But it is not clear whether Starmer ever read the advice, or if he did, what he thought of it — because no response is recorded. The note, which was included with papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment released on March 11, throws additional light on how Starmer approached questions about Mandelson. The episode has already cost Mandelson, the PM’s chief of staff and the head of the foreign office their jobs and Starmer is facing calls to resign over his handling of the scandal.

At the center of the crisis for the government is the issue of whether Starmer took enough care to make sure Mandelson — a known friend of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — was a suitable person to be U.K. ambassador to the United States. No. 10 said Starmer had already addressed the question, telling Parliament on Wednesday that the “normal” process — in which security vetting takes place after the appointment is made but before a person takes up the post — had been followed. Starmer sacked foreign office boss Olly Robbins last week, blaming him for not revealing that the government’s security vetting office had recommended Mandelson should not be given clearance to access highly sensitive intelligence files and other secret material.

Starmer has said that if he had known this, he would never have appointed Mandelson to the role. A note included in the same public release shows that the Cabinet Secretary at the time, Simon Case, told Starmer in November 2024 that “security clearances” should be sought before appointing a new ambassador from outside the civil service, like the former minister Mandelson. In response, Starmer has insisted that the normal process was followed, and that it was typical for an appointment like Mandelson’s to be made before these clearances were granted.

But the second note from two more officials — both of whom were working inside the prime minister’s own office in Downing Street — raises new questions about this claim. The jointly authored note from Ailsa Terry, Starmer’s private secretary for foreign affairs, and Nin Pandit, his principal private secretary, is dated Nov. 11, 2024. In it, they tell the prime minister: “On timing of the appointment and announcement, you will want to consider whether the announcement is made as soon as relevant clearances and agreement are secured, and whether the ambassador starts before or after the inauguration.” The officials offer two options: First, to announce the appointment as soon as the U.S. government has given its consent to Britain’s choice of ambassador.

The other option they propose is apparently to hold off announcing the new ambassador until “potentially after Trump takes office.” At no point do they suggest making the announcement before security clearances are obtained. Their note summarizes Case’s memo, points out the next steps in the process of choosing a new ambassador and advises Starmer on what he needs to do. In the end, Starmer went ahead and announced Mandelson as the new ambassador on Dec. 20, 2024 — a month before Trump’s inauguration and before security clearances were obtained.

Then security vetting flagged significant problems on Jan. 28, and suggested Mandelson should not be given clearance. Robbins and his team reviewed the matter and decided they could find ways to mitigate the risks and went ahead and gave approval for security clearance to be granted to Mandelson anyway. Starmer fired Mandelson in September 2025 amid a public outcry over his friendship with Epstein.

Asked for a response to the note, a Downing Street official pointed back to Starmer saying he asked Case’s successor as Cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, to look into whether the correct processes had been followed in appointing Mandelson. Starmer told Parliament on Wednesday: “I asked him to review the appointment process, including the vetting. He confirmed — his words — ‘appropriate processes were followed.'”