Starmer tells Prince Andrew to testify before US Congress on Epstein

United Kingdom Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has publicly urged Prince Andrew, Duke of York, to be prepared to testify before the United States Congress regarding his relationship with the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The call came in the wake of the United States Department of Justice releasing more than three million pages of documents as part of the largest public disclosure yet under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law in 2025.

Sir Keir Starmer made his remarks to reporters during his return from an official visit to Japan. He stated that anyone with information connected to Epstein should be ready to share it in whatever form required by investigative bodies. Stressing a victim-centered approach, the prime minister said that those affected by Epstein’s crimes must remain the first priority in ongoing proceedings and inquiries. When asked whether Prince Andrew should issue an apology, Sir Keir responded that such a decision was one for the Duke himself.

This is the first time a sitting British Prime Minister has explicitly stated that the Duke of York should be prepared to appear before United States lawmakers. While not issuing a formal directive, the statement added institutional weight to ongoing transatlantic scrutiny over Prince Andrew’s historical relationship with Epstein, especially after the latest disclosures renewed media and public attention.

What do the newly released Epstein files reveal about Prince Andrew and others?

The Department of Justice’s January 2026 release under the Epstein Files Transparency Act includes over three million documents collected over a twenty-year period of federal investigations. Among these are several photographs that appear to show Prince Andrew on all fours over a woman lying on the floor. The images were published without contextual information regarding the time, location, or the identities of individuals involved.

There is no direct legal accusation against Prince Andrew in this latest release. The Duke of York has consistently and categorically denied any criminal wrongdoing connected to Epstein. His representatives have maintained that presence in a photograph does not imply misconduct and emphasized the absence of formal charges.

The new tranche of files also includes photographs of Lord Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the United States and cabinet minister, wearing underwear while speaking to a woman in a bathrobe. A spokesperson for Lord Mandelson stated that the origins and context of the photo are unknown and that there is no indication of any connection to Epstein.

United States authorities have not made legal determinations regarding the individuals whose names or images appear in the documents. Officials have reiterated that publication does not constitute evidence of guilt or implication in criminal conduct.

Why is Congress being considered as a venue for testimony on Epstein?

While the United Kingdom cannot compel its citizens to testify before a foreign legislature, testimony before the United States Congress—whether voluntary or requested through diplomatic channels—would represent an unprecedented act of cooperation in the Epstein case. Prime Minister Starmer’s comments reflect a growing political and institutional interest in reinforcing transparency for victims and public accountability for those connected socially or financially to Epstein.

The United States Congress has previously held hearings related to the Epstein case, including the conduct of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice’s plea deal arrangements, and failures in detention oversight leading up to Epstein’s 2019 death in federal custody. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed renewed interest in the potential for hearings related to individuals who featured prominently in Epstein’s social circle.

Starmer’s suggestion may also be interpreted as an endorsement of institutional cooperation with U.S. authorities, particularly if formal inquiries are reactivated by Congressional committees. While there is no current subpoena or official request from the U.S. Congress for Prince Andrew’s appearance, legal experts say voluntary testimony would carry symbolic significance and could mitigate public criticism or media speculation.

How has Donald Trump responded to the 2026 Epstein file disclosures?

President Donald Trump addressed the latest release of Epstein-related materials for the first time while en route to Florida on Air Force One. Trump told reporters that he had been informed by “very important people” that the documents cleared him of any wrongdoing. He characterized the files as the opposite of what “the radical left” had hoped for. He did not specify which documents he was referring to and stated that he had not personally reviewed them.

Trump previously acknowledged knowing Epstein socially and had described him in 2002 as a “terrific guy” who liked women “on the younger side.” After Epstein’s death, Trump claimed that the two had not spoken in 15 years and had experienced a falling out.

The files do not directly implicate Trump in criminal activity. Nonetheless, Trump’s public declaration of exoneration suggests a preemptive effort to distance himself from the broader fallout of the document release and to control the political narrative amid a charged election cycle.

What is the legal and institutional significance of the Epstein Files Transparency Act?

The January 2026 release was carried out under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bipartisan law signed in 2025 requiring the public release of most material collected by the United States Department of Justice in investigations related to Epstein. The law was modeled after previous transparency statutes such as the JFK Records Act and the 9/11 Commission Report and aims to provide victims, researchers, and the public with access to previously withheld records.

The Act mandates rolling disclosures in coordination with redaction guidelines to protect victims’ identities and avoid compromising unrelated investigations. The release on January 30, 2026, was the largest to date. While the documents include photographs, email exchanges, calendar entries, and official memos, they were released without contextual annotations or timeline clarification. United States authorities cautioned against assuming wrongdoing based solely on an individual’s appearance in a document or image.

One of the email exchanges made public involved Epstein discussing a proposed retraction statement from Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York. In the email, Epstein told his publicist Mike Sitrick that Ferguson should reverse her prior comments distancing herself from him, and he proposed a draft defamation lawsuit if she refused. Sitrick replied that pressure on Ferguson was warranted, and a retraction would be “a major turning point.”

In 2011, Ferguson had publicly stated that she abhorred child abuse and called her association with Epstein a “gigantic error of judgment.”

What happens next for Prince Andrew, Parliament, and the broader Epstein inquiry?

While no official process has been triggered for Prince Andrew to appear before a United States legislative body, Prime Minister Starmer’s remarks have elevated the issue to the national political stage in the United Kingdom. Calls for further clarity and testimony may now extend to Parliament or domestic legal bodies, depending on developments.

Public and political attention is likely to focus on whether Prince Andrew voluntarily responds to the Prime Minister’s comments, issues a public statement, or chooses to engage with investigative bodies directly. Legal experts note that any Congressional testimony would likely need to be negotiated through diplomatic channels, particularly given the cross-border nature of the Epstein case.

As more documents are analyzed from the Department of Justice release, scrutiny of names, affiliations, and events will likely continue. Lawmakers in both the United Kingdom and the United States face growing institutional pressure to demonstrate transparency, while remaining cautious about legal overreach or misinterpretation of evidence.

What are the key takeaways for Prince Andrew, the UK government, and the Epstein investigations?

• Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has publicly stated that Prince Andrew should be prepared to testify before the United States Congress about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, adding institutional weight to mounting pressure.

• The United States Department of Justice released over three million documents under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, including images of Prince Andrew, Peter Mandelson, and email exchanges involving Sarah Ferguson.

• Donald Trump stated the files “absolve” him and reiterated he had been cleared by others, despite not reviewing the files directly.

• The files include no formal accusations against Prince Andrew, but their publication has reignited debate over legal and moral accountability for those socially associated with Epstein.

• Institutional and legislative bodies on both sides of the Atlantic are facing renewed calls to address remaining questions from the Epstein investigations through transparent and formal channels.