Democratic members of the US House Oversight Committee are intensifying calls for Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to give evidence about his links to Jeffrey Epstein. Speaking to the BBC in recent days, Representatives Suhas Subramanyam, Raja Krishnamoorthi and Stephen Lynch urged him to appear, noting he could testify remotely with legal counsel and, if necessary, in private. The Republican‑led panel has not committed to issuing a subpoena, but members indicate a formal invitation is likely.
Any compulsion would be limited. Congressional subpoenas generally do not reach foreign nationals outside the United States. Krishnamoorthi told BBC Newsnight that enforceability would only become practical if Andrew were on US soil. In practice, committees rely on voluntary cooperation, or service of process in the United States followed by possible contempt proceedings if a witness refuses.
Congress’s enforcement tools are criminal contempt via Department of Justice referral, civil enforcement suits in federal court, and the rarely used inherent contempt. None offers straightforward extraterritorial reach. Congressional Research Service guidance and federal case law underline that House civil enforcement is constrained and criminal contempt depends on prosecutorial discretion. Mutual legal assistance treaties are for criminal investigations, not legislative hearings, and letters rogatory or Hague Evidence procedures apply to courts, not Congress.
In UK law, the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 permits the High Court to assist foreign courts in obtaining evidence for civil or commercial cases. It does not create a route to compel evidence for a foreign legislature. Any appearance by Andrew before a US committee would therefore be voluntary or the product of political negotiation rather than judicial compulsion.
Separately, the Metropolitan Police said on 19 October 2025 that it was ‘actively’ looking into media reports that, in 2011, Andrew asked a protection officer to seek personal information about Virginia Giuffre. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has asked the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards whether the matter should be referred; the watchdog’s powers, strengthened in 2020, include the ability to ‘call in’ or initiate investigations without a referral. At the time of contact, no referral had been received.
The congressional pressure follows significant developments at home. On 30 October 2025, Buckingham Palace announced that King Charles III had removed Andrew’s remaining titles and styles. He will be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and move from Royal Lodge to private accommodation. Palace messaging emphasised sympathy for survivors; Andrew continues to deny wrongdoing.
Newly released US court material dated 31 October includes a 15 April 2010 email in which Andrew told Epstein it would be ‘good to catch up in person’ after Epstein’s release from custody. The pair were photographed together in New York that December. Andrew later told the BBC he travelled to end their friendship; the correspondence has prompted further questions about the timeline.
Survivors and advocates have repeated their appeals for cooperation. Liz Stein told the BBC that Andrew should take the initiative and assist investigators. A posthumous memoir by Virginia Giuffre, published in October, has kept allegations in the public domain; Andrew settled Giuffre’s civil claim in 2022 without admitting liability and has consistently denied the allegations.
UK ministers have also weighed in. Trade Minister Sir Chris Bryant said Andrew, now a private citizen in law and status, should cooperate with US inquiries if invited, as any ordinary member of the public would. In practical terms, any invitation could be for a private transcribed interview, a public hearing, or written answers. Attempts to compel would still face the jurisdictional limits set out above.
For policy professionals, the watchpoints are procedural. In Washington, monitor whether an invitation is issued by the House Oversight Committee and whether the Republican majority signals support. In London, track whether the Met refers the 2011 allegation to the IOPC and whether the watchdog uses its power of initiative. Across both jurisdictions, the position is clear: committees abroad depend on voluntary cooperation; police oversight turns on statutory thresholds and referrals.