Thomas Massie Accuses Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of Sex Crimes as Epstein Files Pressure Grows

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, has spent years denying allegations of sexual misconduct. No court has convicted him of a crime connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Now, a US congressman has accused him of committing sex crimes from the floor of the House of Representatives.

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie told lawmakers that Andrew “committed sex crimes in the United States.” He named Andrew among Epstein associates he believes authorities should investigate and prosecute.

Massie made the remarks while renewing pressure on the Justice Department to release millions of additional Epstein-related files. He argues that survivors still deserve answers and that powerful people should not escape scrutiny because of their status.

Andrew’s relationship with Epstein has already destroyed much of his public standing. He lost his working royal role and military affiliations. Yet years later, serious questions about the full extent of his relationship with Epstein and why no criminal case has been brought against him remain unresolved.

Andrew Was Never Some Unknown Name in the Epstein Files

Andrew is not an anonymous figure hidden behind a redaction. His relationship with Epstein has been public for years. Virginia Giuffre accused him of sexual abuse. Andrew denied her allegations and later settled her civil lawsuit without admitting liability.

So while the Justice Department may not know the identity of every person mentioned across millions of documents, nobody can seriously describe Andrew as an unknown quantity in the Epstein story.

Massie has now put that issue directly before Congress. If evidence exists that could establish criminal wrongdoing, why has nobody tested it in a criminal courtroom?

Andrew Had Protection While Travelling in Epstein’s World

Andrew also spent years travelling internationally while maintaining taxpayer-funded royal protection. Royal protection officers accompanied him during a period when he continued associating with Epstein. Even after Andrew stepped back from public duties, reports said Queen Elizabeth supported the continuation of his police security. After the taxpayer-funded arrangement ended, Charles reportedly paid for private protection.

The contrast is extraordinary. Andrew enjoyed institutional protection for years while serious allegations followed him. He has since withdrawn from public life and largely disappeared behind royal estates while survivors, journalists and campaigners continue demanding answers.

That does not prove criminal guilt. It does show how effectively privilege can insulate someone from the consequences that would overwhelm an ordinary person.

Britain Has Hardly Forced the Issue Either

Andrew has never faced criminal prosecution in the United States. Britain has not produced an equivalent legal reckoning either.

That makes him politically convenient for American lawmakers. He is foreign, disgraced and has no domestic voting bloc to defend him. Washington can condemn him without much political cost.

But that does not make the scrutiny unfair. The real danger would be using Andrew as the expendable foreign name while treating politically connected Americans more cautiously.

Massie is not alone in pressing the issue. Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna has also repeatedly pushed for greater transparency around the Epstein files and has publicly raised questions about Andrew. That bipartisan pressure matters because accountability should not become a partisan talking point or stop with the easiest foreign figure to condemn. If lawmakers are serious about exposing Epstein’s network, the same scrutiny has to apply across political parties, institutions and national borders.

The British Media Keeps Reaching for Sympathy

Then there is the British media. Andrew scandals often explode for a few days before attention drifts elsewhere. Meanwhile, outlets can devote relentless coverage to comparatively trivial stories involving Meghan Sussex and Prince Harry.

That imbalance becomes even more uncomfortable when journalists start reaching for sympathetic framing around Andrew.

Kay Burley has invoked his Falklands service while discussing him in the context of Epstein survivors. Emily Maitlis has publicly expressed concern about Andrew’s health.

The wellbeing of the survivors whose experiences sit at the centre of this story also matters. Virginia Giuffre, who accused Andrew of sexual abuse and spent years advocating for survivors of trafficking, died by suicide in April 2025. Her family described her as someone who had carried the lifelong toll of sexual abuse and trafficking.

The problem begins when military service, age, health or family consequences start functioning as substitutes for accountability. A war record does not erase an Epstein relationship. Concern for Andrew’s health does not answer allegations of sexual misconduct. Losing royal status does not amount to a criminal investigation. Victims deserve more than a rehabilitation narrative.