Mandelson faces scrutiny over Epstein-funded flights not disclosed in 2003 register

LONDON — A Labour peer, Peter Mandelson, is facing fresh scrutiny over undisclosed travel linked to Jeffrey Epstein, after receipts show two flights paid for by the convicted sex offender were not declared in the House of Commons register of interests in 2003. The flights, taken in April 2003, are listed as costs of $3,844.90 on April 4 and $3,642.06 on April 11, totaling roughly £5,555, according to documents released this month by the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee and reviewed by the Financial Times. The register at the time required officials to declare visits abroad costing more than £564. The new material marks what researchers describe as the first evidence tying Epstein directly to Mandelson’s travel, though Mandelson did not respond to requests for comment.

The existence of the receipts was reported as part of a cache of documents released by the U.S. panel investigating Epstein’s network of prominent friends. The Financial Times confirmed the two flights listed under a landing-page entry for “MandelsonPeter,” dated April 4 and April 11, 2003. The documents do not specify the exact purpose of the trips, and the overall context remains unclear, but they surface at a time of heightened scrutiny over Mandelson’s ties to Epstein.

The disclosure comes as Mandelson’s broader relationship with Epstein has drawn renewed attention. In early 2003, Epstein’s circle included several high-profile figures, and Mandelson later described him in a birthday album as his “best pal.” The album was compiled by Epstein’s former partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence in the United States for sex trafficking. The house of cards surrounding those ties grew when Mandelson’s communications with Epstein surfaced in internal discussions and emails surrounding Mandelson’s appointment as Britain's ambassador to the United States.

Mandelson’s appointment to Washington by Prime Minister Keir Starmer was followed last week by his removal from the post after emails released by the Foreign Office and other outlets illustrated the depth of his relationship with Epstein. The Foreign Office said the emails demonstrated a “depth and extent” of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein that was materially different from what was known at the time of his appointment. The government preservation of official neutrality and the public’s right to know about the people within diplomatic circles have shaped the response as officials review the implications of the newly released material.

The financial disclosure rules in place in 2003 required MPs and peers to declare visits abroad costing more than £564. Sir Alistair Graham, who chaired the Committee on Standards in Public Life at the time, told the Financial Times there was a “very strong case” Mandelson should have declared the trips if there was any hint of a link to his political role. “If there was any hint that it had a connection with his political role, then there can be no doubt about it. He should have declared it,” Graham said. The remarks underscore the tension between disclosure requirements and the practices of politicians traveling on behalf of or with connections to powerful interests.

The newly surfaced documents also add to questions about how Mandelson’s conduct was viewed internally as he rose to prominence within the Labour Party and as the United Kingdom sought to maintain a robust relationship with Washington. While Mandelson has repeatedly been at the center of controversy over his closeness to Epstein, officials and observers note that the specifics of these flights and their omission in 2003 are now part of a broader narrative about transparency and accountability in public life. The revelations come as the U.K. government weighs how past relationships should inform current diplomatic appointments and public disclosures.

Mandelson did not respond to a request for comment from the Financial Times, and it was not immediately clear what, if any, changes to the register or the rules might be considered in light of these new documents. A spokesperson for the Foreign Office said that the emails showed a relationship that was “materially different from that known at the time of his appointment,” but did not offer further details on the investigative or reform steps being contemplated. The episode appears to add to a continuing discussion about the standards governing the disclosure of personal relationships and financial ties for those serving in high-profile public roles.

In parallel coverage of the matter, images portraying Mandelson in contexts connected to Epstein have circulated, illustrating the extent of the attention on their association. The public record now includes references to Mandelson’s remarks about Epstein in a birthday album and the broader attention given to his ties with the financier, which have persisted long after Mandelson’s formal roles in government changed. As the story develops, lawmakers and commentators are expected to weigh the implications for how political ethics and diplomatic appointments are managed in the future.

The documents released this month do not necessarily imply illegal activity, but they do raise questions about disclosure, timing, and the risks of appearance in public life. Mandelson’s public-facing roles—most recently as ambassador to the United States, a post his appointment to which drew acclaim as well as criticism—have always been intertwined with intense scrutiny of his personal associations. With the latest disclosures, critics may press for clarifications about past oversight and what steps, if any, are proposed to strengthen transparency in the future. As of now, Mandelson’s team has not offered a public explanation, and the broader political reaction remains guided by the contents of the U.S. committee’s release and the media’s ongoing coverage of Epstein’s circle.