US Congress seeks Andrew testimony on Epstein links

You’ve probably seen the headlines: members of the US House want Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein. The calls have grown louder since 30 October 2025, when Buckingham Palace confirmed King Charles removed Andrew’s remaining titles and said he will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, with a move from Royal Lodge to private accommodation to follow. The Associated Press reporting carried by PBS, and other outlets, set out that timeline.

So who’s asking? Democratic members of the Republican‑led House Oversight Committee say they want to hear from Andrew-by invitation if possible. Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, now a member of House Oversight, has publicly supported deeper inquiry; fellow Democrat Stephen Lynch told the BBC he’d welcome Andrew’s testimony; and Representative Ro Khanna has urged a formal appearance. These are minority‑party voices for now, but they signal what many survivors and advocates want to see.

Let’s ground this in process. House committees don’t bring criminal charges; they gather facts to inform lawmaking and oversight. They can invite a witness, take a private transcribed interview, or seek a deposition under oath. Witnesses may have lawyers with them, and committees can authorise depositions with set notice periods. Those procedures are written into House rules for the current Congress.

You’ll hear talk of subpoenas. A committee can vote to issue one, but serving and enforcing it is another matter. Congress relies on two main routes when someone refuses: criminal contempt (which requires the Justice Department to prosecute) or a civil lawsuit to ask a federal court to order compliance. There’s also an old “inherent contempt” power that is almost never used today. This is why members keep stressing a voluntary appearance.

Jurisdiction matters. A congressional subpoena is a US order. Enforcing it on someone who stays outside the United States is difficult, and there’s no extradition path for “contempt of Congress.” Members acknowledge that reality when they note that if Andrew were in the US, he would be easier to compel; outside the country, cooperation is the practical route.

Remote appearances come up a lot. The House now allows limited remote participation by non‑government witnesses, but a subpoenaed witness generally cannot testify remotely without explicit written approval from the committee chair and the House Majority Leader, published in the Congressional Record. In plain English: if Andrew declines an invitation, remote testimony isn’t automatic.

Why are lawmakers pressing now? Newly unsealed emails show that in April 2010-months after Epstein left jail-Andrew wrote that it would be “good to catch up in person.” He was later photographed with Epstein in New York that December, a meeting he has said was to end their friendship. Another email reported in US media from early 2011 suggested continued contact. These disclosures undercut Andrew’s past framing and have renewed pressure for answers.

There’s also movement in the UK. London’s Metropolitan Police say they are “actively” looking into reports that in 2011 Andrew asked a protection officer to seek personal information about Virginia Giuffre. That assessment follows newspaper revelations and does not mean charges. It does show that questions around potential misuse of policing are now formally on the radar.

Survivors keep shaping this story. Liz Stein, who has spoken publicly in Washington this autumn, says the priority is truth and accountability over rumour. She and others want cooperation that helps investigators, not viral lists. That’s why they continue to ask high‑profile figures-including Andrew-to share what they saw and what they know.

The UK government’s message has been similar. Sir Chris Bryant, the Minister of State for Trade, has said Andrew should answer US questions if invited “like any ordinary member of the public.” His current role and recent public comments on trade confirm his position in government; his point on accountability echoes calls from members of Congress.

A quick reminder on the civil case: Andrew settled Virginia Giuffre’s US lawsuit in February 2022 without admitting liability, issuing a statement that recognised her suffering and his regret over ties to Epstein. He continues to deny the allegations. That settlement ended the civil litigation but not public scrutiny or legislators’ interest.

If you’re teaching this or studying government, here’s the takeaway we can use together. Congress can ask, invite, and if necessary subpoena-but enforcement depends on US courts and prosecutors, and tools like mutual legal assistance treaties are for criminal investigations run by governments, not for legislative committees. In practice, that leaves voluntary cooperation, private transcribed interviews, or testimony on a US visit as the most realistic options.