US lawmakers urge Sarah Ferguson to testify on Epstein

You’re seeing Sarah Ferguson’s name back in the news. Here’s the clear bit as of Saturday 21 March 2026: members of the US House Oversight Committee say she should give evidence under oath about what she knows of Jeffrey Epstein. Her representatives have declined to comment, according to the BBC.

Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, who sits on the committee reviewing how Epstein’s prosecution was handled, told the BBC he believes Ferguson has information that’s relevant and that she should give sworn testimony. He said lawmakers would work out terms that suit her, provided she appears under oath.

Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury echoed that anyone with information about Epstein or his associates should cooperate to help secure justice for survivors. The family of Virginia Giuffre, one of the most high‑profile accusers, also urged Ferguson to answer questions in the US, via a representative for Giuffre’s brother, Sky Roberts, quoted by the BBC.

If you’re wondering what Congress can actually do here, the civics bit matters. Committees can invite witnesses and, within US jurisdiction, issue subpoenas. But there is no simple legal tool to force a UK‑based private citizen to show up on Capitol Hill. Cross‑border enforcement is complex and unusual, so appearances from abroad are almost always voluntary.

Testifying “under oath” means promising to tell the truth, with perjury penalties if you lie. A hearing is a fact‑finding exercise, not a criminal trial, and it isn’t the same as a police interview. Keeping those differences in mind helps you separate assertive questioning from legal findings of guilt or innocence.

This push follows a large cache of US Department of Justice documents released earlier this year-described by the BBC as running to millions of files. Emails reported by the BBC show Ferguson calling Epstein “the brother I have always wished for” and saying she felt “very traumatised and alone”. They also suggest contact while he was in prison and a lunch in Miami, days after his release, that included her daughters.

Being named in files is not, by itself, proof of wrongdoing. It can show proximity, timing and judgement, but allegations still have to be tested against verifiable facts. This is where we practise media literacy: who is speaking, what documents are they relying on, and have independent authorities investigated?

Victims’ rights lawyer Gloria Allred argued that Ferguson is “not a victim in this story” and said it is long overdue for her to testify under oath to Congress and speak to UK police. Biographer Andrew Lownie called her a “material witness” who, he says, visited Epstein’s homes regularly, according to the BBC’s reporting.

A different legal take came from media lawyer Jonathan Coad, who has represented Ferguson in the past. He told the BBC there is “no chance” she will go to the US and that he would advise against it, warning it would be damaging for her, her daughters Beatrice and Eugenie, and for Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor.

Where Ferguson is now is unclear. Reports have placed her in the United Arab Emirates, Portugal, Switzerland and at a wellness retreat in Ireland, yet there have been no verified public sightings. Rumours also suggest US networks have floated six‑figure interview offers, though it’s not clear if broadcasters still see her as a viable booking.

Max Goldbart, international TV editor at Deadline, suggested an interview might be “somewhat jarring” but would likely draw audiences. Publishing chatter has also resurfaced around a possible memoir. HarperCollins, which has published two of her books, declined to comment to the BBC. A new children’s book was withdrawn from sale in November after earlier delays, the BBC reported.

The reputational fallout has had practical effects. Several charities cut ties with Ferguson last September, and LA‑based Youth Impact Council told the BBC she stepped back as an ambassador at the same time. Last month, her charity Sarah’s Trust said it would close “for the foreseeable future”, and the Charity Commission has now received a formal request to close it.

If you’re unsure how charity rules work in the UK, here’s the classroom version we use. Trustees can decide to wind up a charity and apply to remove it from the register; the Commission checks the process and ensures remaining funds are used in line with the governing document. Closure isn’t automatically a finding of misconduct-though investigations can happen alongside.

Her public status is shifting too. The BBC reports that in October she lost her duchess title when her ex‑husband relinquished the Duke of York title over his links with Epstein, and that she has moved out of Royal Lodge in Windsor. City of York councillors are set to meet on Thursday 26 March to consider removing her Freedom of the City-a symbolic civic honour separate from the peerage system.

As this unfolds, our best habits are simple. Separate documents from rumour, weigh claims against on‑the‑record sources, and remember that an invitation to testify is not a charge. Lawmakers want answers, survivors seek accountability, and due process still matters. We keep reading the documents, not just the headlines.