Former US President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before Congress as part of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, easing a months-long standoff just days before a planned vote to hold the couple in criminal contempt.

The decision comes ahead of a looming House vote on whether to sanction the Clintons for declining to appear before the Republican-led committee. Following confirmation that both will now testify, lawmakers announced that consideration of the contempt resolutions would be postponed.

It remains unclear when the depositions will take place, but the move would mark a rare moment in congressional history. If Bill Clinton appears, he would become the first former US president to testify before a congressional panel since Gerald Ford did so in 1983.

Bill Clinton was acquainted with Epstein, who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. The former president has consistently denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has said he severed ties with him more than 20 years ago. Hillary Clinton has stated that she never met or spoke to Epstein.

The Clintons had previously resisted the committee’s demands, arguing that they had already provided sworn written statements reflecting what they described as their “limited information” about Epstein. Their legal team dismissed the committee’s subpoenas as politically motivated, calling them an attempt to embarrass political rivals.

The House Oversight Committee nevertheless voted late last month to advance contempt proceedings, with the measure receiving support from several Democrats as well as Republicans. Over the weekend, lawyers for the Clintons proposed limited testimony, centred largely on a four-hour interview with Bill Clinton, though committee chairman James Comer raised concerns that such an arrangement could restrict questioning.

On Monday evening, Bill Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Angel Ureña, confirmed on social media that both Clintons would appear before the panel.
“They negotiated in good faith,” Ureña wrote, addressing the committee. “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.”

Soon after, House Rules Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx said the contempt vote would be delayed to allow more time “to clarify with the Clintons what they are actually agreeing to”. Chairman Comer said he would review the terms and then consult with committee members on the next steps.

Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing by survivors of Epstein’s abuse, and both have firmly denied any knowledge of his criminal activities. Supporters of the move to testify say it could help bring greater transparency to the investigation and reduce political tensions surrounding the inquiry.

Opposition parties have called for a formal inquiry into Lord Mandelson’s links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after the senior Labour figure resigned from the party, saying he did not want to “cause further embarrassment” as scrutiny over his past associations intensified.

The resignation emerged just before 10:30pm, following the release of millions of documents by US authorities connected to Epstein. The publication marks the largest disclosure so far under a law that mandated the release of Epstein-related records last year, and it has reignited global attention on figures named within the files.

Lord Mandelson’s name appears among the documents, with some suggesting Epstein made payments to him between 2003 and 2004 totalling $75,000, now equivalent to about £55,000. Mandelson has firmly denied any knowledge of such transactions, stating he has no record or recollection of receiving the money and does not know whether the documents referencing him are authentic.

In a letter to Labour’s general secretary, Mandelson acknowledged the renewed controversy, writing: “I have been further linked this weekend to the understandable furore surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and I feel regretful and sorry about this.” He stressed that allegations he believes to be false require investigation, but said he felt it was right to step aside from party membership while he examined the claims.

“Allegations which I believe to be false that he made financial payments to me 20 years ago, and of which I have no record or recollection, need investigating by me,” the letter continued. “While doing this, I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to the Labour Party and I am therefore stepping down from membership of the party.”

Mandelson also used the statement to reiterate an apology to victims of abuse linked to Epstein, saying: “I want to take this opportunity to repeat my apology to the women and girls whose voices should have been heard long before now.” He added that his decision was guided by what he believed to be the best interests of the party to which he said he had dedicated his life.

This is not the first time Mandelson’s past friendship with Epstein has had serious consequences. In September, he was dismissed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer from his role as the UK’s ambassador to the United States after earlier revelations about the relationship came to light.

Opposition figures argue that Mandelson’s resignation, while significant, does not go far enough and have urged an independent inquiry to establish the full facts. They say transparency is essential to maintain public trust, particularly given Mandelson’s long-standing influence in British politics.

For Labour, the episode presents a renewed test of its commitment to accountability and openness. By stepping down, Mandelson has sought to draw a clear line between himself and the party during the investigation process, a move some within Labour see as helping to limit further political damage while allowing questions to be examined thoroughly.

Twelve miners have been killed following a Russian drone strike in eastern Ukraine, according to the country’s largest private energy company, in an attack that has drawn renewed condemnation while also highlighting the resilience of emergency services and communities under fire.

Energy firm DTEK said a bus transporting workers home after a shift in the Dnipropetrovsk region was struck on Sunday. At least seven other people were injured in the attack and are receiving medical treatment. The company described the incident as a devastating loss for the mining community and pledged continued support for the families affected.

The attack came amid a series of Russian strikes reported overnight and on Sunday, which left at least two more people dead and nine injured elsewhere. Ukrainian officials said the incidents formed part of a wider pattern of attacks on civilian infrastructure.

In the southern city of Zaporizhzhia, six people were injured when a drone hit a maternity hospital, including two women who were in labour at the time. Despite the damage, local officials said medical staff acted swiftly to protect patients and evacuate those at risk.

Posting on Telegram, Zaporizhzhia regional head Ivan Fedorov described the strike as further “proof of a war directed against life”, while praising the rapid response of emergency workers and hospital staff who ensured no fatalities were reported at the facility.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha said the hospital strike demonstrated that Russian President Vladimir Putin was pursuing a “war against civilians contrary to peace efforts”. He added that such attacks only strengthened Ukraine’s resolve to protect its people and continue seeking international support.

Later, Fedorov reported that three more people were injured in a separate strike on a residential area in the region, with emergency services again responding quickly to stabilise the situation and assist residents.