Clintons Agree to Testify Before House Oversight on Epstein Ties
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before the Republican-led House Oversight Committee as part of an ongoing investigation into their ties to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The announcement came Monday as lawmakers prepared to move ahead with a vote that could hold both in contempt of Congress for failing to appear under subpoena.
Oversight Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) has pressed for sworn depositions in the probe, which centers on what lawmakers describe as unanswered questions about the Clintons’ relationship with Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Joaquin Castro, Comer’s office, and multiple sources reveal the pair will appear for testimony on terms still being negotiated, though key details remain unresolved.
The decision to agree to testify comes after months of back-and-forth between the Clintons’ legal team and Republicans, with both sides accusing the other of improper motives. Initially, the Clintons resisted in-person testimony and countered with limited written submissions and a transcribed interview — offers Comer rejected as insufficient.
Comer’s investigation was triggered in part by the release of millions of pages of previously sealed federal documents related to Epstein’s crimes, which detailed a wide networking circle of powerful public figures spanning politics, finance and academia. Critics have argued those files raise legitimate questions about how Epstein’s associations intersected with political leaders.
In January, the committee advanced resolutions to hold both Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt for defying subpoenas issued as early as last August. The contempt threat — a rare congressional enforcement tool — could lead to criminal charges if prosecutors pursue them following a House vote.
Bill Clinton’s ties to Epstein date back decades. Flight logs and records show the former president traveled on Epstein’s private plane multiple times in the early 2000s, a fact Clinton has publicly acknowledged, saying he regretted the association and asserting he had no knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct at the time.
There is no allegation of wrongdoing against Bill or Hillary Clinton in direct connection to Epstein’s crimes. Nor has any survivor publicly accused Bill Clinton of inappropriate conduct. Nonetheless, Republican lawmakers insist testimony is necessary to answer unresolved questions about the extent and nature of their relationship with Epstein and Maxwell.
Republicans also point to prior committee work showing that high-level DOJ officials and federal law enforcement leaders have been subpoenaed for related testimony, underscoring the wide scope of the oversight effort.
House Oversight Republicans argue that no one should be above scrutiny. “There’s no special status in this country that exempts former officials from answering questions,” Chairman Comer said in recent remarks, stressing the need to get clarity for the American people. Several Democrats on the committee have offered conditional support for transparency but criticized the timing and political tone of the effort — particularly as it relates to broader partisan tensions in Congress.
Hillary Clinton had previously sought to avoid a deposition by offering a sworn declaration instead, a proposal Republicans rejected on grounds that it did not allow for cross-examination or a full assessment of her knowledge under oath.
The broader context of the investigation includes the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed into law late last year, which required the Justice Department to declassify and release files tied to Epstein’s prosecution and associations. The partial release of these files has fueled this wave of Congressional inquiries and contributed to public demand for accountability.
Critics, including some Democratic lawmakers, argue the Oversight Committee’s focus on the Clintons selectively ignores other high-profile figures revealed in the Epstein files, suggesting that political motivations may overshadow a balanced search for truth. Those objections have not deterred Republicans from moving forward with testimony demands.
If a contempt vote on the House floor passes, the matter could be referred to the Department of Justice — a step that historically results in negotiation, not prosecution. However, the unprecedented nature of holding a former president and a former major presidential nominee in contempt adds weight to the political stakes.
As negotiations continue, Comer has indicated he retains the authority to set specific terms and timelines for the Clintons’ testimony, leaving open the possibility the contempt threat will remain active even as dates for depositions are finalized.