JUST IN: Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify in the House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation after lawmakers moved toward holding them in criminal contempt of Congress. See more…

Clintons agree to testify after House threatens contempt in Jeffrey Epstein probe. Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify in the House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation after lawmakers moved toward holding them in criminal contempt of Congress.

The committee said in a post on X that the Clintons were “trying to dodge contempt by requesting special treatment,” adding that “The Clintons are not above the law.”

Angel Ureña, deputy chief of staff to Bill Clinton, confirmed in a post on X that both Clintons will appear before the panel.

“They negotiated in good faith. You did not,” Ureña wrote. “But the former president and former Secretary of State will be there and look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”

The committee is examining what the Clintons may have known about Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, including scrutiny of Hillary Clinton’s role overseeing U.S. efforts to combat international sex trafficking while serving as Secretary of State.

A source familiar with the situation shared with Fox News Digital the contents of an email that the Clintons’ attorneys sent to the House Oversight Committee, indicating a willingness to comply with the committee’s requests under certain conditions. According to the text of that message, the former first couple’s legal team signaled that they would agree to testify, provided the terms outlined by House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., were honored and that scheduling could be worked out on mutually acceptable dates.

The email stated, in part, “Please be advised, and please advise the Chairman, that my clients accept the terms of your letter and will appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates.” The message also referenced what the attorneys described as the committee’s usual practice, asking for confirmation that the House would not proceed with contempt actions while negotiations over testimony were ongoing. “As has been the Committee’s practice, please confirm the House will not move forward with contempt proceedings, as the Chairman stated in his letter this morning,” the text continued.

To some lawmakers, this communication represented a significant step toward cooperation. Ranking member Robert Garcia characterized the message as a clear sign that the Clintons were fully complying with what the committee had requested. In his view, the attorneys’ response removed ambiguity about whether the former president and former secretary of state were willing to engage with the investigation. Garcia emphasized that the attorneys had affirmed acceptance of “every single term” that Chairman Comer had laid out and had expressed readiness to appear and testify.

However, Chairman Comer offered a different interpretation. Speaking to Fox News Digital, he argued that while the Clintons’ counsel claimed to agree in principle, the response still lacked concrete details. Specifically, Comer noted that no actual dates for depositions had been proposed, which, from his perspective, left the agreement incomplete. He suggested that the timing of the attorneys’ apparent acceptance was influenced by the House’s movement toward contempt proceedings. According to Comer, the next step would be to clarify exactly which terms were being accepted and to consult with other committee members before deciding how to proceed.

This back-and-forth had immediate procedural consequences on Capitol Hill. The Clintons’ apparent shift toward cooperation prompted House leaders to temporarily pause efforts to hold them in contempt. On Monday night, momentum toward advancing contempt resolutions slowed as lawmakers weighed the new developments and considered whether continued escalation was necessary if testimony could be secured voluntarily.

The House Rules Committee, which typically serves as the final checkpoint before measures are brought to the full chamber for a vote, had reportedly been preparing to move the contempt resolutions forward. Yet late Monday, the committee abruptly altered course. The sudden change highlighted how fluid negotiations between congressional committees and witnesses can be, especially in high-profile investigations. At this point, it remains uncertain when—or even if—the postponed contempt effort will resume.

Democrats on the committee have also raised concerns about consistency in how contempt threats are applied. Some have pointed out that Chairman Comer has not pursued contempt against certain other individuals who failed to appear when requested. They also noted that similar pressure has not been directed at the Department of Justice over document production issues tied to the Epstein case, where lawmakers had previously set expectations for the release of materials. According to these Democrats, the DOJ has so far produced only a portion of the anticipated documents.

Taken together, the situation illustrates the complex interplay between legal negotiations, congressional oversight powers, and political strategy. Testimony agreements, scheduling disputes, and the possibility of contempt citations often become leverage points for both committees and witnesses. For now, the focus appears to be on clarifying terms and determining whether voluntary cooperation can replace more punitive measures, as both sides navigate the legal and political stakes involved.