London — So far, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hasn’t been linked to any suggested wrongdoing revealed by the Epstein files. But his decision to give another politician whose ties to Jeffrey Epstein have been laid bare by the documents the vital job of ambassador in Washington D.C. has drawn a ferocious backlash.

As the most tumultuous week in his premiership ends, Starmer is facing calls from his political opponents, and some party allies, to step down from Britain’s top job.

What did he know, and when did he know it? Those are the big questions facing Starmer amid outrage over his decision last year to appoint Peter Mandelson as Britain’s top diplomat in the United States, despite Mandelson’s known ties to Epstein. 

Documents released by the U.S. Congress last year showed Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein after the convicted pedophile was released from jail, and the latest massive dump of files by the Justice Department last week raised damning questions about him possibly sharing state secrets with the American financier.

What’s in the Epstein files about Peter Mandelson?

Starmer may have hoped he’d dealt with the Mandelson scandal when he fired him from the U.S. ambassadorship last September. That came after the U.S. House of Representatives released files showing Starmer’s Labour Party colleague had maintained a close relationship with Epstein for years after his 2008 conviction on charges of solicitation of prostitution and procuring a child for prostitution.

But last Friday brought a political earthquake. The latest documents released by the Department of Justice appear to show that while Mandelson was a member of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet, and as that cabinet grappled with the seismic aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, he shared confidential, market-sensitive U.K. government information with Epstein. The information could feasibly have benefited the New York financier and his clients. 

The London Metropolitan Police are now investigating Mandelson‘s actions to see if they amount to misconduct in public office, a charge which carries a potential life prison sentence. Starmer’s office said Tuesday that it had conducted its own review of the documents released Friday and that it appeared “safeguards were compromised” in relation to sensitive information being shared improperly.

Starmer says Mandelson “lied repeatedly” and betrayed Britain

On Wednesday, the prime minister told lawmakers that Mandelson — a veteran Labour party politician with a reputation as a ruthless, media-savvy problem solver — had continuously lied to the government about the extent of his relationship with Epstein throughout his vetting for the ambassadorship. 

“Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party … he lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him,” Starmer said. 

While Starmer may not have been aware of the extent of Mandelson’s ties to Epstein when he tapped him to represent Britain in Washington D.C., British lawmakers have sharply criticized the government’s vetting process, stressing that some elements of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein were public at the time he was given the position. 

The leader of the opposition Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, has questioned Starmer’s judgement in elevating Mandelson to such a key diplomatic post. 

“The Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know — it was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t Number 10?,” Badenoch said Wednesday in parliament, referring to the prime minister’s office at 10 Downing Street in London. 

Pressure mounts on the prime minister

That skepticism has gained traction with British lawmakers across partisan lines, with Starmer facing a ferocious backlash from within his own party. 

Rachael Maskell, a member of Starmer’s ruling center-left Labour Party, told the BBC that the prime minister’s position was “untenable” and he had “no choice” but to step down. Another Labour lawmaker, Jonathan Hinder, told the BBC that Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson as U.S. ambassador was a, “catastrophic error of political and moral judgement.”

In a social media post on Thursday, Badenoch called on Labour members of parliament to unite with her opposition party in pushing for a no-confidence vote in Starmer. 

“My message to Labour MPs is if you want the change you know the country needs, come and speak to my team. I’m ready to talk seriously about a vote of no confidence. Because right now Britain is not being governed,” Badenoch said. 

Starmer’s profuse apologies, and anger at an old colleague

The U.K. leader, meanwhile, has been in damage control mode. He agreed this week to a demand by lawmakers to publicly release documents related to Mandelson’s vetting and appointment, and the “due diligence” conducted by his government.

On Thursday, he also made a full apology to Epstein’s victims, and sought to quell the anger within his own party.

“I am sorry, sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointing him,” Starmer said, addressing victims of Epstein’s sex crimes. “I was lied to. Deceived. Now, am I frustrated and angry that the good work we’re doing gets out of focus? … Of course I’m angry and frustrated about that.”

Speaking Thursday to CBS News’ partner network BBC News, Epstein survivor Marina Lacerda, who was groomed by the late sex offender as a young teenager, lauded Starmer for apologizing so directly, but said the concern going forward must be “what kind of justice will be brought.”

“I have to commend him for going on national television and admitting he was wrong and apologizing to us,” Lacerda told the BBC’s Newsnight program. “I think that’s a huge step, right. You have also people here in America that have not even tried to apologize to us. So I have to commend him for that.”

But for a prime minister who, according to political pollster YouGov, already had historically low approval ratings last month before the latest Mandelson revelations, the future looks deeply uncertain.

What are the odds of Starmer hanging on?

Bruising policy reversals on a number of unrelated issues last year had already weakened Starmer’s authority with his party. A stagnant economy and immigration concerns have also seen public support for Trump ally Nigel Farage’s populist, right-wing Reform Party surge, leading many analysts to question Starmer’s political acumen, and the viability of his premiership. 

It’s unclear what may emerge when Starmer’s office releases the vetting documents related to Mandelson’s appointment. But on Thursday evening, the prime minister found himself in the most vulnerable position of his 18-month tenure.

An analysis shared Thursday by the Eurasia Group put the chances of Starmer keeping his job at just 20%.

“Previously, Eurasia Group believed the PM would be challenged for the Labour leadership this year and that his critics had a 65% chance of removing him,” the organization said. “We now think that prospect has risen to 80%.”