UK will release files about Mandelson's ambassador appointment as anger mounts over Epstein

LONDON (AP) — The U.K. government agreed Wednesday to release documents casting light on the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States, despite his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, as it tries to stem mounting anger over the revelations.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced the wrath of opposition lawmakers, and his own Labour Party backbenchers, after acknowledging that he had known at the time of the 2024 appointment about Mandelson's friendship with the convicted sex offender.

Starmer said that he was unaware of the depth of the relationship, and that Mandelson had “lied repeatedly” about his ties to Epstein.

A trove of documents about Epstein released last week by the U.S. Justice Department has finished off Mandelson’s long political career — and left Starmer facing angry questions about his judgment in making him Britain's envoy to the Trump administration, the country's most important ambassadorial post.

Starmer fired Mandelson, 72, in September after emails were published showing that he maintained a friendship with Epstein following the late financier’s 2008 conviction for sex offenses involving a minor. Epstein died by suicide in a jail cell in 2019, while awaiting trial on U.S. federal charges accusing him of sexually abusing dozens of girls.

At a question-and-answer session in the House of Commons dominated by the Epstein revelations, Starmer said that Mandelson had “lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador.”

“Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party,” Starmer said. “I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”

The opposition Conservative Party said that explanation wasn't good enough, and called for a vote in Parliament calling for the release of emails and other documentation related to Mandelson's appointment.

Starmer said that he would ensure that "all of the material" is published, except for documents that compromise Britain's national security, international relations or the police investigation into Mandelson's activities.

Opposition lawmakers — and some from Starmer's Labour Party — said that they worried the government would use national security as an excuse to keep embarrassing documents secret.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the government should publish all relevant files, “not just the ones the prime minister wants us to see.”

“The prime minister is talking about national security. The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place,” she said.

After hours of House of Commons debate, a vote was averted when the government gave in to lawmakers’ anger and agreed that the Intelligence and Security Committee — made up of parliamentarians from several parties — would decide what papers should be published, rather than a senior civil servant as Starmer had proposed.

It's unclear when the documents will be released.

Documents released last week by the U.S. government suggest Mandelson may have shared sensitive information with Epstein when he was a government minister around 15 years ago.

In 2009, he appears to have told Epstein that he would lobby other members of the government to reduce a tax on bankers’ bonuses, and passed on an internal government report discussing a potential sale of U.K. government assets. The following year, he appears to have tipped off Epstein about the imminent bailout of the european single currency.

The newly released files also suggest that in 2003-2004, Epstein sent three payments totaling $75,000 to accounts linked to Mandelson or his partner Reinaldo Avila da Silva, now his husband.

Since those disclosures, Mandelson has resigned from the House of Lords and faces a police investigation for alleged misconduct in public office, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. Opening an investigation doesn't mean Mandelson will be arrested, charged or convicted.

London's Metropolitan Police force urged the government not to release “certain documents” that it said could undermine its investigation.

Starmer said that the government was working on legislation to remove the noble title, Lord Mandelson, that the ex-ambassador still holds. He will also be removed from the Privy Council, a committee of senior officials that advises King Charles III, for bringing “the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute,” Starmer said.

An email requesting comment on the documents was sent to Mandelson through the House of Lords.

The European Union is also investigating potential wrongdoing by Mandelson when he was the bloc's trade commissioner between 2004 and 2008. The U.K. was an EU member until 2020.

“We will be assessing if, in light of these newly available documents, there might be a breaches of the respective rules with regard to Peter Mandelson,” European Commission spokesperson Balazs Ujvari said. “We have rules in place, emanating from the treaty and the code of conduct that commissioners, including former commissioners, have to follow.”

Sam McNeil contributed to this report from Brussels.

A previous version of this story was corrected to show that the EU is investigating Mandelson, not Epstein.

British Ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson speaks during the rededication ceremony of the George Washington Statue in the National Gallery in London, Wednesday, June 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

FILE - President Donald Trump, left, gets a reaction from Britian's ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson, right, as they take questions from members of the media after announcing a trade deal between U.S. and U.K. in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, May 8, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, file)

FILE - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, right, talks with Britain's ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson during a welcome reception at the ambassador's residence on Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2025 in Washington. (Carl Court/Pool Photo via AP, file)

Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer departs 10 Downing Street to go to the House of Commons for his weekly Prime Minister's Questions in London, Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2026. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

Britain's Prime Minster Keir Starmer departs 10 Downing Street to go to the House of Commons for his weekly Prime Minister's Questions in London, Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2026. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

FILE - Britain's Ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, speaks during a reception at the ambassador's residence on Feb. 26, 2025 in Washington. (Carl Court/Pool Photo via AP, File)

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A new Tennessee law has eased up on two longstanding financial hurdles for people with felony sentences who want their voting rights back, including a unique requirement among states that they must have fully paid their child support costs.

The Republican-supermajority Legislature approved the Democratic-sponsored change, which now lets people prove they have complied for the last year with child support orders, such as payment plans. The legislation also unties the payment of all court costs from voting rights restoration.

Advocates for years have sought various changes to Tennessee’s voting rights restoration system at the statehouse and in court. They say loosening these two rules marks the biggest rollback of restrictions to voting rights restoration in decades.

“This is huge and this is history,” said Keeda Haynes, senior attorney for the advocacy group Free Hearts led by formerly incarcerated women like her.

Most Republicans voted for it and Democrats supported it unanimously. The law took effect immediately upon Republican Gov. Bill Lee's signature last week.

“I think people are at a point where they want to just remove the barriers out of the way and allow people to be fully functional members of society,” said Democratic House Minority Leader Karen Camper, a bill sponsor.

In 2023, the state decided gun rights were required to restore the right to vote, and shelved a paperwork process that didn't require going to court. Election officials said a court ruling made the changes necessary, though voting rights advocates said officials misinterpreted the order.

Last year, lawmakers untangled voting and gun rights. But voting rights advocates opposed some of the bill's other provisions, such as keeping the process in the courts, where costs can rack up if someone isn't ruled indigent.

Easing up on the financial requirements uncommonly split legislative Republicans. For instance, Senate Speaker Randy McNally voted against it, while House Speaker Cameron Sexton supported it, noting that people aren't getting forgiveness on making their payments.

“They need to continue paying that, and as long as they do, then there’s a possibility (to restore their voting rights)," Sexton said. "I really think that’s harder for people to argue against than maybe what something else was.”

Republican Rep. Johnny Garrett, who voted no, said in committee his vote would hinge on whether “there still can be an (child support) arrearage owed beyond that 12 months.”

For some, backed-up child support payments could reach hundreds or thousands of dollars, and court costs could be hundreds or thousands more, said Gicola Lane, Campaign Legal Center's Restore Your Vote community partnership senior manager.

Advocates credited their narrowed focus, omitting goals such as automatic restoration of rights, no longer tying restitution payments to voting rights, or offering a path for certain people to restore their right who are permanently disenfranchised, including those convicted of voter fraud or most murder charges.

The bill passed the Senate last year and the House this year.

Lawmakers gave the child support requirement final passage in 2006 within an overhaul bill that also created a voting rights restoration process outside of court. Critics said the child support rule penalized impoverished parents.

Democrats were then narrowly hanging onto legislative leadership in both chambers. Republicans held a slim Senate majority but GOP defectors voted for a Democratic speaker.

Last year marked the dismissal of a five-year-old federal lawsuit over Tennessee’s voting-rights restoration system. Free Hearts and the Campaign Legal Center represented plaintiffs in the long-delayed case, which saw some election policy changes along the way.

Roughly 184,000 people have completed supervision for felonies and their offenses don't preclude them from restoring their voting rights, according to a plaintiffs expert’s 2023 estimate in the lawsuit. About one in 10 were estimated to have outstanding child support payments, and more than six in 10 owed court courts, restitution or both, the expert said.

Both Republican and Democratic-led states have eased the voting rights restoration process in recent years. Some states have added complexities.

In Florida, after voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2018 restoring the right to vote for people with felony convictions, the Republican-controlled Legislature watered that down by requiring payment of fines, fees and court costs.

Voting rights are automatically restored upon release in nearly half of states. In 15 others, it occurs after parole, probation or a similar period and sometimes requires paying outstanding court costs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In Maine and Vermont, people with felonies keep their voting rights in prison, the NCSL says.

Ten other states including Tennessee require additional government action. Virginia ’s governor must intervene to restore voting rights of people convicted of felonies. In some states, including Tennessee, certain conviction types render someone ineligible.

However, Virginia lawmakers this year have passed a proposed state constitutional amendment to ask voters whether they want automatic voting rights restoration after someone is released from prison. Kentucky lawmakers have proposed a similar change for voters' consideration that would automatically restore voting rights after certain completed sentences, including probation.

FILE - The Tennessee Capitol is seen, Jan. 22, 2024, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/George Walker IV, File)