US House Democrats ask Andrew to testify on Epstein

Democrats on the US House Oversight Committee have asked Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to take part in a transcribed interview about Jeffrey Epstein. The request, led by Ranking Member Robert Garcia and published on Thursday 6 November 2025, comes a week after King Charles formally removed Andrew’s remaining titles. It is a request, not an order.

Why Andrew, and why now? Lawmakers say his name appears in documents obtained from Epstein’s estate and that he could hold useful details about Epstein’s operations, contacts and travel. A 2011 message quoted in the committee’s letter says “we are in this together”. Andrew has consistently denied wrongdoing.

Let’s pause on the vocabulary you’re seeing. A letter from members of Congress is an invitation. A subpoena is compulsory; ignoring one can lead to contempt proceedings. A “transcribed interview” is a closed‑door question‑and‑answer session with lawyers present and a verbatim record; it is not the same as a televised hearing. Committees can also take sworn depositions under their rules.

What “no subpoena power” means here: as the minority party, Democrats cannot issue subpoenas on their own. In the House, subpoena authority typically rests with the committee chair or requires a committee majority. On Oversight, that power is delegated to the chair under House Rule XI. Garcia’s letter therefore asks for voluntary cooperation.

Can Congress force someone in the UK to show up? In practice, no. Even when a House committee issues a subpoena, enforcement usually runs through US courts and-often-the Justice Department. Those tools don’t reach a non‑US citizen overseas. Treaties that help police and prosecutors gather evidence (MLATs) are designed for criminal cases, not for legislative inquiries.

So what could happen next? Andrew could agree to speak-by video link, in writing, or in person. He could decline. If he refuses, Democrats would need the Republican chair or a committee vote to authorise a subpoena, and even then cross‑border enforcement would remain limited. That’s why committees often start with an invitation and a response deadline.

The UK update matters for context. King Charles removed the styles and titles-“Prince”, HRH and the ducal honours-by letters patent, and Andrew is leaving Royal Lodge for alternative accommodation. He is now being described as a private citizen. Separately, he settled a civil claim brought by Virginia Giuffre in 2022 without admitting liability.

If this were a UK parliamentary inquiry, what could MPs do? Commons and Lords select committees can “send for persons, papers and records”, but they mostly rely on people agreeing to attend. Refusal can be reported to the House as a potential contempt, and Parliament has debated legislating to strengthen enforcement, but these powers are used sparingly.

Media‑literacy tip as you follow this story: look for words like “request” or “invite”, check who signed-here it’s the Democrats on Oversight-and note any deadline. These small details tell you what pressure, if any, the committee can actually apply. In this case, the response date is set for 20 November 2025.

There is wider pressure building around disclosure. Oversight Democrats say the Justice Department has dragged its feet on releasing the full Epstein files despite a committee subpoena, and lawmakers in both parties are exploring ways to force more records into the open. Survivors’ testimony, including what’s been reported from Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, is driving that demand.

For classrooms and youth groups, this moment is a useful compare‑and‑contrast. In the US, committees investigate to inform law‑making and hold power to compel, but enforcement often needs the courts. In the UK, committees lean heavily on convention and public accountability. In both systems we weigh truth‑seeking against fair process.

Dates to watch: committee members asked Andrew to reply by Wednesday 20 November 2025. If an interview is scheduled-or refused-we’ll explain what that means for oversight and for survivors seeking accountability.