Clintons Agree To Testify In House Epstein Probe

After six months of high-stakes legal wrangling and mounting political pressure, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as part of its investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The surprise turn of events, announced on February 2, 2026, could avert a dramatic House vote to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress—a move that might have led to unprecedented criminal charges against two of the most prominent figures in modern American politics.

For months, the Clintons had resisted congressional subpoenas, arguing they were without legal merit and characterizing the investigation as a partisan exercise aimed at shielding President Donald Trump, himself a longtime associate of Epstein. According to ABC News, their legal teams maintained that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton had any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, and both denied any wrongdoing. “No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein,” the article noted.

The standoff reached a boiling point last week when the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Republican James Comer, voted to advance bipartisan contempt resolutions against the Clintons for failing to comply with its subpoenas. The panel’s actions set the stage for a possible House floor vote as soon as Wednesday, raising the stakes for both the Clintons and the committee. “The Clintons are not above the law and must comply with a subpoena,” Comer insisted, according to ABC News.

In a last-minute development, the Clintons’ legal teams sent a letter on January 31, 2026, proposing a four-hour transcribed interview in New York City, open to all committee members and strictly confined to matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein. The letter, signed by attorneys Katherine Turner and Ashley Callen, called for the committee to withdraw its subpoenas and the contempt resolutions, suggesting this would allow both sides to “continue to work in good faith toward an agreement that meets the Committee’s needs while accounting for the limited information Secretary Clinton can provide.”

Angel Ureña, the Clintons’ deputy chief of staff, announced the agreement on social media, writing, “The former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.” Ureña also pushed back at Comer’s criticisms, stating, “They negotiated in good faith. You did not. They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care.”

Still, the path to testimony is not entirely smooth. Comer voiced skepticism about the Clintons’ offer, arguing that the proposed terms lacked clarity and failed to provide specific dates for the depositions. In a statement, he said, “The only reason they have said they agree to terms is because the House has moved forward with contempt. I will clarify the terms they are agreeing to and then discuss next steps with my committee members.” Comer’s concerns centered on the scope of questioning, the four-hour time limit, and the request for a transcribed interview rather than a sworn deposition. “A hard time-limit provides a witness with the incentive to attempt to run out the clock by giving unnecessarily long answers and meandering off-topic. This is a particular concern where a witness, such as President Clinton, has an established record of being a loquacious individual,” Comer stated, according to ABC News.

He further objected to the idea of a voluntary transcribed interview, noting, “The conditions requested thus would enable President Clinton to refuse to answer whatever questions he wanted for whatever reasons he wanted and leave as the Committee’s only recourse to again subpoena President Clinton’s testimony, effectively restarting this entire process from the beginning.” Comer underscored what he called “the necessity” of in-person testimony from both Clintons, dismissing the idea that they should receive “special treatment.”

Within the House, the news of the Clintons’ agreement landed with a mix of relief and confusion. During a House Rules Committee meeting, Democrats pressed Comer for clarity, with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) telling him, “I understand that the Clintons have agreed to appear for depositions and have agreed to the terms that you laid out in your most recent letter.” Ranking member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) questioned why the contempt proceedings were continuing if the Clintons had agreed to testify. Comer, apparently learning of the details in real time, replied, “No,” to whether he was aware of the agreement. “Somehow the media and the Democrats get the correspondence way before we do,” he added, according to The Hill.

The Rules Committee ultimately postponed consideration of the contempt resolutions, with Chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) stating, “There is a lot of ongoing negotiation and discussion about the Clinton contempt report.” She added that the Oversight Committee needed more time “to clarify with the Clintons what they are actually agreeing to.” She also warned that if there was not substantial compliance, the committee would resume its hearing on the contempt resolutions.

Democrats have repeatedly accused the Republican-led investigation of being a political weapon against Trump’s opponents, pointing out that Trump himself has not been called to testify despite his own well-documented relationship with Epstein. According to Al Jazeera, “Democrats say the House probe is being weaponised to attack political opponents of Trump – who has not been called to testify despite being long associated with Epstein – rather than to conduct legitimate oversight.” The same article notes that Trump spent months trying to block the release of investigative files linked to Epstein, only relenting under pressure from his MAGA base and some Republican lawmakers.

For their part, the Clintons have been forthright about their limited connections to Epstein. Bill Clinton acknowledged flying on Epstein’s plane several times in the early 2000s after leaving office, expressing regret about the relationship and insisting he knew nothing of Epstein’s criminal activity. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, stated she “never held an office with responsibility for, or involvement with, DOJ’s handling of these investigations or prosecutions,” and that she never flew on Epstein’s plane nor visited his private island.

The Epstein affair continues to cast a long shadow, ensnaring not just American political figures but also prominent individuals in the United Kingdom, such as disgraced former-prince Andrew and ex-UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson, whose name surfaced repeatedly in Justice Department files on Epstein. According to Al Jazeera, UK police are now reviewing reports of alleged misconduct involving Mandelson, who has apologized to Epstein’s victims and denied wrongdoing.

As the House Oversight Committee and the Clintons finalize the terms of their testimony, the episode stands as a vivid illustration of the tangled intersection of law, politics, and public accountability in the United States. With both sides claiming to act in good faith and transparency, the outcome of this confrontation may set a precedent for how Congress compels testimony from high-profile witnesses in the future—and how political investigations are conducted in a sharply divided Washington.

Whatever happens next, the American public is left watching as two of the country’s most famous political figures prepare to take the witness chair in a saga that has already gripped the nation for years.