The prime minister is expected to speak to the media during a visit to Belfast - it'll be the first time he's quizzed by journalists since the government released the first tranche of documents related to the appointment on Wednesday.
They revealed Sir Keir was warned Lord Mandelson was "particularly close" with Epstein and there was a "general reputational risk" to appointing him.
Politics Hub: Catch up on Mandelson files release
Lord Mandelson was sacked from the job in Washington DC in September and Sir Keir has claimed he lied repeatedly during the vetting process.
The ex-Labour cabinet minister has previously denied any wrongdoing over his relationship with the billionaire paedophile and has apologised to the financier's victims.
But Sir Keir has faced calls to resign from the Conservatives, with Kemi Badenoch saying the files showed he "lied repeatedly about what he knew when, and how".
What have the files revealed?
The prime minister was informed as part of a "due diligence" report that Lord Mandelson appeared to "maintain a particularly close relationship" with Epstein from 2002 and continuing through the 2000s.
That period included after Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008.
The report also said Lord Mandelson stayed in Epstein's house while he was in jail in 2009.
Sir Keir was also informed Lord Mandelson agreed to be a "founding citizen" in 2014 of an ocean conservation group founded by Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's girlfriend, and funded by Epstein.
It flagged that all these connections could be a "general reputational risk", and says Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, was particularly cautious about Lord Mandelson's appointment.
But Sir Keir's then-chief of staff Morgan McSweeney said he was "satisfied" with Lord Mandelson's responses to questions about his relationship with Epstein.
Warning against political appointment
Sir Keir was also warned against making a political appointment, rather than a diplomatic one, which is rare, and was told: "If anything goes wrong, you could be more exposed as the individual is more connected to you personally."
But then foreign secretary David Lammy agreed on a political appointment, and on Lord Mandelson, as did Sir Keir.
Mandelson wanted £500,000 pay-off
The documents reveal Lord Mandelson asked for a settlement payment of £574,201 after his sacking, but agreed to £75,000 "with minimal fuss".
He was sacked on 11 September but remained on full pay until 16 October, nearly a month after he finally left the US on 24 September.
A letter from Lord Mandelson to the Foreign Office revealed his exit from the US was delayed due to obtaining a veterinary certificate for his dog, Jock.
He said his main concern was arriving in the UK "with the maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion" because he was still a crown/civil servant "and expect to be treated as such".
Starmer was told about depth of relationship in September 2025
The documents also detailed what Sir Keir was told when emails revealing the extent of Mandelson's connection to Epstein were leaked in September last year - seven months after his appointment - which resulted in his sacking.
In a letter recording a meeting of the prime minister, Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, Number 10 staff, the chief whip and top Foreign Office official Sir Olly Robbins, it reveals Sir Keir was concerned about the "judgements and views" expressed in the leaked emails.
Sir Keir said the emails "did not give him confidence that there were not further revelations to come and the serious discomfort" of Labour MPs.
The emails revealed a "depth and extent of a relationship with Epstein which he had not been aware of previously when he made the decision to appoint Mandelson", it says.
It was on this basis Sir Keir "proposed to ask Mandelson to resign", the letter says.
Mistake to appoint Mandelson
As the documents were released, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, told MPs Sir Keir has already acknowledged it was a "mistake" to appoint Lord Mandelson and has apologised "not least for believing Peter Mandelson's lies".
He said some documents were not released as they are part of the police investigation into Lord Mandelson, but said when they are "the House will be able to see Peter Mandelson's answers for themselves, which the prime minister regrets believing".
"Peter Mandelson should never have been afforded the privilege of representing this country," he added.
'Starmer lied'
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the files show Sir Keir "lied repeatedly about what he knew when, and how" - and said it is a resigning matter.
She said the vetting shows the PM should never have appointed Lord Mandelson, and he is "not in power, he is held hostage by his backbenchers".
The most newsworthy elements in this 147-page document detailing the vetting, appointment and severance of the ex-US ambassador were the eyewatering £75,000 payoff Peter Mandelson received for being sacked - he had asked for near £550,000 - and the revelation the prime minister's national security adviser Jonathan Powell thought the process was "unusual" and "weirdly rushed".
We already knew, because the PM admitted it in the House of Commons, that Sir Keir Starmer was aware of an "ongoing relationship" between Lord Mandelson and the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
But to see in black and white the red flags being raised in a two-page due diligence report put together by the cabinet office was damning for the PM.
Because it confirms that the PM was told the relationship between the pair was "particularly close" and continued well after Epstein was "first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008" for sex.
It was flagged to Sir Keir that "Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein's house while he was in jail in June 2009" and noted there was "general reputational risk" over his relationship with Epstein.
It warned the PM that a political appointment - Lord Mandelson - rather than a diplomatic one was more risky: "If anything goes wrong, you could be more exposed as the individual is more connected to you personally."
Concerns raised
The Mandelson files also revealed that Mr Powell, one of Sir Keir's most trusted advisers, found Lord Mandelson's appointment in December 2024 was "weirdly rushed" and that he had been "particularly cautious about the appointment".
Minutes of a call in September 2025 show that Mr Powell had "raised concerns about the individual and reputation" to Morgan McSweeney, the PM's then chief of staff, and adds: "MM responded that the issues had been addressed."
Sir Philip Barton, the Foreign Office's top civil servant at the time of Lord Mandelson's appointment, "also had reservations", according to Mr Powell.
That the report was only two pages long and didn't investigate more robustly Lord Mandelson's relationship with Epstein, raises obvious questions.
👉 Listen to This Is Why on your podcast app 👈
It was only after the drop of the Epstein files by the US Department of Justice that we learned of the full depth and intimacy of the friendship.
These documents also led to the arrest of Lord Mandelson on suspicion of misconduct in public office after it emerged that he had allegedly shared confidential information with Epstein when serving in Gordon Brown's cabinet.
Lord Mandelson denies the charges.
'An inveterate liar'
For his part, the prime minister says he was repeatedly lied to by Lord Mandelson, with No 10 stressing that follow-up questions were asked of the former Labour peer in light of the due diligence, which will back up Sir Keir's account.
Frustratingly for No 10, those documents have been withheld by the Metropolitan Police as part of their investigation into Lord Mandelson in order to avoid prejudicing the investigation.
But it goes back to the central point that, given the red flags, and Mr Powell's misgivings, why Sir Keir chose to press on with the appointment.
Alex Burghardt, shadow chancellor to the Duchy of Lancaster, was excoriating as he called this out in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
"Now the prime minister claims that he was lied to. He wasn't lied to by this due diligence document. And it may be that Mandelson denied these claims.
"And if so, maybe the prime minister was lied to, but he was lied to by an inveterate liar who had been fired twice before," said Mr Burghardt across the despatch box.
"And we're supposed to believe, that the prime minister, who was once the chief prosecutor in this country, couldn't see through this nonsense. It beggars belief."
A potential powder keg
We will have to wait for further releases to get a better understanding of what the PM was told and why he took the decisions he did.
Only a small proportion of the documents - expected to run into the tens of thousands - was published on Wednesday, but Darren Jones said the government hope to publish the remainder "soon".
It will give more momentum to a scandal that is hurting Sir Keir with ministers and MPs braced for the dropping of thousands more documents that - if they pass national security clearance - will detail messages between Lord Mandelson and senior government figures for six months before his appointment, and during his time as ambassador.
It could prove a powder keg for already inflamed tensions between Washington and London over the war in Iran should delicate diplomatic communications be put into the public domain - only messages posing significant security concerns will be exempt.
And it will be parliament's intelligence and security committee, not the government, that will adjudicate on that.
Read more from Sky News:
Man accused of murdering Ian Huntley appears in court
CPS loses appeal over Kneecap terror charge
PM battling to survive
It could also raise conflicts of interest if it emerges that government correspondence was shared with Lord Mandelson before his appointment given his commercial interests in the time at Global Counsel, a lobbying firm he co-founded.
Two key figures who supported the appointment of Lord Mandelson - Mr McSweeney and the PM's former director of communications, Matthew Doyle - have left government.
But their former boss, who has been battling to survive, is now having to deal with the ongoing consequences of an appointment he clearly deeply regrets.
All of it, as one senior MP told me on Wednesday night, adds to the "general despondency" around this administration.
Sir Keir promised to clean up politics and yet he finds himself in the centre of one of the biggest political scandals this century.
He must rue the day he ever let Lord Mandelson back into government. But it's very difficult to see how he can make it right.
"We stopped all humanitarian activity. We cannot work. All the offices are closing because of the drones - some of the area has been evacuated. WFP staff left two days ago from the area, anticipating drone strikes," he says.
Drone warfare has made Sudan's war a death trap for a population of more than 46 million people as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) battle for territory.
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, an independent global monitor, has documented at least 198 drone strikes in Sudan launched by both sides in the first two months of 2026. At least 52 of them involved civilian casualties, killing 478 people.
"For us, when we hear the sound - we just rush and hide ourselves. We run to the river, and sometimes we can go into our foxhole. We go to the town and go to where there are no buildings sometimes," says Zaki.
The area he operates in has been ravaged by armed rebellion and state violence for decades, but this time is different.
A dangerous new depth to warfare
"This war is quite different. This time they are using too many drones. Before - 20 years or 30 years ago - they did not use these drones, it was just a normal clash," he says.
Drone warfare has added dangerous depth to Sudan's humanitarian catastrophe by making safe aid delivery and emergency response virtually impossible in some of the hardest-hit areas.
"No food, no medical care, no sanitation," says Zaki. People scrambling to safety are left with little to no option of sanctuary.
:: Have drones changed war forever?
Sky News analysis and mapping of ACLED data has found that deadly drone attacks are spread across Sudan and the number of civilian casualties is rapidly rising.
For the third consecutive day of new drone strikes on the southern White Nile state, an RSF drone hit a secondary school and shelter killing at least 17 people - mostly school girls - and injuring 10 others on Wednesday.
In just a two-day window in mid-February, more than 60 people were reported to have been killed by drones launched by both sides, with at least 15 children killed in a single Sudanese military drone strike on a shelter.
In January, a drone strike on N'djamena market in South Kordofan's Dilling county killed 13 people and a month earlier, a triple drone strike by the RSF on a kindergarten and hospital in the same state killed 114 people - including 43 children.
Detentions and deportations
The walls are closing in on civilians dealing with escalating violence as borders close. Drone strikes are spread across the eastern border to the west - even hitting the territory of neighbouring Chad which hosts close to a million Sudanese refugees.
Chad recently closed its border with Sudan after multiple cross-border attacks by the RSF. Other neighbouring countries like South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Libya are dealing with the danger of their own civil wars and are increasingly unsafe for refugees.
Egypt, a key safe haven for Sudanese refugees, is now deporting them en masse. Hundreds of thousands are now facing fear of detention, deportation, and death as Egyptian authorities unleash a brutal crackdown. The Sudanese embassy in Cairo has said that 578 Sudanese citizens have been deported back to Sudan in December and January.
Affected families have told Sky News that their status as asylum seekers with the United Nations Refugee agency (UNHCR) is often ignored as their loved ones are picked up. Dozens of missing person posts are being shared on Facebook to trace those suspected of being detained or deported.
"They took us to prison, and we were terrified. I have never been imprisoned before - in Sudan or elsewhere - and was shocked by the sight of the prison. It felt like we were in a soap opera," a Sudanese refugee who was detained by the Egyptian authorities told Sky News.
He was a taxi driver in the Sudanese city of Al Fashir. He eventually fled the regional capital - where the RSF are accused of committing genocide and killing 6,000 people in just three days of capture - and went to Egypt for his safety.
"They split us up into four groups, and we were around 110 to a single cell. There was violence from the police and then violence within the cell from embedded guards. You are constantly dodging both."
An 18-year-old called Al-Nazeer Al Sadiq was also kept in one of these cells. He was arrested from a neighbourhood in Cairo and the three friends with him at the time were deported. He eventually died in detention.
"He did not have any illness - he was healthy when they picked him up," his brother tells us from Sudan's capital Khartoum.
"The first day my mother visited him he was mentally exhausted and not at peace. There were three visits and each time he was deteriorating more and more - right until he died."
Al-Nazeer's family have returned to Sudan, despite the risks. The Egyptian government did not respond to our request for comment.
Read more from Sky News:
Thousands killed in three days
1,000 days of war in Sudan
UN sees 'hallmarks of genocide'
UK's asylum crackdown brought into focus
Here in the UK, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood implemented an emergency ban on study visas for students from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Cameroon, and Sudan to slow asylum claims. This has meant that Sudan's best and brightest minds - at least 210 students - are being prevented from pursuing scholarships to some of the UK's best universities.
At least 22 of them were meant to study at the University of Oxford, and 39 of them were accepted in a UK government-funded Chevening scholarship for emerging leaders.
On the ban, Ms Mahmood said: "Britain will always provide refuge to people fleeing war and persecution, but our visa system must not be abused. That is why I am taking the unprecedented decision to refuse visas for those nationals seeking to exploit our generosity. I will restore order and control to our borders."
But the students impacted believe that they are facing the compounded cruelty of Sudan's war.
'It's heartbreaking'
"What's especially painful about the current situation is that the data simply doesn't justify a blanket decision like this," says Rawan, who has been blocked from enrolling in her dream masters programme in international health at the University of Oxford after being accepted.
"The Home Office has pointed to a 300% increase in asylum claims from Sudanese students, from 30 to 120 cases over five years. But when you look at the bigger picture, those 120 cases represent only about 0.1% of total asylum claims in the UK."
She continued: "It's heartbreaking to see how we're also villainising the students who sought asylum as they are not manipulating the system, they are fleeing one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, with more than 14 million Sudanese people displaced by the war.
"There is definitely a general sense of helplessness."
This war is becoming a dead end as borders close and drones stalk the skies. Aid workers like Zaki do not know what to tell the people scrambling for safety.
"They get confused about where they can go to feel peace - they go to South Sudan, there is a problem. They go to Ethiopia, there is a problem," says Zaki.
It's about one thing, and one thing only: Fashion.
The world's most famous catwalk, it has the power to take a celebrity's style moment and elevate it into historical popular culture. So the pressure is on to make a statement and steal the spotlight.
Whether stars opt to dazzle with opulence, impress with fine tailoring or shock with the unexpected, if their outfit's getting talked about, it's job done.
So, as we get ready for the 2026 Academy Awards on Sunday, we're celebrating the red-carpet risk-takers and most memorable Oscar looks over the years.
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and Ofcom, the communications regulator, have written to several platforms to demand stronger protections for children.
Ofcom has given Facebook, Instagram, Roblox, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube until the end of April to explain what actions they're taking on age checks and preventing online grooming.
The platforms must also set out how they're tackling harmful algorithms, and how they roll out updates for users, with Ofcom demanding an "end to product testing on children".
Similarly, the ICO has written to TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and X - formerly Twitter - asking them how their age check policies keep children safe.
It comes after a Conservative-led push to ban under-16s from social media failed in the House of Commons, being voted down by 307 votes to 173.
After initially opposing the measure, ministers are now consulting on a ban, without committing to backing it.
Australia became the first country to implement a social media ban for children when its policy took effect in December last year.
Ofcom said its research had shown that minimum age policies of 13 were not being properly enforced, with 72% of children aged eight to 12 accessing sites and apps prohibited for their age.
Children 'routinely exposed to risks'
Its chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes accused big tech companies of "failing to put children's safety at the heart of their products".
She continued: "There is a gap between what tech companies promise in private, and what they're doing publicly to keep children safe on their platforms.
"Without the right protections, like effective age checks, children have been routinely exposed to risks they didn't choose, on services they can't realistically avoid.
"That must now change quickly, or Ofcom will act."
ICO chief executive Paul Arnold said: "With ever-growing public concern, the status quo is not working and industry must do more to protect children."
'No excuse' for tech firms not to act
Ofcom said it will publicly report how platforms have responded in May, when it will also publish new research on how much impact the Online Safety Act has had on children's online experiences in its first year.
The regulator said it "will be ready to take enforcement action" if not satisfied with the firms' responses, including strengthening regulations.
While the ICO said it had contacted some of the "highest risk services" and warned that "further regulatory action" could await if they don't take action.
Mr Arnold said: "Our message to platforms is simple: act today to keep children safe online.
"There's now modern technology at your fingertips, so there is no excuse not to have effective age assurance measures in place."
Read more from Sky News:
Kids who want a social media ban
Parents' anger as Zuckerberg faces court
The push was welcomed by the Molly Rose Foundation, which was set up in memory of a 14-year-old who took her own life after viewing harmful content on social media.
The charity said Ofcom was "turning up the heat on reckless tech firms and their dangerous products which continue to cause daily harm to children".
Tech firms respond
In a statement, a YouTube spokesperson said the platform had been building products specifically for children and teenagers for more than 10 years, and was "designed to provide age-appropriate high-quality experiences".
They continued: "We are surprised to see Ofcom move away from a risk-based approach, particularly given that we routinely update them and other regulators on our industry-leading work on youth safety."
Meta, which operates Facebook and Instagram, said it had already implemented "many" of the solutions called for by regulators, including using AI to detect users' age based on their activity, and facial age recognition technology.
They added: "We also place teens in Teen Accounts, which offer built-in protections that limit who can contact them, the content they see, and the time they spend on our apps."
A spokesperson for Roblox said the platform was in "regular dialogue" with Ofcom about protecting players, and had launched more than 140 safety features in the past year, including mandatory age checks for access to chat features.
"While no system is ever perfect, we continue to strengthen protections designed to keep players safe and look forward to demonstrating our efforts in our ongoing dialogue with Ofcom," they said.
The other platforms named have been contacted for comment.