Thomas Massie Accuses Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of US Sex Crimes, Urging DOJ To 'Deliver Justice'
Kentucky Republican names 14 figures tied to Jeffrey Epstein and demands the Department of Justice release millions of withheld files under bipartisan transparency legislation

Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massie has delivered an explosive intervention on the United States House floor, publicly accusing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of committing sex crimes within America.
Speaking before Congress, Massie named the former Duke of York alongside 13 prominent figures, demanding that the Department of Justice launch thorough criminal investigations into their alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
Protected by the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, the Congressman used his legislative platform to shame federal authorities into releasing more than 3 million withheld records. This high-stakes political manoeuvre coincides with a rare bipartisan campaign alongside Congressional Democrats championing the Epstein Files Transparency Act II.
While federal prosecutors have filed no formal criminal charges arising from Massie's floor statement, the fiery address dramatically intensifies the legal and political pressure surrounding the disgraced royal.
Andrew has consistently denied all allegations of sexual wrongdoing, maintaining a defensive posture as separate British police inquiries into public office misconduct continue to unfold across the Atlantic.
The Power of the House Floor
'We want perpetrators of these crimes to be investigated and prosecuted,' Massie said. He then named Andrew, saying, 'And Prince Andrew, who committed sex crimes in the United States.' Massie added: 'Perhaps hearing these names will shame the Department of Justice into delivering justice.'
His accusation carries an unusual legal dimension because it was made during Congressional proceedings. The US Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause protects legislative acts, including certain statements made by members of Congress as part of their official duties. That protection is significant, but it does not turn an allegation into established fact.
Massie's decision to name Andrew publicly therefore adds political force to the accusation while leaving any criminal determination to investigators and prosecutors.
Massie Names 14 People
Andrew was only one of 14 names Massie read out during his Thomas Massie Epstein speech. The list included former Barclays chief executive Jes Staley, billionaire Leon Black, businessman Les Wexner, and illusionist David Copperfield, among others. Massie described the people he named as Epstein co-conspirators and called for investigations.
That description must be treated as Massie's characterisation, not a finding of criminal liability. Several people named have denied wrongdoing, and being associated with Epstein does not itself establish a crime.
"He can't be forced to go over there..."@thecarolemalone says there's not much more King Charles can do to distance Prince Andrew from the Royal Family following claims from a Republican congressman that Andrew 'committed sex crimes' in the US.@Mattallwright | #JeremyVine pic.twitter.com/eVGYIpjreE
— Jeremy Vine & Daytime on 5 (@JeremyVineOn5) September 2, 2026
The Fight Over Three Million More Files
Prince Andrew's congressional accusation came as Massie renewed his campaign to release additional Epstein records.
The Justice Department released more than three million pages in January 2026, but Massie argues that millions more records should be disclosed. His latest push is tied to the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, which seeks to give victims, state attorneys general, and members of Congress a way to challenge alleged failures by the DOJ to comply with disclosure requirements.
Massie has joined Democrats, including Ro Khanna and Teresa Leger Fernández, in pushing the measure, turning the push for Epstein transparency into an unusual bipartisan fight on Capitol Hill.
Andrew's Epstein Connection
The Prince Andrew Epstein scandal centres heavily on Virginia Giuffre, who alleged that Epstein trafficked her to Andrew when she was 17 and that Andrew sexually abused her.
Andrew denied the allegations. Giuffre later brought a civil case against him in the United States, which was settled out of court in 2022. Andrew did not admit liability as part of the settlement. Epstein, meanwhile, died in a US jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.
Andrew's relationship with Epstein became a defining scandal for the British royal family, particularly after his 2019 BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis. He stepped back from royal duties that year and was stripped of his remaining royal titles and honours in 2025.
A Separate UK Investigation
Andrew's current legal position requires another important distinction. He was arrested in Britain in February 2026 on suspicion of misconduct in public office and was subsequently released under investigation. That case concerns alleged misconduct connected to his former role as a UK trade envoy and is separate from the sexual allegations raised by Giuffre and repeated by Massie.
UK police have since said their investigation could examine allegations of sexual misconduct as part of their wider inquiry. Andrew has denied wrongdoing.
Why Massie's Allegation Matters
Massie's intervention also carries a political edge. Donald Trump has previously attacked Massie, calling him a 'bum' and 'the worst Republican Congressman in history', while Massie has continued working with Democrats on Epstein transparency.
That bipartisan campaign is now pushing the DOJ from another direction. Massie is demanding more records and publicly naming people he believes deserve investigation.
For Andrew, the latest controversy is therefore more than just another reminder of his connection to Epstein. A sitting US Congressman has now accused him on the House floor of committing sex crimes in America.
The accusation itself is not a conviction or criminal charge. But Massie's broader campaign raises a consequential question: will his renewed pressure on the DOJ lead to further investigations, more disclosures, or both?
© Copyright IBTimes 2026. All rights reserved.






















