spent much of my working life trying in whatever role I held, to make this country fairer, stronger and more successful. I have always believed public service is a privilege. It brings responsibility and scrutiny, but it also brings a meaningful chance to improve people’s lives. That is what motivated me in government.
“The appointment of Mandelson as ambassador was a serious error of judgment. I advised the Prime Minister in support of that appointment and I was wrong to do so.
“As I said in my resignation statement, I resigned because I believe responsibility should rest with those who make serious mistakes. Accountability in public life cannot apply only when it is convenient. The Prime Minister relied on my advice and I got it wrong.”