Democrats have asked the former prince for an interview over his links to Jeffrey Epstein, but it is unlikely they can force him to do so
SEATTLE — The message contained in the letter sent from members of Congress to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor could not have been clearer.
“In the interest of justice for the victims of [Jeffrey] Epstein, we request you cooperate with the committee’s investigation by sitting for a transcribed interview,” they wrote.
The letter said the former prince was the subject of “well-documented allegations” and had a “long-standing friendship” with the convicted sex offender, who took his own life in 2019. They added: “Rich and powerful men have evaded justice for far too long.”
There were no doubt countless numbers of people who cheered loudly when they heard this letter had been sent to the 65-year-old, who has been officially stripped of his status as a member of the royal family.
But no matter how well-intentioned the wishes of the Democratic members of the House of Representatives’ oversight committee, it is far from clear they by themselves will be enough to force Andrew to give an interview.
While Congress has wide-ranging subpoena powers that can force an American to provide testimony, they do not apply to a foreign citizen.
In theory, if there was a criminal investigation into Mountbatten Windsor that led to charges, authorities in the US could ask for their counterparts in the UK to arrest him and request his deportation.
But earlier this year, in a move that infuriated Trump’s supporters, who long believed Epstein maintained a “client list” containing the names of powerful politicians and celebrities, the US Department Justice announced it had found no list and recommended there be no further investigation.
There is important context to this: the former prince was one of many high-profile figures who once considered Epstein a friend or associate. Also among them was Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and Trump himself. All have denied any wrongdoing.
In 2022, Mountbatten Windsor paid a reported £12m in a civil settlement to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had accused him of sexually assaulting her on an island owned by Epstein, while accepting no blame.
He has also rejected allegations contained in her posthumous memoir, where she says she was forced on three occasions to have sex with him. She took her own life earlier this year.
Trump has similarly insisted he was not among those men for whom Epstein recruited girls and young women. He said he is suing the Wall Street Journal after it published what it said was a birthday message the now president had written for Epstein.
Both Trump and Mountbatten Windsor would love the matter to go away. Yet there is no sign it will. At least not yet.
There is a move underway in Congress to vote to release all remaining materials on Epstein.
Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, usually a supporter of Trump, has said she is prepared to read a list of alleged offenders from the floor of the House, making use of its protections against a potential lawsuit.
It is not clear how many Republicans are on her side. The House has been closed for weeks because Speaker Mike Johnson, under pressure from Trump, sent members home, in part to avoid a vote on the release of the files.
Likewise, it is noticeable the names on the letter to the former prince were from Democrats and that the move was condemned by Republicans, who in a statement to the Washington Post, accused the senior Democrat Robert Garcia of chasing “headlines”.
“His letters carry no committee authority,” the statement added.
As things stand, while we know the Metropolitan Police is investigating claims the former prince tried to use British police to obtain personal information about Giuffre, a US citizen, we do not know if US authorities are helping.
Both the Department of Justice and the FBI failed to respond to inquiries this week from The i Paper.
So might the one-time royal decide himself to agree to an interview with the members of Congress?
It is impossible to guess what is going through his mind at the point, having been publicly humiliated, stripped of his status by King Charles III and forced to accept his charity and move on to the Sandringham estate in an effort to defuse public anger.
If anyone is advising him, they will surely remind him of that notorious “car crash” interview he gave the BBC in 2019, denying he had ever met Giuffre and claiming to have been at a pizza restaurant when she said he assaulted her.
“I can absolutely, categorically, tell you it never happened,” he told journalist Emily Maitlis.
The King’s extraordinary statement last week suggested the palace is already bracing for more damaging revelations, although it is also likely the royal family does not want to deal with any more scandal from the former prince.
Your next read
Perhaps the second son of Queen Elizabeth II feels he has nothing to lose and only something to gain by answering the committee’s questions.
If he is still as full of the self-belief for which he has always been known, he might think the committee will be convinced by his answers and take them up on their request.
It would be astonishing. Then again, it would be no more shocking than the utter fall from grace he has been subjected to this week.
