What the UK Prime Minister (Keir Starmer) Said — Full Details
- Principled Call for Evidence
- Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that people who have relevant information in cases like the Epstein scandal “should give that evidence” to investigators. (The Guardian)
- He made these comments while traveling at the G20 summit in Johannesburg. (The Standard)
- When asked specifically about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew), Starmer said:
“In the end … it will be a decision for him. But my general position is, if you have relevant information you should be prepared to share it.” (The Standard)
- He added that he doesn’t want to comment on Andrew’s particular case: “I don’t comment on his particular case.” (WSLS)
- Background: US Congressional Committee Request
- A U.S. House Oversight Committee, including Representatives Robert Garcia (California) and Suhas Subramanyam (Virginia), has formally requested a “transcribed interview” with Andrew about his long-standing friendship with Epstein. (Al Jazeera)
- The committee is investigating allegations around Epstein’s network, co-conspirators, and enablers. (Al Jazeera)
- According to Starmer, Andrew has so far ignored this request. (The Washington Post)
- Andrew’s Changed Status
- Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his royal titles in late October 2025. (Al Jazeera)
- Because of that, some in the U.S. investigation now describe him more as a private individual rather than a working royal. (The Guardian)
- UK Government Ministers’ Support
- A UK government minister (Chris Bryant) has also publicly stated that if Andrew is asked by U.S. investigators, he should go and answer their questions. (The Guardian)
- Bryant said that as a “formerly royal, now ordinary member of the public,” Andrew should comply with foreign requests for testimony if asked. (The Guardian)
Why This Matters — Analysis & Commentary
- Symbolic Pressure from Downing Street
- Starmer’s comments are significant because they reinforce a message of accountability across all levels. When a sitting UK Prime Minister publicly says a former royal should cooperate with a U.S. investigation, it sends a strong signal.
- Even though he avoided naming Andrew specifically (“I don’t comment on his particular case”), the timing and context are clearly aimed at increasing political and public pressure.
- Balancing Diplomacy and Justice
- There’s a diplomatic balancing act: Andrew is a British national, but the investigation is run by a U.S. Congress committee. Starmer’s remarks don’t force legal action, but they reinforce the legitimacy of the U.S. probe.
- By framing it as a moral principle (“anybody who’s got relevant information… should give it”), Starmer avoids overstepping into judicial realms, while still advocating for cooperation.
- Impact on Andrew’s Public Image
- Having the UK PM call for his cooperation further damages Andrew’s standing. He’s already lost his titles, and this adds another layer of reputational risk.
- If he does testify, his answers could be scrutinized heavily. If he continues to refuse, the calls for accountability may only intensify.
- Political Consequences in the U.S.
- The House Oversight Committee has said that their investigation will go on “with or without him,” signaling they might not rely solely on his cooperation. (euronews)
- For U.S. lawmakers, Starmer’s statement could be helpful: it strengthens their narrative that Andrew is not above scrutiny, even for someone once in the royal family.
- Precedent for Cross-Border Accountability
- This situation raises broader questions about how high-profile individuals can (or should) be compelled to cooperate with investigations in other countries.
- Starmer’s comments may set a political precedent: if you have relevant information, your nationality or former status doesn’t exempt you from providing it — at least in the court of public opinion.
- Good question. Here are case-studies + commentary on what UK PM Keir Starmer said about former Prince Andrew giving evidence in the Epstein investigation — and why it’s significant. (Note: based on recent news.)
Case Studies: Starmer’s Comments on Andrew & the Epstein Investigation
Case Study 1: Public Principle & Political Pressure
What happened:
- At the G20 summit in Johannesburg, Starmer was asked whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew) should cooperate with a U.S. congressional investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. (The Guardian)
- Starmer said he doesn’t want to comment on Andrew’s specific case, but laid out a broader principle: “Anybody who has got relevant information … should give that evidence to those that need it.” (The Standard)
- When pressed if that applies to Andrew, Starmer reiterated: he cannot force him, but “if you have relevant information you should be prepared to share it.” (The Independent)
Why this matters:
- By framing his call in terms of general principle, Starmer avoids a direct legal threat while still increasing moral and political pressure on Andrew.
- It signals to both UK and U.S. audiences that the UK leadership supports investigation and transparency — even for former royals.
- It reinforces the legitimacy of the U.S. congressional probe into Epstein’s network, implying that high-status individuals should be held to account.
Case Study 2: U.S. Congressional Request & Andrew’s Response
What happened:
- A U.S. House Oversight Committee (Democrats including Rep. Robert Garcia and Rep. Suhas Subramanyam) demanded a “transcribed interview” with Andrew about his long-standing relationship with Epstein. (The Independent)
- According to reports, Andrew has not responded to the request. (The Washington Post)
- Starmer’s comments came after these developments, which suggests his remarks are at least partly a response to the congressional pressure. (euronews)
Why this matters:
- The U.S. committee’s demand makes this more than just a symbolic controversy — there is a formal investigation that could uncover Andrew’s role or knowledge.
- Andrew’s silence so far increases questions about whether he has something to hide, or simply does not want to cooperate.
- Starmer’s intervention may help legitimize the U.S. committee’s request in the eyes of the British public, potentially making it harder for Andrew to ignore.
Case Study 3: Royal Accountability & Changing Status
What happened:
- Andrew was stripped of his royal titles recently (as per reports). (The Independent)
- Starmer’s comments, while framed generally, seem to reflect a shifting political environment where even former royals are being pressured for accountability. (The Guardian)
- In previous contexts, Starmer has also called for the Metropolitan Police to examine credible allegations against Andrew. (The Independent)
Why this matters:
- The removal of titles weakens Andrew’s status shield; he’s being treated increasingly like a private individual rather than royalty immune to scrutiny.
- Starmer’s approach could mark a long-term shift: the idea that privilege doesn’t exempt someone from cooperation in serious investigations.
- Politically, it reinforces the message that powerful people — including royals — must face accountability, especially in cases tied to sexual abuse and high-profile criminal networks.
Strategic & Political Commentary
- Moral Leadership & Public Messaging
- Starmer is using moral framing rather than legal coercion: “relevant information” should be handed over. This is a strong but careful way to push accountability without overstepping constitutional or diplomatic boundaries.
- This helps him appeal to voters who care about justice and transparency, especially given the notoriety of the Epstein scandal.
- Diplomatic Sensitivity
- Since the investigation is U.S.-led, Starmer must tread carefully: he doesn’t want to be seen as interfering in U.S. legislative processes, but he also wants to support the legitimacy of the probe.
- The “general principle” language gives him space: he supports investigation, but he’s not ordering Andrew to testify.
- Pressure Without Legal Risk
- Starmer is not threatening extradition or criminal prosecution. He’s applying soft power: political pressure, reputational risk, and public accountability.
- At the same time, by speaking publicly, he raises the cost of continued silence for Andrew — not legally, but in terms of public and media scrutiny.
- Implications for the Monarchy
- This moment could contribute to a broader narrative: the monarchy (or ex-royals) are no longer above the law or scrutiny.
- If Andrew gives evidence or refuses, both outcomes have implications: cooperation could partially redeem him; refusal could further damage his reputation and legitimacy.
- Effect on U.S.-UK Relations
- Starmer’s statement could be received positively by U.S. lawmakers: it aligns UK political leadership with the goals of the U.S. House Oversight Committee.
- It might also soften criticism of the UK’s handling of powerful individuals, showing that the British government supports investigation, even for royals.