Have any senators been subpoenaed, interviewed, or otherwise compelled to testify in Epstein-related investigations?

1. The congressional squeeze: bills, subpoenas and public pressure

Congress has moved aggressively to obtain Epstein‑related materials. The House passed H.R. 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which would require DOJ to publish unclassified records, flight logs, and individuals named or referenced in the investigations ^[2]. The Senate acted quickly to clear the legislation so it would reach the president’s desk, with Senate leaders arranging unanimous consent to pass the House bill upon receipt ^{[3] [4]}. Reporting shows a sustained, bipartisan push to pry open files rather than immediate efforts to compel testimony from members of the Senate ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Where subpoenas landed: DOJ and the Epstein estate, not senators

The more concrete use of compulsory process documented in the materials provided is in the House Oversight Committee’s subpoenas directed at institutions tied to the investigations. Chairman James Comer issued a subpoena that led to the committee releasing records provided by the Epstein estate ^[1]. Earlier committee actions had also subpoenaed the Justice Department for records related to the sex‑trafficking probe ^[5]. Those examples demonstrate committees using subpoenas to obtain documents, but the sources do not report subpoenas naming or compelling U.S. senators themselves to testify ^{[1] [5]}.

3. Senate dynamics: bills and political maneuvering, not compelled testimony

The coverage of Senate activity centers on the political calculus of passing the transparency bill. Senate leaders debated amendments, and Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer coordinated to expedite passage; the Senate agreed to pass the House measure by unanimous consent ^{[3] [4]}. Reuters and other outlets describe White House outreach to senators seeking delays or redactions, showing political pressure on senators but not legal compulsion to testify ^[6]. Available reporting does not describe any senator being legally compelled to testify in Epstein‑related investigations (not found in current reporting).

4. What the release bill could change — and its limits

If enacted, H.R. 4405 compels DOJ to disclose a broad range of investigative materials within 30 days, including names or references to government officials — which could prompt secondary inquiries and potential interviews by committees ^{[2] [7]}. But the bill itself orders document release, not the subpoenaing or compelled testimony of sitting senators; it also allows DOJ to withhold material that would jeopardize an active investigation or victim privacy ^{[2] [7]}. Whether document disclosures lead to formal subpoenas or compelled testimony of any senator would depend on what those files contain and on subsequent committee decisions — matters not yet covered in the sources provided (not found in current reporting).

5. Two realities reporters flag: politics and transparency as competing aims

Reporting highlights competing agendas: lawmakers framed the move as victim‑centered transparency, while the White House reportedly sought to slow or shape the process to manage political fallout ^{[6] [4]}. Senate Republicans emphasized protecting victims’ identities even while agreeing to the bill; some senators and staff reportedly sought amendments or redactions before passage ^{[4] [8]}. Those dynamics suggest political incentives could shape follow‑up probes and public messaging even if legal compulsion of senators hasn’t been reported ^{[4] [6]}.

6. Bottom line and caveats

On the narrow question — “Have any senators been subpoenaed, interviewed, or otherwise compelled to testify in Epstein‑related investigations?” — the materials you provided document subpoenas of DOJ and the Epstein estate and congressional demands for document release ^{[1] [2]}, but they do not report any senator being subpoenaed, interviewed, or compelled to testify (not found in current reporting). This is a snapshot based solely on the sources given; if further reporting or released DOJ files surface, committees could pursue testimony depending on what those records reveal ^{[2] [3]}.