Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee as part of its investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, reversing course just as lawmakers prepared to hold them in criminal contempt of Congress.
The dramatic about-face came Monday evening after months of negotiations and repeated refusals to comply with congressional subpoenas. Angel Ureña, deputy chief of staff to Bill Clinton, confirmed the decision in a pointed statement on X: “They negotiated in good faith. You did not. They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care. But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”
Both Clintons reposted the statement on their social media accounts. The timing was not coincidental. The House Rules Committee was actively advancing contempt resolutions toward a floor vote that could have resulted in substantial fines and even incarceration for one of the most powerful political couples in American history.
Comer Says Agreement “Lacks Clarity”
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, the Kentucky Republican leading the investigation, isn’t celebrating just yet. Despite lawyers for the Clintons sending an email confirming they would “accept the terms” and “appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates,” Comer said the agreement remains incomplete.
“The Clintons’ counsel has said they agree to terms, but those terms lack clarity yet again, and they have provided no dates for their depositions,” Comer said in a statement. “The only reason they have said they agree to terms is because the House has moved forward with contempt.”
Translation: Comer believes the Clintons are trying to run out the clock rather than genuinely cooperate. It’s a familiar playbook. During the Paula Jones investigation in the 1990s, legal observers noted similar delay tactics when Bill Clinton was forced to testify.
The committee posted on X that the Clintons were “trying to dodge contempt by requesting special treatment,” adding: “The Clintons are not above the law.”
The Subpoenas and the Standoff
This confrontation has been building since August 2025, when the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to the Clintons along with several high-profile former officials. The list included former Attorneys General Merrick Garland, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Alberto Gonzales, as well as former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller.
Comer said at the time that Clinton’s testimony was “critical to understanding Epstein’s sex trafficking network and the ways he sought to curry favor and influence to shield himself from scrutiny.”
The Clintons refused to appear for scheduled depositions last month. Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson Nick Merrill had previously pushed back hard, saying: “Since this started, we’ve been asking what the hell Hillary Clinton has to do with this, and Comer hasn’t been able to come up with an answer.”
The committee’s response: Hillary Clinton’s role overseeing U.S. efforts to combat international sex trafficking while serving as Secretary of State makes her testimony relevant to understanding whether Epstein exploited government connections to avoid accountability.
Democrats Split on Contempt
What makes this situation particularly uncomfortable for Democrats is that their own members have broken ranks. When the Republican-controlled Oversight panel voted last month to advance contempt charges, nine of the committee’s 21 Democrats sided with Republicans on Bill Clinton, voting 34-8 in favor. Three Democrats also supported the measure against Hillary Clinton, which passed 28-15.
That bipartisan support reflects a broader sentiment: survivors of Epstein’s abuse and members of both parties have demanded full transparency, regardless of political implications.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries called himself a “hard no” on the contempt vote, accusing Comer of playing political games rather than conducting a serious investigation. “They don’t want a serious interview, they want a charade,” Jeffries said Monday.
Representative Robert Garcia of California, ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said the Clintons had “accepted every single term that James Comer has asked for.” But that framing doesn’t match Comer’s account of ongoing ambiguity about dates and conditions.
The Clinton-Epstein Connection
Bill Clinton’s relationship with Epstein is well-documented and has reemerged as a focal point amid the broader push for accountability. Records show Epstein visited the White House 17 times during the Clinton administration. After leaving office, Clinton flew on Epstein’s private plane several times in the early 2000s for Clinton Foundation trips.
Clinton has consistently maintained he knew nothing about Epstein’s criminal activity and cut ties with the financier before he was first charged in 2006. He has said he never visited Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Documents released by the Department of Justice in January actually include emails from 2011 and 2015 in which Epstein personally denied that Bill Clinton ever visited his island. The FBI previously investigated allegations against Clinton in connection with Epstein and determined some claims were unverified and not credible.
Hillary Clinton has said she had no meaningful interactions with Epstein, never flew on his plane, and never visited his island.
3.5 Million Pages and Counting
The Clinton testimony fight comes just days after the Justice Department released its largest tranche of Epstein files yet: over 3 million pages, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images. Combined with earlier releases, the DOJ has now published approximately 3.5 million pages in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act signed by President Trump in November 2025.
But that’s only about half of the 6 million potentially responsive pages the DOJ identified. The department withheld nearly 3 million pages, citing reasons including child sexual abuse material, victim privacy protections, legal privilege, and duplicate documents.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche pushed back on speculation that a secret list of Epstein’s associates exists somewhere in government files. “There’s this built-in assumption that somehow there’s this hidden tranche of information of men that we know about, that we’re covering up,” Blanche said. “That is not the case.”
A group of 20 Epstein victims issued a statement criticizing the release as incomplete: “The Justice Department cannot claim it is finished releasing files until every legally required document is released and every abuser and enabler is fully exposed. This is not over.”
What Happens Next
The Clintons’ agreement to testify, if finalized with specific dates, would mark a historic first. No former president has ever been forced to testify before Congress, though some have done so voluntarily. The prospect of Bill Clinton sitting for a sworn deposition about his relationship with a convicted sex offender and accused trafficker would set a significant precedent.
Comer has made clear he will insist on full depositions from both Clintons before dropping contempt proceedings. The next move is the Clintons’ lawyers to provide concrete dates.
Meanwhile, the broader Epstein investigation continues to cast a long shadow over American politics, entangling figures across party lines. The files released so far have surfaced names including Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, former UK Ambassador Peter Mandelson, and Trump’s Federal Reserve chair nominee Kevin Warsh, though mentions in documents are not evidence of wrongdoing.
The Clintons’ statement that they “look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone” carries an obvious implication: if they’re testifying about Epstein, shouldn’t everyone with documented ties face the same scrutiny?
Whether that precedent actually materializes remains to be seen. In Washington, precedents have a way of applying selectively.