Clintons Agree To Testify In House Epstein Probe

On Monday, February 2, 2026, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dramatically shifted course and agreed to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as part of its high-profile investigation into deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The move followed months of political gridlock and public sparring, with the House poised to vote on holding the Clintons in criminal contempt of Congress—an extraordinary step that could have marked the first time in history a former president faced such a sanction.

The Clintons’ attorneys notified the committee Monday evening that their clients would "appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates," according to several sources including The New York Times and Roll Call. In their communication, the attorneys also requested that the House not move forward with contempt proceedings, a plea that underscored the tense negotiations behind the scenes. "They negotiated in good faith. You did not. They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care," said Angel Ureña, a spokesman for Bill Clinton, in a statement posted on social media and reported by Roll Call.

The agreement came after a day of feverish activity on Capitol Hill. The House Rules Committee had convened earlier to set the stage for floor debate on contempt resolutions targeting the Clintons. Yet, as news broke of the Clintons’ offer, the committee abruptly suspended its discussion, leaving observers guessing about the next steps. Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., offered no immediate explanation for the pause, though she later suggested the committee could reconvene if "substantial compliance and agreement" were not reached overnight, according to Gray DC.

Oversight Committee Chairman James R. Comer, R-Ky., was quick to temper expectations, saying the Clintons’ counsel had agreed to terms that "lack clarity yet again and they have provided no dates for their depositions." Comer insisted, "The only reason they have said they agree to terms is because the House has moved forward with contempt." He added, "I will clarify the terms they are agreeing to and then discuss next steps with my committee members."

The high-stakes standoff has been brewing since last summer, when the House Oversight subcommittee voted to subpoena the Clintons as part of its probe into Epstein and his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The panel’s investigation was fueled in part by Bill Clinton’s documented association with Epstein during the late 1990s and early 2000s, though Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, as noted by BBC and other outlets. The Oversight committee argued the Clintons had declined deposition dates in December, citing a funeral, and then failed to propose alternative dates for January.

By January 2026, the panel advanced contempt measures, concluding that the Clintons’ "willful refusal to comply" with committee subpoenas "warrants referral to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution as prescribed by law," according to Roll Call. The threat of criminal contempt—carrying the possibility of fines or even jail time—loomed large as the House prepared for a historic vote.

Earlier on Monday, Comer had rejected an offer from the Clintons’ attorneys that would have seen Bill Clinton submit to a four-hour transcribed interview and Hillary Clinton provide a sworn declaration in lieu of appearing for a deposition. Comer insisted that both must sit for sworn depositions, stating, "The Clintons do not get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas," as reported by BBC. Comer’s letter argued that a time limit on Bill Clinton’s testimony would give the witness incentive to "run out the clock," and dismissed the idea of Hillary Clinton avoiding in-person testimony.

As the negotiations played out, partisan tensions simmered. The Republican-controlled Oversight Committee had advanced criminal contempt charges with some bipartisan support—nine Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the charges against Bill Clinton, while three Democrats backed the measure against Hillary Clinton. This rare cross-aisle alliance highlighted the pressure for transparency in the Epstein investigation, even as critics accused Comer of politicizing the process. The Clintons and their allies argued that the committee was singling them out while failing to hold the Trump administration accountable for delays in producing Justice Department case files on Epstein.

"They told under oath what they know, but you did not care. But the former president and former secretary of state will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone," the Clintons’ spokesman reiterated on social media, a sentiment echoed by several outlets including Gray DC and The New York Times.

For Bill Clinton, testifying in the Epstein investigation would be nearly unprecedented. No former president has appeared before Congress since 1983, when Gerald Ford testified about the bicentennial of the Constitution. Even when former President Trump was subpoenaed in 2022 by the select committee investigating the January 6 attack, he fought the order in court and ultimately never testified, as noted by The New York Times.

Despite the Clintons’ agreement, uncertainty lingers. Comer indicated that the contempt resolutions could still move forward if the terms are not finalized to the committee’s satisfaction. If the full House were to adopt contempt measures, the matter would be referred to the Justice Department, which would then decide whether to pursue criminal charges—a process that has become more frequent in recent years, especially during Trump’s second term, as observed by Roll Call.

The stakes are high for all sides. For the Clintons, the prospect of being held in contempt of Congress—potentially facing fines or even incarceration—would mark a historic and deeply personal blow. For congressional Republicans, the case represents an opportunity to press for answers about Epstein’s far-reaching connections and to demonstrate resolve in the face of high-profile resistance. For Democrats, the episode has exposed divisions between those demanding transparency and others wary of what they see as a politically motivated spectacle.

As the dust settles on this dramatic chapter, one thing is clear: the Clintons’ agreement to testify marks a turning point in the House’s investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, setting a precedent for how even the most powerful figures can be compelled to answer before Congress. Whether this moment leads to greater transparency or simply deeper partisan rancor, only time will tell.