🧠 What the Mandelson-Epstein scandal reveals about the fatal flaw in how we vet the people closest to us
⚠️ There is a moment in every high-stakes decision when the facts should speak louder than the ambition. A moment when the evidence on the table should override the desired outcome.
When that moment is ignored — when the decision is made first, and the due diligence becomes little more than a rubber stamp — the consequences can be catastrophic.
📌 The unfolding Mandelson-Epstein affair is a case study in exactly that.
🕰️ A decision made before the evidence was in
In December 2024, Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as Britain’s Ambassador to the United States. It was a significant role at a critical time, with the UK needing to build a strong working relationship with the incoming Trump administration. Mandelson’s political experience, his connections on both sides of the Atlantic, and his reputation as a dealmaker made him, on paper, an attractive choice.
🚩 But there was a problem. And it wasn’t a hidden one.
Mandelson’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein had been public knowledge for years. The Financial Times had published a detailed report back in June 2023, outlining repeated meetings between the two men and featuring a photograph of them together at Epstein’s Paris apartment in January 2007. The security services reportedly raised concerns with Starmer’s team. The Cabinet Office conducted a due diligence check.
❗ And yet the appointment was announced before an in-depth security vetting had been completed.
🧠 Think about that for a moment.
The most senior diplomatic appointment the UK government could make at a time of heightened geopolitical sensitivity was pushed through before the checks were complete.
The decision had already been made.
The vetting was a formality — something to confirm what they had already chosen to believe.
💥 The fallout
Since then, the release of thousands of files by the US Department of Justice has revealed the true depth of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Emails show that while serving as Business Secretary during the 2008 financial crisis, Mandelson was forwarding sensitive government information to Epstein — sometimes within moments of receiving it himself. He advised JPMorgan’s CEO, through Epstein, to “mildly threaten” the Chancellor of the Exchequer over a proposed tax on bankers’ bonuses. Documents suggest he and his husband received upwards of $75,000 in payments from Epstein.
📉 Mandelson has since resigned from the House of Lords, quit the Labour Party, and faces a criminal investigation. Starmer himself has apologised to Epstein’s victims, admitting he was lied to. In his own words:
🗣️ “If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government.”
⚠️ That single sentence should trouble anyone responsible for protecting a prominent individual or organisation. Because the entire purpose of due diligence is to know then what you might only find out later.
🧍 The human factor: why smart people make bad decisions
What happened here was not a failure of intelligence or resources. The UK government has access to some of the most sophisticated vetting capabilities in the world.
❌ This was a failure of judgment, driven by something far more common and far more dangerous: confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information in a way that confirms what you already believe — or in this case, what you already want.
Starmer’s team wanted Mandelson in that role. Once the decision had effectively been made, the process shifted from asking “Should we appoint him?” to asking “How do we justify appointing him?”
When Mandelson told them his relationship with Epstein was minimal — that he barely knew Epstein — they accepted it. Not because the evidence supported it, but because accepting it was the path of least resistance. It allowed the appointment to proceed as planned.
🤐 Consider how many people around Starmer must have had reservations.
🤐 Consider how many civil servants, advisers, and intelligence professionals might have raised a quiet flag.
And yet the appointment went ahead.
That tells you something about the power of groupthink and the pressure to fall in line when senior figures have already made up their minds.
📖 I have seen this pattern play out many times over 35 years in law enforcement and security. The details change, but the dynamic is always the same: a decision is made on instinct or personal preference, and then the process is bent to fit around it. By the time the red flags are properly examined — if they are examined at all — it is too late.
🏛️ Why this matters beyond politics
You might read this and think it is purely a political story. It is not.
The principles at play here are exactly the same ones I encounter in my work with family offices and ultra-high-net-worth individuals.
The people closest to prominent individuals — their advisers, business partners, employees, household staff, and even their friends — often pose the greatest risk. Not because they are all dangerous, but because proximity creates trust, and trust creates blind spots.
👀 I see it regularly.
A new financial adviser is brought in on the strength of a personal recommendation from a trusted friend.
A business partner is welcomed into the fold because they went to the right school, belong to the right club, or simply made the right impression over dinner.
A long-serving member of staff is given access to sensitive information — financial records, travel plans, family routines — because they have been around for years and “everyone trusts them.”
In each case, the decision to trust has been made before the evidence has been properly examined.
And in each case, the consequences of getting it wrong can be severe: financial fraud, reputational damage, breaches of personal security, or worse.
🏠 One family office I worked with had employed a household manager for over a decade. Trusted completely. Given access to everything — calendars, alarm codes, and financial correspondence. When concerns were finally raised and proper checks were carried out, it emerged that this individual had a history of financial irregularities that had never been flagged because no one had ever thought to look.
The decision to trust had been made years earlier and never revisited.
🧾 What proper due diligence actually requires
Proper due diligence is not a tick-box exercise. It is not something you do to confirm a decision you have already made. It is a genuine, independent search for the truth — and it must be completed before any decision is taken, not afterwards.
🧭 It starts with independence.
The people conducting the checks cannot be the same people who want the outcome. If your chief of staff is championing a particular appointment, they should not also be the person signing off on the vetting. In the Mandelson case, Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, was reportedly enthusiastic about the appointment. When the person driving the decision is also overseeing the checks, the process is compromised before it begins.
🔍 It requires depth.
Surface-level checks — a quick background search, a glance at the public record — are not enough for high-stakes appointments. Proper vetting means examining financial relationships, associations, behavioural patterns, and open-source intelligence over an extended period. It means asking uncomfortable questions and being prepared for uncomfortable answers.
⏳ It demands patience.
The pressure to move quickly — to announce, to appoint, to get on with it — is always there. But speed is the enemy of thoroughness. In the Mandelson case, the appointment was announced before the vetting was complete. That decision alone undermined the entire process. Once the announcement had been made, walking it back became politically impossible. The vetting had become irrelevant.
🧠 And most importantly, it requires courage.
The courage to say no when the evidence demands it. Or at the very least, the courage to say “not yet — not until we have finished looking.”
⚖️ The broader lesson about bias in decision-making
Confirmation bias does not only affect political appointments. It affects every decision where the stakes are high and the decision-maker has a preferred outcome.
In the world of threat management and personal security, I see it in how clients respond to warnings about individuals in their circle. When we present concerning findings about someone a client likes, trusts, or depends upon, the first instinct is almost always to explain it away.
🗣️ “That was years ago.”
🗣️ “They’ve changed.”
🗣️ “I know them — they would never do that.”
These are not reasoned assessments. They are emotional responses designed to protect the decision that has already been made: the decision to trust.
The same dynamic plays out in corporate settings. A board appoints a new director based on personal relationships rather than rigorous due diligence. A company enters a joint venture with a partner whose background has not been properly examined. An employee with access to sensitive systems is promoted without updated vetting because they have “always been reliable.”
In every case, the pattern is the same.
The decision comes first.
The evidence is made to fit.
And when the truth finally emerges — as it always does — the cost is far greater than it would have been had the hard questions been asked at the start.
🧠 The final word
Starmer’s words will stay with me:
🗣️ “If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government.”
That is the sentence of someone who skipped the hard part. Who made the decision before the evidence was in, and then spent months trying to justify it.
🔐 Trust is earned, not assumed.
And the time to verify it is before you hand someone the keys — not after they have already walked through the door.
❓ The question is: who in your circle has never been properly checked?
🚨 Don’t wait for the damage to tell you what you should have known.
🛡️ Defuse Global provides independent, in-depth due diligence for family offices and prominent individuals. We examine the people in your orbit — advisers, partners, employees, household staff — so you can make decisions based on evidence, not assumptions.
📩 If you want to know who you’re really dealing with, talk to us.
Contact us at [email protected] or visit www.defuseglobal.com
🔒 All enquiries are treated with absolute confidentiality.
Philip Grindell
Founder & CEO, Defuse Global
Philip Grindell is the founder of Defuse Global, a threat investigation and crisis management consultancy serving prominent individuals and family offices worldwide. With over 35 years in law enforcement and security, including creating the specialist threat assessment team in the UK Parliament following the assassination of Jo Cox MP, he brings unique expertise to complex security challenges. He is the author of Personal Threat Management (2025) and is among fewer than 300 globally recognised Chartered Security Professionals.
