[0:00]Lord Mandelson, thank you for speaking to us today. You left your position in Washington for reasons we'll come to in a few minutes, but you have a unique perspective from having been Britain's ambassador and dealing with Donald Trump
[0:12]in the White House. How should governments, including the UK, react to this incredibly turbulent beginning to 2026, his strikes on Venezuela and his
[0:21]threat to grab a NATO ally in Greenland? I know people will sometimes be taken aback by his language and his approach
[0:31]to things. Um, and I had a ringside seat in a sense. And so I saw how the truth social posts would come out and how some
[0:43]people used language and took positions that were to our mind in Europe quite undiplomatic. But from his point of view, you need to
[0:54]understand that he feels that we live in a world that's full of conflicts uh of hard power uh of growing rivalry and particularly between the United States
[1:06]and China and that sometimes nettles have to be grasped uh and that that requires deterrence. If you want peace, you get peace through strength, but also
[1:17]sometimes you'll have to use force as well. And I think we've got to understand that and not simply react the whole time to the language he uses. >> But it's more than language though,
[1:28]isn't it? It's action. I mean, at the beginning of this year, he struck Venezuela, a sovereign state. He grabbed the leader, Maduro. Few are shedding tears for him losing his position. But
[1:39]Donald Trump's actions are what worry so many people. Are you suggesting that the UK and its allies simply give up on the rules they've tried to promote for so long?
[1:49]>> No. You you don't ignore international law. >> Looks like he does. >> But you have to recognize Laura that there are many countries and bad actors
[1:59]in this world uh who do not obey the rules. They don't follow the rules. And I if you take Putin's invasion by Russia
[2:11]of Ukraine or Iran's actions in spewing out spreading violence and terrorism across the Middle East through their
[2:20]funding of Hamas of Hisbellar, the Houthis etc. If you think of North Korea and what they're doing, these are not
[2:29]countries that care about the rules. Now I'm not saying as just let me make it absolutely clear again that we ignore international law in our response to
[2:40]these countries but sometimes I'm afraid as a last resort you know very difficult very complex situations require decisiveness
[2:50]uh they require sometimes force but also above all for those of us in the west they really require us working together and I think it's wrong by the way for
[3:01]people uh to assume sometimes as they do that President Trump doesn't care about public opinion or he doesn't care about the views of his allies. It's true that
[3:12]he's more decisive than consultative. I mean he is an extraordinary uh risktaker but to say that he doesn't care about his allies views is really not true. But
[3:23]when it comes to Greenland though, specifically in the last 36 hours, he has said, "We'll take it the easy way or the hard way." That's a military threat
[3:34]to a NATO ally. >> I know, but we all know, don't we? You know, President Trump is not going to sort of, you know, land on Greenland,
[3:44]take Greenland by force, occupy the whole. He's not going to do that. >> So, you know, he's not going to do that. No, but I'm offering you my best
[3:53]judgment as somebody who's observed him at fairly close quarters. He's not a fool. He knows fully well and those people around him and he has a very
[4:02]tight circle. Vice President uh JD Vance, Secretary Rubio, Rubio, Secretary Besson, Pete Hesgith. These are people who work with him in a very
[4:14]collaborative way and they will be reminding him that were he to intervene in such a unilateral way of deploying military force in order to take
[4:25]Greenland that would be completely counterproductive uh and would spell real danger for America's national interests. And that's why I think it's not going to happen like that. What's going to happen is
[4:37]there's going to be a lot of discussion, a lot of consultation, a lot of negotiation, and at the end of the day, we are all going to have to wake up to
[4:46]the reality that the Arctic needs securing against China and Russia. And if you ask me who is going to lead in that effort to secure, we all know,
[4:58]don't we, that it's going to be the United States. Unless we in Europe, unless we in Britain are prepared to stump up the forces and the radars and the anti-missile systems and the air
[5:09]defense systems uh to protect Greenland and the Arctic, are we? No, we're not. And that's why we at the end of the day going to be dependent on the United States to do so. >> But it is clear though from Donald
[5:21]Trump's actions and his rhetoric that he is no longer willing to provide the security guarantees for our continent, for Europe that America has for such a long time. So >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's not clear
[5:32]that he's not prepared to provide security guarantees. >> Not the same level of security guarantee. That's what he said. >> Well, what he's saying is that the piggybacking has got to stop. And we
[5:44]recognize that too. Our own prime minister and defense secretary recognize that. The question is when and how and over what period of time we are going to
[5:53]invest sufficiently in our military capabilities, our defense and our security and not just us in Britain but in the rest of the Europe in order to
[6:03]step up more to provide for our own security >> and as things stand the prime minister has given extra commitment to spend more
[6:13]on defense than had previously been planned. But do you think that level of commitment >> I'm sorry but the money's got to follow. >> Well, that was going to be my question.
[6:23]As things stand, we don't know where all of that money is going to to to come from. So are you convinced that this government in this country has really
[6:32]grasped that nettle has really worked out as you say that the world has changed fundamentally and that needs a different level
[6:42]of support and belief in paying for our own defense from UK governments. >> I think the principle is accepted. I think the funding is embraced but I
[6:54]haven't seen the financial plans not for the future not in the way that they need to build up and unfold uh in in the years to come and look this is
[7:04]difficult I mean we have huge fiscal challenges uh on us uh as a country the welfare bill is spiraling looking after
[7:15]the elderly and their social care net zero debt servicing paying for how much we borrow costs the earth. So, of course, spending more on defense is
[7:26]going to be hard, but it is going to be necessary. >> Do you think the government's been completely straight with us, the public, yet about the kinds of sacrifices or the
[7:38]kind of changes perhaps that might be required to get to the level of spending that you believe is needed? >> I think there are very real and difficult choices to be made and
[7:49]trade-offs. There are real trade-offs have got that have got to be made. But let me get back if I may to President Trump because I don't want to be sort of a commentator
[7:59]on my own government. President Trump is not just going to expect Britain but Germany, France and other European countries to fulfill the commitments
[8:09]they made at the NATO summit uh last year. It's not just Britain, it's all European countries who have got to step up. All the members of NATO have got to
[8:19]fulfill the commitments and the promises they made and I'm afraid not just in our own country but in others too. We've yet to see the detail of those plans.
[8:29]>> But how are leaders whether it's Kirstam or other European leaders meant to respond when you say Donald Trump's actually not going to invade Greenland. He's not going to use the military against a NATO ally. But that's what he
[8:40]said repeatedly. And when it came to Venezuela, he made many similar warnings and many people thought, "Oh, well, he's not really going to do it." And then he did.
[8:52]>> Yeah. But a part a lot of it is is he's exercising American leverage. Okay. He's getting people to focus. He's
[9:02]getting people in the right place for a negotiation to start. That's how he works and that's what I believe believe he's doing in in in the case of
[9:11]Greenland. I'm not saying that he was waiting for a negotiation to start with President Maduro. I'm not saying that. But if you take another country like
[9:22]Iran for example uh where we have a very very fast changing and I think increasingly urgent situation to face uh
[9:32]in in Iran. He gave plenty of warning to the regime about what would happen and what he would follow through if they
[9:41]ceased uh their uranium enrichment and the development of their military nuclear program. And at the end of the day, they didn't act. They wouldn't negotiate. They weren't talking
[9:51]sensibly. And he went in and used force >> and he bombed them. And this weekend he said if the Iranian regime were to shoot protesters in the streets who are out
[10:01]there trying to fight for a democratic way of life, he said if the government forces shoot protesters, America would shoot back. So what do you think he
[10:12]means by that? Would he intervene? I >> I'm really not sure what he means uh by that. Uh but I do know uh that there are millions of people in Iran uh who want
[10:22]their freedom back who want to restore their democracy uh who who want a good progressive secular leadership uh uh in place so that they can remake their
[10:33]country and they look to us the United States, Britain, France, Germany and others as their friends to give them that support when the time comes. I can't tell you exactly what form that
[10:44]support uh will take, but I do not think given everything that is at stake both for the Iranian people themselves, but also for the change we want to see, the
[10:55]transition we want to see in Iran in order to make Iran once again a a peaceful democratic player in the Middle East, we cannot stand idly by and simply
[11:07]allow events to take their course without giving any assistance or support to the Iranian people. >> So, what should assistance be then? What kind of form should that take? >> I'm not sure what form it should take.
[11:18]Uh, and and I'm not anticipating a military uh intervention. It's really not my job uh to do that. But what I
[11:27]would say is I hope there are some really serious urgent intensive discussions taking place between the United States and its European allies as
[11:38]well as other players in the Middle East in the region about what we can do to bring about and help support this democratic transition in Iran. You know
[11:47]that in your own party that sometimes the very thought of any more vigorous military intervention and even the thought of closer
[11:57]relationships with Donald Trump to some people in your party and on the broader left and some people watching this interview, they think actually what the UK should be doing is condemning the way
[12:07]that Donald Trump behaves. Look, I know there are many people and not just in my party and not just in this country, you know, who prefer pearl clutching and
[12:18]moral indignation and outrage over grasping a reality and doing something about it. Yes, that is the case. But I think that what we've got to recognize
[12:28]and again not just in my party and not just in in in our country is that if we want the United States to lead in an
[12:39]active, responsible and respectful way, then we have got to beef up uh uh our own diplomatic muscle
[12:50]and indeed our own military hard power and demonstrate that we are relevant and useful to the United States in what they
[13:00]have to do to keep the world a stable and a peaceful place. And if we don't do that, if we don't demonstrate our relevance, then we can't expect to be taken seriously. We can't expect to be
[13:12]listened to and to influence what the United States is doing. >> But you know that it can be politically toxic for UK governments to take a tougher line on defense and military
[13:22]intervention. You were around during the Iraq period and that was toxic for your party Anton Blair's government. >> I know. Uh I know. But I should I tell you something also? I think probably
[13:34]not just us but actually the United States and its political leaders have learned a lot just from Iraq but from Vietnam as well.
[13:43]These were not two entirely successful forever wars uh that the the United States fought and led. And actually, I
[13:54]think you will find in the minds of the American leadership, President Trump and those around him that they are very mindful of those lessons and that experience and they want to do things
[14:04]differently in the future. But is it right for multiple governments and international organizations to completely rejig the way that they have worked to rejig the kind of rules-based
[14:15]order to use the jargon that they've been attached to for years because of the character of one American president who will not be there forever.
[14:23]>> I I know but but Laura we need a US president to be decisive.
[14:34]We need a US president not simply to sit at home and sit on his hands and doing nothing uh where there's where American heft is needed elsewhere in the world uh
[14:44]to sort problems. And we've got to ask ourselves, I think, whether our reaction is because we don't want a US, any US
[14:53]president to act decisively, or whether actually we're simply allergic to Donald Trump and we're not thinking objectively enough about what
[15:02]he's actually doing, what he needs to do, and the support we should give. And I think that this sort of allergic reaction to Trump personally mustn't be
[15:12]allowed to get in the way of Britain's objective national interest. >> Whose side is he on when it comes to Ukraine?
[15:21]>> He is definitely on the side of maintaining and protecting the sovereignty, freedom, and democracy of Ukraine. >> And you're convinced by that? Is that
[15:32]something he said to you said to you? >> No, we have discussed it. I have no doubt that that is the case. Now, how you bring about the end of Russia's invasion,
[15:42]how you reach a settlement between those two countries and what it means territorially obviously is open to debate and to
[15:53]negotiation. But one thing I'm absolutely sure, he wouldn't be doing this. He wouldn't be expending so much energy and effort and time on Ukraine if
[16:01]he didn't believe in a very basic way in the sovereignty and the freedom of the Ukrainian people. >> Did you like Donald Trump?
[16:12]>> I found him. Did I like him? Yes, I liked his humor, his graciousness. >> Graciousness? That's not a word that many people associate with Donald Trump.
[16:23]I I know it isn't. I know it isn't because he has a for many people, he has a completely different uh uh image. Um
[16:34]I liked his directness. You knew exactly what he was thinking and where you stood and what he wanted and how he was proposing to engage with
[16:44]you. Did I like all his language? Uh no, I didn't. Uh did I did did he make me gasp uh sometimes uh in some of the
[16:55]things he said? Of course. But at the end of the day, um, President Trump is an extraordinary risktaker.
[17:07]And for me in the world today given all its conflicts and its dangers and what and how I would define
[17:16]leadership of a country I attach a lot of importance to somebody's preparedness to take risks and he does uh for good
[17:26]reasons in pursuit of good uh objectives and we've seen that in relation to Ukraine. We've seen it in relation to Gaza. Do you think any other country
[17:37]than the United States would been able to pull apart Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces? No. Do you think there's any other country that would be able now
[17:46]to be embarking uh on a phase two of this peace process, this peace settlement in Gaza? No. Not not the Europeans, I'm afraid. They're not
[17:57]they're not there to do this. The United States is with us in support, I hope, and contributing to the process. But at the end of the day, in so many cases, and I think Iran is another one coming
[18:09]up, it's American heft that makes the difference. >> Now, you lost your job as ambassador because of your friendship with the convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
[18:20]You've said many times you regret that you were close to him, but there's a question many people have. It was one thing to be friends with him in the early 2000s, quite another to keep your
[18:30]friendship going with him when it was clear and he had a conviction for abusing young women. Why did you stick with him? >> Well, it was the most terrible mistake
[18:41]uh on my part. Um uh I believed the story he told in 2008 in his first
[18:50]indictment in Florida. Um, I accepted his story and I wish I hadn't. Um, I gave my support
[19:01]uh to somebody uh because I believed what he was telling me and it was misplaced loyalty. But I but I just have to say
[19:10]this to you. One, it's had the most calamitous consequences uh for me and I regret ever having been introduced to him in the first place. I
[19:21]I regret continuing a a friendship with him. The crux of this is not me. The crux of this is not the friendship I had
[19:32]25 years ago with Jeffrey Epstein. The crux of this is that so many hundreds of of young women were completely trapped,
[19:42]powerless in a system that did not listen to what they had to say. I didn't hear their voices. other people didn't hear their voices. They were disempowered within that system.
[19:54]>> You described him though as your best pal. We've all seen the pictures of you relaxing with him on holiday in a bathrobe. During the time you spent with
[20:02]him, did you ever at any point see or hear anything that gave you any cause for concern? Anything whatsoever? >> Look,
[20:12]I I was at the edge of this man's life. >> You described him as your best pal. >> Yeah. and they were awful toecurling messages and and emails that were
[20:24]published. Uh, and they're very embarrassing. Uh, and and and just make me distraught every time I
[20:33]hear them. But I I have to say to you and I can say this absolutely I can say it to you categorically. I never saw
[20:43]anything in his life when I was with him when I was in his homes that would give me any reason to suspect what this evil
[20:54]monster was doing in preying on these young women. Now, I I do do you really think that if I knew what was going on and what he was doing
[21:06]with and to these vulnerable uh young women that I would have just sat back, ignored it, and moved on and said, "Okay, that's his that's his life. He can get on with it." Do you think I
[21:17]would have done that? Do you think I'd have written emails like that if I had had any one iota of knowledge or suspicion of what he was doing? I certainly would not. But you did have the knowledge that
[21:28]he had a conviction. >> Yes. And I believe >> a conviction for abusing >> and I believed and I believed his story >> over a court. >> And I believed his Yes. I believed his
[21:39]story and that of his lawyer who spent a lot of time trying to persuade me of this because I did go into it that he had been falsely criminalized in
[21:50]his contact with these young women. Now I wish I had not believed that story. I wish I had been more skeptical. I wish I had been more questioning. But I'm
[22:00]afraid I believed a story. I believed a friend. Uh I placed uh mistaken uh loyalty uh uh in place of the skepticism
[22:10]that I should have shown and I deeply deeply regret it. You made clear though at the time also you you made clear when this story was running very hard that as
[22:20]a gay man you had never been offered any kind of sexual favor. There were never any conversations at all. >> Possibly some people will think because
[22:30]that I am a gay man I was sort of insensitized or I wasn't attuned to what was going on. I don't really accept that. I think the issue is that because
[22:41]I was a gay man in his circle, I was kept separate from what he was doing uh in the sexual side of his life. I mean
[22:51]he he in a sense had three buckets of people in his life. The business and the financial uh the the political and the academic
[23:02]uh and then what he was doing uh with young women. It's possible that some people crossed over, but I didn't. And I think probably the reason I was separate
[23:13]uh from the third of those is because I'm gay. >> But what did you think all the young women on the island or on the planes were there for? What did you think they were doing?
[23:24]When I spent on one occasion two nights, I think or three nights on the island, the only other people there were two middle-aged
[23:36]housekeepers. >> So, was that separate for you? >> Epstein was never there. Epstein was never there. I think Gain Maxwell, his accomplice, came for a night, but there
[23:47]were no girls on that island when I was there. whether on the island or in New York or there was another occasion. Uh I
[23:56]stayed uh at a ranch in New Mexico. Again, the only people were there were the housekeepers. Never were there any
[24:05]young women or girls or people that were uh he was praying on or engaging with in that sort of ghastly predatory way. Do
[24:16]you want to take this chance to apologize to his victims for your association with him which went years beyond his original conviction?
[24:26]>> I want to apologize to those women for a system that refused to hear their voices and did not give them the protection
[24:37]they were entitled to expect. >> You apologize for your association with him after his conviction. That system, that system gave him protection and not
[24:48]them. If I had known, if I was in any way complicit or culpable, of course, I would apologize. >> But you won't for it for your association with him after his conviction.
[25:00]>> But I was not culpable. I was not knowledgeable of what he was uh doing. And I regret and will regret to my dying day uh the fact that powerless women,
[25:12]women with who are denied a voice were not given the protection they were entitled to expect from the American system. >> Then we come to your time as ambassador.
[25:22]At the highest levels of government, people felt you'd misled them about how close your you were to Epstein and about how your friendship had continued after
[25:32]his conviction. And the line from the government was that you were sacked because new information came to light. That's what they said. Is that true or
[25:41]do you think you told them everything? The the emails that were published came as a huge surprise and a huge shock to
[25:52]me, not just to them. I didn't remember sending them. I still don't actually recall the circumstances or thought processes that led me to send them. They
[26:02]no longer existed on my server. I long since disused. So, it came as a shock to them and it came as a surprise. But I was unable to share emails with them
[26:12]that I didn't recall and I didn't possess. >> But a senior figure in government told me you'd been economical with the truth to use their phrase when you gave them assurances before you were given the job
[26:24]as American ambassador about your relationship with him. Were you economical with the truth? Whoever said that to you was obviously not amongst the officials in number 10 Downing
[26:34]Street I spoke to during the consideration of me as ambassador. >> So you told them everything. >> They knew everything. >> Did you therefore deserve to be sacked? Not the emails, but aside from
[26:46]>> because they came as a surprise to me. >> Did you deserve to be sacked? >> I understand why I was sacked. >> That's a different question. Prime Minister found himself in the
[26:58]middle of what must have seemed to him a sort of thermonuclear explosion. I've been there. I know I know what goes on. I know how these circumstances are.
[27:08]Look, I wish I had been I wish I'd had the opportunity uh to remind him of the circumstances of my relationship, my friendship with uh Jeffrey Epstein uh
[27:19]and how I came to write the emails in the first place. I didn't. So, I understand why he took the decision he did, but one thing I'm very clear about is I'm not going to seek to reopen or
[27:31]relitigate uh this issue. I'm moving on. I I realize I won't be going back into uh uh public uh office. >> Well, I was going to ask what's next? What do you want to do?
[27:41]>> Well, who knows what's next. I I I don't know what's next. Um, but uh I'm not going to go and just sort of
[27:51]disappear and hide. That that's not me. I will find something uh uh useful to do. I don't know what it is. Um and no
[28:02]doubt it will take some time uh to discover. I am absolutely determined to be transparent about what happened and I have been and I can will continue to be. And will you be transparent about your
[28:14]view of how the Labor government is doing? >> Do you think that Karma ought to be the person who leads Labor into the next election or would you have any advice for him about how to climb out of the doldrums? I mean, it has been a dreadful
[28:24]start to his time in office in so many ways. You know, when I was in government and advising prime ministers and being a campaign director for my party, the one
[28:35]thing I couldn't stand is people who went on the Sunday morning programs like armchair generals and commentators telling us how badly we were doing and how if only we adopted all their views,
[28:46]how much better we would be doing. >> Maybe you might have helpful advice for them because they are in a fix. you know that here has become incredibly
[28:54]unpopular incredibly quickly. >> I think the government faces some real serious challenges. We've touched on one or two of them during the course of of
[29:06]our discussion. They are huge challenges. They're huge challenges. I I do think they have the policies and the determination to navigate there and the
[29:17]country's way through them. Um I do believe uh that Kstarma will continue to give the leadership he is in that
[29:27]process. But let us not underestimate how difficult the coming years are going to be. They're going to be really very difficult indeed. Lord >> Madison, thanks so much for taking the
[29:37]time to speak to us.