U.S. House Oversight Committee Seeks Testimony from Ex-Prince Andrew as Lawmakers Probe His Connection to Jeffrey Epstein After Losing Royal Titles
In a dramatic twist to one of the most scrutinized scandals of modern royal history, the U.S. House Oversight Committee has formally requested testimony from Prince Andrew — now referred to as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor — about his relationship with the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The move, announced this week by Democratic members of Congress, marks a new transatlantic chapter in the ongoing effort to understand Epstein’s extensive web of influence and the powerful figures who maintained ties with him.
According to the letter obtained by multiple outlets, the committee has asked Andrew to appear for a transcribed interview to discuss his interactions with Epstein, which reportedly began in the late 1990s and continued after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for sex crimes involving minors. The letter, while not legally binding, is nonetheless significant — representing one of the first formal attempts by a U.S. government body to involve a member of the British royal family in the American investigation.
For Andrew, the renewed attention could not have come at a more difficult time. Just days earlier, King Charles III officially stripped his brother of the “Prince” title and remaining military affiliations, a move designed to further distance the monarchy from the lingering shadows of the Epstein saga. The decision followed years of mounting public pressure and criticism, as well as widespread calls for transparency about Andrew’s long-standing ties to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted accomplice.
In their written request, members of the Oversight Committee described Andrew’s potential testimony as “critical” to understanding how Epstein’s network operated across borders and how prominent individuals may have either enabled or turned a blind eye to the financier’s activities. The letter stated, “Your documented friendship with Mr. Epstein extended through his 2008 conviction and subsequent incarceration, raising profound questions about the nature of your association and your awareness of his criminal conduct.”
The committee, led by Democratic Representative Robert Garcia, set a deadline of November 20 for Andrew to respond. While the letter does not compel him to testify, it reflects a growing sense of urgency among U.S. lawmakers to piece together the final layers of Epstein’s global connections — and to signal that no figure, royal or otherwise, should be above accountability.
The renewed focus on Andrew follows years of damaging revelations. The Duke of York’s friendship with Epstein first came to light in the early 2000s, after photos surfaced of the two together in New York and London. In 2011, British newspapers published images showing Andrew walking with Epstein in Central Park shortly after Epstein’s release from jail — a moment that would go on to haunt him for the rest of his public life. Despite later claiming that he had ended his relationship with Epstein, subsequent reports and emails appeared to suggest that the pair remained in contact.
Andrew’s downfall accelerated after a 2019 BBC Newsnight interview intended to clear his name backfired catastrophically. In the broadcast, Andrew denied having met Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexual abuse when she was a minor — a claim he has consistently rejected. However, the interview’s tone, evasive responses, and infamous “I don’t sweat” remark sparked global outrage and made him a symbol of perceived royal privilege and denial. The public backlash was so severe that within days, Andrew announced he would step back from royal duties indefinitely.
In 2022, Andrew reached an out-of-court settlement with Giuffre in her U.S. civil lawsuit against him. Though the settlement did not include an admission of guilt, it reportedly amounted to several million dollars. Andrew has since maintained that the agreement was a way to avoid prolonged legal proceedings, not an acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
Now, with the Oversight Committee’s latest letter, the episode has taken on new political and legal dimensions. Lawmakers in Washington are not seeking to retry old allegations but rather to obtain information about Epstein’s broader social and financial network — and Andrew’s proximity to it. Sources close to the committee have said that Andrew’s testimony could help identify how Epstein cultivated relationships with figures of influence, from Wall Street executives to world leaders.
Epstein’s death in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 — ruled a suicide by authorities — ended the possibility of a full criminal trial, but the shockwaves of his crimes continue to reverberate. Several U.S. agencies, including the Department of Justice, have kept active inquiries open into potential co-conspirators and undisclosed financial beneficiaries. The House Oversight Committee’s interest in Andrew signals a renewed push to uncover whether public figures helped enable Epstein’s operations, intentionally or otherwise.
In the United Kingdom, Buckingham Palace has remained largely silent since news of the U.S. request broke. A spokesperson for the royal family declined to comment, reiterating only that Andrew “is no longer undertaking any public royal duties and remains a private citizen.” Insiders close to the palace described the renewed scrutiny as “deeply unwelcome,” particularly for King Charles, who has spent much of his reign trying to restore confidence in the monarchy’s moral authority.
Legal experts have noted that the U.S. Congress cannot compel testimony from a foreign national living outside American jurisdiction without cooperation from that individual’s government. Still, the symbolic importance of the request cannot be ignored. It represents a public invitation for Andrew to tell his side of the story under oath — an opportunity that could help repair, or further damage, his already fraught reputation.
Observers have pointed out that the timing may not be coincidental. Following the release of hundreds of Epstein-related court documents earlier this year, new references to “royal connections” re-emerged in the public record, reigniting curiosity about the extent of Andrew’s ties. Lawmakers have reportedly reviewed some of those files as part of their justification for seeking direct testimony.
Across social media and among advocacy groups for Epstein’s victims, the committee’s letter was met with a mixture of hope and skepticism. Some applauded the move as a long-overdue attempt to hold powerful individuals accountable. Others doubted whether Andrew would cooperate or whether his testimony, if granted, would yield meaningful new information. “If Prince Andrew truly has nothing to hide, he should take this opportunity to tell the truth,” one victims’ advocate said. “Survivors deserve transparency.”
Meanwhile, legal analysts in both London and Washington agree that any voluntary testimony would be fraught with risk for Andrew. Although the Oversight Committee’s proceedings are not criminal, anything he says could be used by law enforcement agencies or referenced in potential future cases. That reality places Andrew in a tight bind: respond and risk deeper scrutiny, or remain silent and face continued public suspicion.
For the House Committee, however, the political stakes are just as significant. The Epstein scandal remains one of the most explosive examples of how wealth, access, and privilege can intersect with exploitation. By reaching out to Andrew, lawmakers are sending a message that their investigation will cross boundaries of class and nationality if necessary.
In the broader picture, this episode underscores how the Epstein case continues to shape conversations about power and accountability in both the United States and the United Kingdom. It has implicated politicians, financiers, academics, and now — once again — a former royal. For a public still grappling with questions about who knew what and when, the push for answers remains relentless.
As of now, Prince Andrew has not publicly responded to the House Oversight Committee’s request. If he chooses to comply, his testimony could be conducted privately in London with representatives from the committee, similar to past transatlantic interviews with foreign figures. If he refuses, lawmakers say they plan to make that decision public. Either way, the next few weeks may determine whether Andrew can finally close this dark chapter — or whether his name will remain entangled with one of the most notorious scandals of the 21st century.
