Former US president Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, will testify in a congressional investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a member of their staff said late on Monday.
The decision could head off a planned vote in the Republican-led House of Representatives to hold the two prominent Democrats in contempt, which could lead to criminal charges.
The House Oversight Committee recommended last week that they be held in contempt for refusing to testify about their relationship with Epstein. The Clintons had offered to co-operate with the panel but had refused to appear in person, saying the investigation was a partisan exercise aimed at protecting Republican president Donald Trump.
“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,” the Clintons’ deputy chief of staff, Angel Urena, said in a post on social media.
READ MORE
House Speaker Mike Johnson welcomed the news but did not say whether the chamber would drop its planned contempt vote.
“That’s a good development," he said. “We expect everyone to comply with Congress’s subpoenas.”
Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane several times in the early 2000s after leaving office. He has expressed regret about the relationship and said he knew nothing about Epstein’s criminal activity.
Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police in London is to review allegations about former cabinet minister Peter Mandelson after receiving “a number of reports relating to alleged misconduct in a public office” arising from the Epstein scandal.
A cache of documents in the so-called Epstein files includes revelations that Mandelson passed on confidential information from the highest levels of the UK government to the convicted sex offender while he was a cabinet minister.
This included leaking plans for a €500 billion bailout of the euro to Epstein as well as a private Downing Street document discussing the government’s financial plans while he was both business secretary and de facto deputy prime minister in 2009 and 2010.
Documents released at the weekend also showed Mandelson had received $75,000 from the American financier when he was a backbench MP in 2003 and 2004.
As more revelations emerged, pressure mounted at Westminster for a police investigation into Mandelson. On Monday evening, the Metropolitan Police said it would “review” the claims arising from the release of millions of court documents relating to Epstein by the US Department of Justice.
“Following the release and subsequent media reporting, the Met has received a number of reports relating to alleged misconduct in public office,” the Met said. “The reports will all be reviewed to determine if they meet the criminal threshold for investigation.”
The Scottish National Party and Reform UK both called for police to investigate the allegations about the release of sensitive government information by Mandelson to Epstein.
Former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown, who brought Mandelson into his government in 2008 as business secretary, called for an official inquiry into the “shocking new information” about the leak of “confidential and market-sensitive information”.
Labour MP Peter Prinsley said Mandelson’s conduct “looks like political insider-trading on a grand scale” and called for a criminal investigation. Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Downing Street said it would be up to the Met to consider the revelations “in the normal way” and that it would fully co-operate with any inquiry.
Earlier, UK prime minister Keir Starmer called for Mandelson to be stripped of his title and his seat in the House of Lords. However, Starmer risks suffering serious collateral damage from the Epstein scandal engulfing Mandelson.
The prime minister tried to limit the fallout by promising to find a way to quickly remove Mandelson from parliament’s upper house, while announcing an official inquiry into the peer’s conduct “during his time as a government minister”.
However, Starmer’s opponents said he should have taken decisive action earlier, while renewed questions have been asked about the prime minister’s decision last February to appoint Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US.
Kemi Badenoch, UK Conservative leader, said: “Keir Starmer and his chief of staff (Morgan McSweeney) appointed Mandelson [as] ambassador despite his relationship with Epstein and then refused to act, even as the mountain of evidence against him grew.
“Given the prime minister’s appalling lack of judgment and the participation of his Downing Street operation, there must now be a full and thorough independent investigation.”
Starmer sacked Mandelson as his envoy to Washington in September last year but, until now, he had not called for the peer to be removed from the House of Lords or to lose his title.
On Sunday, Mandelson resigned from the Labour party, to the relief of Starmer’s allies.
Labour figures hope Mandelson, who is already on a “leave of absence” from the House of Lords, will relinquish his title of his own accord.
Chris Wormald, cabinet secretary, has been asked by both Starmer and Brown to conduct an inquiry into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a minister, including the cash payments he received and the information he passed to Epstein.
One Labour frontbencher said the revelations about Mandelson filled them with “horror”, adding: “It’s surely another nail in the coffin for Morgan [McSweeney] – because indubitably it was him pushing the appointment and then resisting sacking him.”
Paula Barker, a Labour MP, said Mandelson should have “been expelled from the party and not allowed to resign”, adding: “He should be stripped of his peerage and made to testify in the US.” – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2026. Additional reporting: Reuters
