Mandelson ties to China, Russia and Israel flagged in vetting – The Latest

Summary

Podcast Summary: Today in Focus – "Revealed: Mandelson vetting warned of ties to China, Russia and Israel – The Latest"

Date: May 27, 2026
Host: Lucy Hough
Guest: Paul Lewis, The Guardian’s Head of Investigations

---

Overview

This episode of Today in Focus explores new revelations regarding the UK government's handling of Peter Mandelson’s appointment as Ambassador to Washington. The Guardian has learned that the UK vetting agency explicitly warned of Mandelson’s associations with senior figures from China, Russia, and Israel—associations that ultimately led to a recommendation denying him security clearance, which was controversially overruled. The discussion dives deeply into what those concerns were, the opaque decision-making process, the ongoing political fallout, and the reasons The Guardian considers this in the public interest.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The Four Major Associations Raising Concerns

[01:20–02:51]

• China: Relationship with Lan Foan, China’s Finance Minister. Questions remain over whether Mandelson arranged meetings between Lan Foan and senior UK politicians and whether he disclosed this relationship.
• Russia: Friendship with Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch under sanctions.
• Israel: Association with Tamir Heyman, former director of Israeli military intelligence.
• Unnamed British Individual: The identity was not specified, but believed by security officials to potentially compromise Mandelson.

"One was a relationship with China's Finance Minister Lan Foan. Another was his friendship with Oleg Deripaska, who is a Russian sanctioned oligarch. A third was his association with Tamir Heyman, who was a director of intelligence for the Israeli military."
— Paul Lewis [01:24]

---

Financial and Disclosure Irregularities

[02:59–04:43]

• Security officials noted a £1 million loan intended for shares in the Israeli company Moon Active, not disclosed in the House of Lords register.
• Concerns extended beyond foreign contacts to Mandelson’s possible naivety about these risks and financial opacity.

"There was also a concern that Mandelson was naive in relation to the risks posed by some of his historical relationships... there was a £1 million loan...due to be used to purchase shares in an Israeli company...there was no reference to this loan."
— Paul Lewis [03:40]

---

The Foreign Office’s Decision to Overrule Security Advice

[04:43–07:21]

• Responsibility lay with Ollie Robbins (then Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office), who overruled the vetting agency’s advice. Robbins relied on an oral briefing from another official rather than reading the summary file himself.
• Both Robbins and Ian Collard claim the vetting agency considered the case “borderline”—a characterization not yet substantiated by any documentary evidence.
• Other senior civil servants find it extraordinary that such consequential decisions would be made with so little documented process.

"He didn't look at the summary file himself. He, he relied on an oral briefing ... That document was marked official sensitive, which is not a particularly sensitive form of classification for government documents."
— Paul Lewis [05:57]

---

Lack of Documentation and Unclear Mitigations

[07:21–09:27]

• No written record of proposed “mitigations” for Mandelson’s risks has surfaced; Parliamentarians briefed on unredacted documents say they’ve seen nothing explicit.
• Raises alarm about the lack of audit trail and formal record-keeping in crucial national security processes.

"They seem to be suggesting that there were no documents that they'd seen with any reference to these mitigations. That really would be extraordinary..."
— Paul Lewis [07:53]

• Further documentation is expected to be released in June.

---

The Backstory: Epstein Files and Political Response

[09:27–11:21]

• The Epstein files released in the US (January 2026) revealed more extensive and closer ties between Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein than previously known.
• Prompted Mandelson’s sacking (late 2025), Parliament’s demand for all appointment papers (Humble Address), and ongoing disputes over government transparency.
• Intelligence and Security Committee has accused the government of excessive redactions and withholding documents, stoking suspicions of a cover-up.
• Parliamentarians threaten ministers with contempt if further transparency isn’t provided.

"There is a parliamentary committee called the Intelligence and Security Committee...they’ve been saying publicly that the government has been redacting far too broadly and even withholding some documents in their entirety from the committee."
— Paul Lewis [10:31]

---

Government Response and Questions of Sovereignty

[11:21–12:45]

• Cabinet Office minister denies inappropriate redaction or a cover up.
• The case becomes a debate about governmental versus parliamentary supremacy—does a Parliament’s motion compel full transparency, or does the government retain discretion?

"For them, this is a sort of quite existential question, which is, who has supremacy? Is it Parliament... or does the government have the authority to apply its own discretion...?"
— Paul Lewis [12:18]

---

Guardian’s Rationale for Publishing Sensitive Vetting Information

[12:45–14:04]

• The Guardian weighed the privacy issues against the overriding public interest in exposing national security risks and government opacity.
• Unparalleled scrutiny of the ambassadorial vetting process justifies publication.

"Whenever we publish information that might be regarded as private, we always carefully weigh that against the public interest. And we did it on this occasion. What you have here is...a wholly exceptional circumstance."
— Paul Lewis [13:05]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Direct on the gravity of the issue:
  "We still have more documents to come. They're due to be released at some time in June. That's going to be an enormous avalanche of documents."
  — Paul Lewis [09:11]

• On the scope of scrutiny:
  "I do think that one of the most extraordinary things about this whole process is, you know, we're getting a window now into an area of national security that rarely gets any scrutiny."
  — Paul Lewis [08:39]

• Lucy Hough summarizes the stakes:
  "Transparency around a decision that has arguably been the gravest mistake in Keir Starmer's premiership so far in his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador despite his links to Epstein and despite known links to Russia and China that were already in the public domain."
  — Lucy Hough [11:21]

---

Important Timestamps

• [01:20] – Specific foreign associations of concern detailed
• [02:59] – Discussion of financial non-disclosures
• [04:43] – Ollie Robbins’ role in overruling security advice
• [07:47] – Querying the absence of written mitigations
• [09:27] – The impact of the Epstein files and political/procedural aftermath
• [10:31] – Intelligence and Security Committee publicly challenges the government
• [11:21] – Parliamentary accusations of a cover up
• [12:45] – The Guardian’s justification for publishing

---

Conclusion

This episode sheds light on the layers of secrecy, bureaucratic maneuvering, and escalating political fallout surrounding Peter Mandelson’s appointment and rapid dismissal as US Ambassador. The reporting punctures the opacity surrounding the UK’s vetting process and the government’s handling of sensitive information. As more documents are due for release, the episode signals that this story—and the questions it poses about democratic oversight and national security—will continue to provoke scrutiny and debate.

---

For further reading, visit The Guardian’s coverage by Paul Lewis, Pippa Crerar, and Henry Dyer.

Transcript

[A]

This is the Guardian.

[B]

What we've established through our sources is that there were wide ranging concerns, some of them related to Peter Mandelson's associations before he became Ambassador to Washington. This information may not have been disclosed to the public and we still essentially think the public has a right to know.

[A]

The Guardian exclusively reveals that Peter Mandelson's ties with senior figures in China, Russia and Israel were among the concerns raised by the UK's vetting agency when it concluded he'd be denied security clearance as U.S. ambassador. From the Guardians today. In Focus, this is the latest. With me, Lucy Half, Paul Lewis, the Guardian's Head of investigations, is here. You have a follow up to the major exclusive with your colleagues Pippa Creer and Henry Dyer last month that the UK vetting agency, the UK government's vetting agency, recommended that Peter Mandelson be denied security clearance, advice that was overruled by the Foreign Office as per your revelation last month. You've since learnt more information about why the vetting agency recommended that security clearance be denied. What were some of the concerns raised?

[B]

Yes, I mean, this is the question I think everyone sort of wanted an answer to, you know, that security officials thought that he shouldn't get developed vetting clearance. So what were their concerns? What we've established through our sources is that there were wide ranging concerns, some of them related to Peter Mandelson's associations before he became Ambassador to Washington. And I'll give you four examples. One was a relationship with China's Finance Minister, Lan Foan. Another was his friendship with Oleg Deripaska, who is a Russian sanctioned oligarch. A third was his association with someone called Tamir Heyman, who is a, or was a director of intelligence for the Israeli military.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And then there was a fourth individual who is British, that security officials felt could be compromising to Mandelson. I suspect that the thing that is going to be the cause of most interest in Parliament will actually be his relationship with lan, who is, you know, obviously incredibly senior. He's Finance Minister in China. He has met with twice, Rachel Reeves and once with Keir Starmer. That throws up a whole number of questions. I mean, was Mandelson involved in arranging these meetings between Lannes and senior members of the British government? Did he disclose that he had a prior relationship with this individual? So I would imagine that that as much as all of the other concerns that we've identified were, were issues that were flagged by the agency will be of interest now.

[A]

And so, Paul, how much was known about Those four associations and why they might be considered a risk to national security.

[B]

So it was publicly known that Mandelson had a relationship with Deripaska. I mean, that's been quite long standing. Of course, it wasn't known that that was one of the associations that was an issue of concern to security officials. I mean, you know, I guess it is noteworthy that both when it comes to Lannes, the Chinese minister, and Deripaska, those are two individuals who, if you like, are embedded in the, in the power structures of two hostile states, China and Russia. But those associations were not the only concerns that were flagged by the agency. There were more. There was also a concern that Mandelson was naive in relation to the risks posed by some of his historical relationships. Completely unrelated. And also, intriguingly, there was a 1 million pound loan that security officials noted was due to be used to purchase shares in an Israeli company. Now, the fact he had shares in this company called Moon Active, it's an Israeli gaming company, was known, but when we looked at the declaration of interest, there was no reference to this loan. So, you know, one of the many questions, I think, for Mandelson in the coming days and for the Government will be why this loan wasn't declared in the House of Lords register. You know, a lot of this can seem quite complicated and convoluted, but really it boils down to some essential facts. Security officials did not think that Mandelson should be given clearance. The Foreign Office gave him clearance anyway. We didn't previously know what the reasons were for security officials having concerns about Mandelson getting clearance. We now do. They appear to be good, somewhat wide ranging and that opens a whole slew of new questions for the Government, for the Foreign Office, for Mandelson himself.

[A]

Yes, and it raises serious questions for a man, Ollie Robbins, who is at the centre of all of this in many ways. He was the then Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office. He was the person that overruled the advice of the vetting agency to not give Peter Mandelson security clearance. As a result of the Guardian's exclusive reporting last month, he was sacked from his position. He was hauled before MPs Foreign Affairs Select Committee and he described this case as a borderline case, which seems extraordinary given what you've just told me and what the Guardian has been able to uncover about what those concerns were. What do we know about why he considered this to be a borderline case?

[B]

That's one of the curious questions. I mean, actually, what he said was not that he believed it to be a borderline case. He said that UKsv, which just for people who don't know what that acronym stands for, is the UK Security Vetting. It's the agency within government that does vetting. He said that it was his understanding that that agency regarded it as a borderline case. I mean, there's a lot of questions about this claim. You know, we've really looked into it. Robbins says that that was a, a description that was relayed to him. He didn't look at the summary file himself. He, he relied on an oral briefing

[A]

because it's highly confidential. Is that standard practice?

[B]

Well, I mean, our understanding is this is. This document was marked official sensitive, which is not a particularly sensitive form of classification for government documents. You have secret documents, you have top secret documents, you even have strap level documents beyond that. So this was, this was not labeled as such. That's his explanation as to why he chose not to look at it. I mean, other senior civil servants have said that that was extraordinary in their view, that he decided to not look at the vetting document knowing that the officials had advised clearance denied. He was going to give clearance anyway. You might imagine he might want to look at the document, but in any case, he said he relied on an oral briefing of its contents from another security official in his department. Now, that official has also said he did not look at the document. He also relied on an oral briefing. Now, those two people, Ollie Robbins and Ian Collard, are the only two people who've referenced this case being regarded as borderline in any way. There hasn't yet been any independent corroboration of that being the case. So that will be one of the curious things to look at in the coming weeks is, is there any other information to confirm that that's the. Frankly, given the seemingly quite wide ranging nature of these concerns, you know, that contributed to UKsv's recommendation, not just a single thing, but multiple things. On what basis would anyone regard that to be borderline?

[A]

Yes, another curious aspect of this is that the case was considered borderline, but also that it could be handled with mitigations, which is what Ollie Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee last month. I mean, given what you've told me about the potential risks to national security in regards to links with Russia and China, but also potential conflicts of interest in terms of his business links. What were those mitigations? Have we learned any more information about what they were?

[B]

No, and that's another really interesting question. Now, now that we have established what the concerns were that were flagged by security officials. The obvious question is, okay, so what were the mitigations that were put in place to deal with such a wide ranging number of mitigations? I mean, actually there was an intervention in Parliament last week by One of the MPs who sits on a committee that has had advanced sight of the most sensitive documents. And they seem to be suggesting that there were no documents that they'd seen with any reference to these mitigations. Now, that really would be extraordinary. If Ollie Robbins and this other official, Ian Collard, have said that mitigations were put in place, you would imagine those to be written down somewhere. I mean, if they haven't been written down anywhere, I think there'll be even more questions for those.

[A]

Yes. If this is another case of oral briefings, in which case, why are records not being.

[B]

I mean, honestly, I do think that one of the most extraordinary things about this whole process is, you know, we're getting a window now into an area of national security that rarely gets any scrutiny.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And it is extraordinary that seemingly so many decisions have been taken that you would imagine are quite consequential decisions without an audit process or without record keeping that would provide, you know, in a situation like this, an explanation as to what happened and on what basis and what the reasoning is. We still have more documents to come.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And they're due to be released at some time in June. That's going to be an enormous avalanche of documents. So when those documents will be released, I can sure that journalists and parliamentarians and others will be sifting through them to look for what these mitigations were, if indeed they were written down anywhere.

[A]

Yeah. And Paul, this really started at the end of January when we had the release of the Epstein files in the United States that appeared to reveal for the first time the full extent of Peter Mandelson's relationship with the known child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. A relationship that was far more extensive and close than perhaps had previously been realized. And it was at that point that the Tory Party called for the full release of documents related to his appointment as U.S. ambassador.

[B]

Yeah. So this is a bit complicated. So just to take a couple of steps back, you know, Mandelson was sacked in the late 2025 over his relationship with Epstein. By February 2026 this year, there were growing questions around all of this. And Parliament passed this thing called a humble address. And essentially it's like a motion that compels the government to do something, and it required the public release of, quote, all papers related to Mandelson's appointment. The problem seems to be that not all papers have been or are being released. Now, there is a parliamentary committee called the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And as part of this humble address process, these MPs and peers, it's their job to scrutinize the most sensitive of the documents to decide whether there should be any redactions for national security or international relations reasons. That's their role. Now, that committee in recent weeks has, and this is quite extraordinary, been saying publicly that the government has been redacting far too broadly and even withholding some documents in their entirety from the committee. And then last week, all of this sort of came out in Parliament. There was an urgent question and a big debate. Two MPs accused the government of a cover up. One suggested they might bring effectively a motion to hold ministers in contempt. I think there's a great deal of concern in Parliament that the government is not being sufficiently transparent.

[A]

Yeah. Transparency around a decision that has arguably been the gravest mistake in Keir Starmer's premiership so far in his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador despite his links to Epstein and despite known links to Russia and China that were already in the public domain. But in terms of these allegations of a cover up or a lack of transparency when it comes to the second tranche of documents due to be released next month, how has the government responded to those allegations?

[B]

So the Minister, Cabinet Office minister who's in charge of this process of releasing these files, has denied that the government has inappropriately redacted information. He has justified its decision to withhold certain vetting documents, and he has rejected the notion that there's a cover up. I think he said if there would be a cover up, he would resign. So he's flatly said that that is not happening. One of the reasons, if you read as I do, because I'm a sado, transcripts of the debate in Parliament. One of the things that is sort of agitating parliamentarians so much is that for them, this is a sort of quite existential question, which is, who has supremacy? Is it Parliament, democratically elected Parliament, that, you know, tells the government to do something, or does the government have the authority to apply its own discretion and decide, you know, in some circumstances against doing what it has been mandated to do?

[A]

So in terms of why the Guardian has decided to publish this, I mean, this is a vetting process that goes into personal and private information, but it has thrown up issues that could be risks to national security in terms of those links to Russia China and Israel. And it's for that reason, I presume, that the Guardian feels that this is worth knowing about.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, you know, whenever we publish information that might be regarded as private, we always carefully weigh that against the public interest. And we did it on this occasion. I mean, I think what you have here is what one senior parliamentarian has called a wholly exceptional circumstance. And we've never had a scenario like this before where you have had an ambassador to Washington being sacked. Lots of questions around the vetting process. You know, unprecedented levels of scrutiny around the vetting process. And then in tandem with that, you have growing concerns in Parliament that the government is not complying with its wishes, complaints about potential cover up, information being withheld. And I think essentially, you know, the position we've taken on this is that, you know, we've established this information, we believe that the public and Parliament has a right to know it. And in recent days it's become apparent to us that despite Parliament's motion, this information may not have been disclosed to the public. And we essentially think the public has a right to know.

[A]

Yeah, it feels certainly like information that is worth being in the public domain. Paul, thank you so much for your reporting and for your time today.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

That's it for today. My huge thanks again to Paul Lewis, the Guardian's head of investigations. Do find his exclusive reporting with Pippa Crerar and Henry dyer [e-mail] and don't miss tonight's episode of our new sister podcast, Stateside with Kai and Carter. Lauren Gambino will be talking to Kai Wright and Carter Sherman about the the state of the California primaries. That's it for today. Thanks for listening to this episode of the latest Today in Focus. We'll be back in your feeds as usual tomorrow morning. The latest will be back tomorrow night. This episode was presented by me, Lucy Hoff. It was produced by Nada Smlyanich. The senior producer was Ryan Ramgoben and the lead producer was Zoe Hitch. This is the Guardian.