“The Prime Minister is extremely willing to release Labour Members' text messages.”

In the speech, Badenoch's actual words were: "he is more than happy to release their text messages while all of his have disappeared." This was delivered during PMQs on 3 June 2026, in the context of the "Mandelson files" — a large disclosure of communications relating to Lord Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador. What is true: - A large tranche of text messages and WhatsApps from Labour figures (including Pat McFadden, Wes Streeting, and others) was indeed released to Parliament on 1 June 2026, as part of the government's response to a Humble Address motion passed on 4 February 2026. - The PM's own messages with Lord Mandelson were largely missing from the release, because — as Downing Street confirmed — Starmer uses WhatsApp's disappearing-message function, meaning many of his exchanges with Mandelson are unrecoverable. - The contrast Badenoch highlights — other Labour members' messages were published while the PM's were absent — is factually grounded. What is misleading: - The characterization that the PM was "more than happy" or "extremely willing" to release others' text messages is not supported by the evidence. The release was compelled by a parliamentary vote (a Humble Address motion brought by the Conservatives), not a voluntary act by the Prime Minister. According to The Independent, the government initially attempted to limit publication and only "caved in and agreed to the humble address" after Angela Rayner intervened and the Tories threatened contempt proceedings. The government was, if anything, reluctant rather than willing. - There is no public evidence that the PM expressed any particular enthusiasm or willingness to expose other Labour MPs' messages. His stated position was that he had "complied" with the process, not that he was happy to do so. - The impression created — that the PM selectively chose to release others' messages while protecting his own — is misleading. The disclosure was mandated by Parliament for all relevant communications, and the PM's messages were missing due to the disappearing-message function, not because he chose to withhold them. The factual core — that Labour members' text messages were published while the PM's own messages were missing — is accurate. However, the characterization that the PM was "extremely willing" or "more than happy" to release others' messages is contradicted by the fact that the release was compelled by a Commons vote against initial government resistance. This is a rhetorical jab that misrepresents the PM's role and motivation. Sources: BBC News — "Keir Starmer uses disappearing messages on his phone, No 10 confirms" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8pgg0108qo); The Independent — "Do not hold back any Mandelson documents, Tories tell Starmer as they issue contempt warning" (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-mandelson-contempt-parliament-vote-b2985642.html); GOV.UK — "Update on the Government response to the Humble Address motion" (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/update-on-the-government-response-to-the-humble-address-motion); BBC News live coverage of PMQs 3 June 2026 (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c87qzn2eqy4t); The Independent — "Keir Starmer uses disappearing messages on WhatsApp, No 10 admits after Mandelson files released" (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-mandelson-files-whatsapp-messages-b2987948.html); iNews — "Starmer and Reeves 'disappearing' Mandelson texts sparking Cabinet resentment" (https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/starmer-reeves-disappearing-mandelson-texts-cabinet-resentment-4451976)