Democratic members of the US House Oversight Committee have asked Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to take part in a voluntary, transcribed interview as part of their inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein’s activities and associates. The request, led by Representative Robert Garcia, sets a reply date of 20 November 2025. Andrew denies any wrongdoing.
Procedurally, the letter carries no compulsion. Under the committee’s rules, subpoena authority sits with the chair, not the minority. As chairman, Representative James Comer must authorise and sign any subpoena; the ranking Democrat cannot issue one unilaterally.
There is also a jurisdictional limit. Even if a subpoena were issued, Congress cannot compel a foreign national located outside the United States to comply. State Department guidance is explicit that federal subpoenas served overseas are limited to US citizens and lawful permanent residents; for others, a US subpoena has no force in a foreign country.
US law allows federal courts to order US nationals abroad to produce evidence under 28 U.S.C. § 1783, but there is no equivalent for non‑US citizens. Congressional researchers further note that any attempt to enforce a congressional subpoena overseas would depend on foreign authorities and judicial mechanisms designed for court proceedings, not for legislative inquiries.
UK legislation assists foreign courts-not foreign legislatures. The Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 enables UK courts to obtain evidence for civil proceedings in overseas courts but does not provide a route to compel testimony for a US congressional investigation. In practice, there is no UK legal pathway to force Andrew to give evidence to Congress.
Voluntary cooperation remains possible. House rules and standing deposition regulations permit transcribed interviews or staff depositions, including by remote means, where a witness agrees. Any criminal evidence‑gathering would sit outside Congress and proceed, if at all, through mutual legal assistance between governments.
The congressional request follows formal action by Buckingham Palace. On 30 October the Palace announced that the King had initiated the removal of Andrew’s styles, titles and honours. On 3 November the Crown Office published Letters Patent in The Gazette confirming that Andrew “shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy” the HRH style and the titular dignity of “Prince”. He is formally styled Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
The Palace statement also recorded that notice had been served to surrender the Royal Lodge lease, indicating an impending move from the Windsor estate. The timing means the US letter lands as Andrew’s status and accommodation are changing under decisions recorded in official communications.
Oversight Democrats argue that Andrew may hold information relevant to understanding Epstein’s operations and network. Without committee‑authorised subpoena power and a viable enforcement route across borders, the letter functions as an invitation designed to secure voluntary cooperation and to apply public transparency pressure.
Previous US law‑enforcement efforts provide context. In 2020, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York stated publicly that Andrew had provided “zero cooperation” to prosecutors examining Epstein’s co‑conspirators, despite his earlier pledge to assist-criticism his representatives disputed at the time.