Why the Peter Mandelson appointment is a big mistake

Donald Trump’s campaign manager Chris LaCivita hardly minced his words on hearing that Peter Mandelson had been appointed as the British ambassador to the United States. Mandelson is going an “absolute moron,” he said. While one might have chosen an alternative rhetorical style, there is no denying that Mandelson’s appointment at this particular moment in history is deeply problematic — it is emblematic of an out-of-touch Labour Party incapable of deviating from the ideological misfortunes that have made it unpopular in such short order. The Starmer government’s decision to send this Blair disciple to Washington is extraordinary, at a time when a Trump administration poised for lift off.

To add insult to injury, Mandelson has openly insulted Trump on numerous occasions, calling him everything from a “danger to the world” to a “little short of a white nationalist and racist.” For a man who is meant to represent the UK’s interests in Washington, these kinds of remarks are diplomatically catastrophic. 

Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States is a misguided diplomatic misstep

The Trump administration is known to be unpredictable, but it’s hard to imagine it would warmly welcome a figure who has shown such disdain and disrespect for the president. Even though Mandelson has attempted to backpedal on his comments, the Trump team is already keenly aware of the offenses. No disingenuous efforts can erase the fact that Mandelson has spent years publicly lambasting Trump’s leadership — a mortal sin for the role that he is about to assume.  

If anyone doubts this, recall the fate of former UK Ambassador to the US Kim Darroch, whose awkward emails were published in 2019, describing the Trump administration as “dysfunctional,” “inept” and “divided.” Darroch also questioned whether the Trump White House “will ever look competent” and characterized Trump’s policy on sensitive issues like Iran as “incoherent” and “chaotic.”

These leaked communications led to a diplomatic row between the UK and US. President Trump responded by affirming that his administration would no longer work with the ambassador. As a result of the controversy, Darroch resigned from his position, stating that it had become “impossible” for him to continue in his role. This is an excruciating precedent for Mandelson, before he has even set foot in Washington.

Mandelson is a seasoned political professional, there is no denying that. He has a long track record of political maneuvering, both in Britain and Brussels. As a former EU commissioner, he built a reputation as a skilled negotiator, an operator who understands how to play the game.

But for all of Mandelson’s expertise in the world of political backrooms, his ideological beliefs and undisciplined comments make him impossibly-suited to hold respect and engage productively in Trump’s America. An avowed anti-Brexiteer, a passionate proponent of the European Union and its globalist agenda, Mandelson’s views are diametrically opposed to Trump’s country-first philosophy. While Trump enthusiastically championed Brexit as a victory for national sovereignty, Mandelson views it as a grave error. Mandelson’s worldview is anathema to Trump and his crowd.

In Mandelson’s world, organizations like the EU play a central role. In Trump’s world, it is maverick entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy or fellow disruptors like Nigel Farage or Javier Milei who command the political limelight. Musk and Farage are the new “golden boys” in this new world order. Mired in multilateralism, Mandelson will likely be an untrusted outsider.

This tension between these two visions is at the heart of why Mandelson’s appointment is so misconceived. His appointment reeks of progressive tone-deafness, the belief that the same old political players — the Blairite elite — can continue to pull the strings, even as the political landscape has shifted tectonically. Thank heaven for Nigel Farage for he, rather than Starmer’s ambassador may well be the force that prevents the UK’s estrangement from a new Trumpian consensus both at home and abroad.

In short, Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States is not only a misguided diplomatic misstep; it is a direct confrontation with the realities of a post-Brexit, post-Trump world. It signals that the Labour-led British government is still clinging to the tired vision that has already been soundly rejected by large swathes of the electorate. It’s hard to imagine that Trump’s America — with its own disdain for the globalist elites — will be accommodating of the “Prince of Darkness.”

Whether reality has sunk in for Mandelson and Starmer, the world has moved on. The days of Blairite technocrats calling the shots are over. If this Labour government wants to build a meaningful relationship with the United States in the years to come, it needs a different kind of ambassador — one who can operate in Trump’s world, not one that’s still living in Tony Blair’s.