Newly released Epstein files have triggered fresh political shockwaves after alleged emails between convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and former Labour cabinet minister Lord Peter Mandelson surfaced in the latest document dump.
The emails, reportedly part of a massive US release of Epstein-related material, appear to show Mandelson sharing sensitive political updates, discussing banking policy, and exchanging personal messages with Epstein, even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.
The revelations matter because they raise serious questions about political judgment, ministerial conduct, and whether Epstein gained influence in British political circles.
Why are the Epstein files back in the headlines now?
The latest controversy follows the reported publication of a huge archive of Epstein-related material released by US authorities.
According to reports, the release includes over three million pages, 180,000 images, and 2,000 videos, published as part of a legal deadline in the United States.
While the documents reference multiple high-profile figures, the alleged exchanges involving Mandelson stand out due to the timing, including messages reportedly sent while he served as Business Secretary under Gordon Brown.
Key point: the political sensitivity comes from the suggestion that Epstein may have received insider government information and access to top-level UK decision-making.
What do the Mandelson emails allegedly show?
The newly surfaced emails appear to paint a picture of a relationship that was not purely professional.
They include:
- Political updates allegedly shared before public announcements
- lobbying-style requests involving banking policy
- messages suggesting emotional closeness and friendship
- sexual jokes and flirtatious language
Several of the exchanges reportedly occurred after Epstein’s 2008 conviction, which makes the relationship particularly controversial.
If accurate, the emails raise questions about whether Mandelson breached expectations around ministerial responsibility, judgment, and security awareness.
Jeffrey Epstein emailed an unknown individual stating he “loved” a “torture video” shared between the two.
The recipient’s email signature matches Peter Mandelson’s, whose name fits pixel-for-pixel in the redacted names box. pic.twitter.com/4tgpEVdeNo
— Eyup Lovely (@eyuplovely) February 3, 2026
The 11 most explosive Mandelson-Epstein emails
Below are the messages now drawing the most scrutiny.
1) Did Mandelson tell Epstein he had “finally got” Gordon Brown to resign?
One of the most politically sensitive messages is dated 10 May 2010, when Mandelson allegedly told Epstein: “Finally got him [Gordon Brown] to go today.”
Epstein reportedly replied: “I have faith, the value of some chapters in your book should now increase.” Gordon Brown resigned later that day following Labour’s election defeat.
Why it matters: It suggests Epstein may have been receiving insider political developments before the public.
2) Did Mandelson tip Epstein off about a €500bn Euro bailout?
Days earlier, Mandelson allegedly sent an email hinting at a major European financial rescue package: “Sources tell me 500 b euro bailout, almost complete. Sd be announced tonight.”
The following day, EU finance ministers agreed on a €500 billion deal to support eurozone stability.
Why it matters: even if Mandelson framed it as “sources”, the message reads like a minister sharing confidential market-sensitive chatter.
3) Did Mandelson forward a private Whitehall note to Epstein?
In 2009, Mandelson allegedly forwarded an email written for Gordon Brown by adviser Nick Butler, reportedly commenting: “Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.”
The memo reportedly referenced selling around £20 billion in assets, which would be considered highly sensitive in political and financial terms.
Epstein allegedly asked for clarification, and Mandelson replied: “Land, property, I guess.”
Why it matters: it suggests a direct channel from government discussions to Epstein.
4) Did Mandelson forward a No 10 banking memo within four minutes?
Another email chain reportedly involved Baroness Shriti Vadera and senior officials discussing proposals to push banks to lend more.
Reports claim Mandelson forwarded the message to Epstein within four minutes of receiving it.
Why it matters: speed suggests Epstein may have been treated like an insider contact, not a distant acquaintance.
5) Did Epstein tell Mandelson to lobby over the bankers’ bonus tax?
One of the most damaging exchanges involved the UK’s planned bank bonus tax in late 2009.
Epstein allegedly urged Mandelson to push for the tax to apply only to cash bonuses, not shares or stock options.
Mandelson reportedly replied that he was: “trying hard to amend” the policy. He later added: “Treasury digging in”
Why it matters: It resembles a lobbying relationship between a disgraced financier and a serving cabinet minister.
6) Did Epstein tell Mandelson to “mildly threaten” the Chancellor?
Epstein allegedly advised Mandelson that JPMorgan boss Jamie Dimon should call then-Chancellor Alistair Darling and apply pressure: “Yes and mildly threaten.”
This is especially significant because Darling later wrote in his biography that Dimon phoned him angrily, implying the bank’s UK debt purchases could be reconsidered.
Why it matters: It suggests coordinated pressure tactics aimed at government policy.
7) Did Epstein suggest a “small business fund” as a trade-off?
In another alleged message, Epstein suggested setting up a small business fund “in exchange” for changes to tax policy.
Why it matters: Critics could interpret this as a “deal-making” mindset, using public-facing schemes to justify private financial advantage.
8) Did Epstein fund payments linked to Mandelson’s partner?
Documents reportedly show Epstein wired $75,000 in 2003 and 2004 to Mandelson and his partner (now husband), Reinaldo Avila da Silva.
When asked, Mandelson reportedly said: “I have no record and no recollection of receiving these sums and do not know if the documents are authentic.”
Separately, reports claim Epstein later helped pay for Avila da Silva’s osteopathy course in 2009.
Mandelson was quoted as saying: “The idea that giving Reinaldo an osteopath bursary is going to sway mine or anyone else’s views about banking policy is risible.”
Why it matters: even if innocent, it raises serious perception issues around gifts, favours, and influence.
9) Did Mandelson joke about a “hung parliament”, or “a well-hung young man”?
On election day, 6 May 2010, Epstein allegedly emailed Mandelson asking, “Well?”
Mandelson reportedly replied: “We are praying for a hung parliament. Alternatively, a well-hung young man”
Why it matters: it fuels claims that their relationship crossed beyond politics into private intimacy.
10) Did Epstein help Mandelson plan jobs after leaving office?
After Labour lost power, emails reportedly show Epstein advising Mandelson on career options while referencing restrictions linked to UK public service rules.
Epstein allegedly said he was: “working around your restriction”
He reportedly suggested roles that might avoid scrutiny under post-ministerial rules, such as those overseen by ACOBA (Advisory Committee on Business Appointments).
Mandelson allegedly responded that employers wanted him to keep: “reputation/stature…x”
Why it matters: it suggests Epstein positioned himself as a fixer even after Mandelson left office.
11) Did Mandelson tell Epstein: “Where r u? I miss u”?
Perhaps the most quoted line comes from a December 2010 exchange.
Epstein allegedly wrote about a lunch and “followed up with Jes” (believed to mean Jes Staley, linked to JPMorgan).
Mandelson allegedly replied: “Where r u? I miss u” Epstein replied, “Call later.”
Why it matters: It strengthens claims that the relationship was personal and emotionally close.
What political impact could the Epstein files have in the UK?
Even if no laws were broken, these revelations could still cause major damage because they cut straight into trust.
British voters tend to react strongly to anything that suggests:
- Insiders get special access
- ministers share privileged information
- Wealthy figures influence policy behind closed doors
It also reopens old concerns about whether Epstein operated as a social operator who built relationships with powerful people to protect himself.
If further evidence emerges, there may be calls for:
- parliamentary scrutiny
- formal ethics investigations
- renewed focus on lobbying transparency
Could Mandelson face legal trouble?
At this stage, public reporting focuses on emails and alleged communications rather than confirmed criminal wrongdoing.
For legal consequences, investigators would typically need evidence of:
- bribery
- misconduct in public office
- unlawful disclosure of official information
- or direct involvement in Epstein’s sexual offences
Without that, the likely consequences remain political and reputational, rather than criminal.
