House Oversight Chairman James Comer said he will move to hold former President Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress after Clinton declined to appear for a subpoenaed deposition in the committee’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation, a step that would mark a rare and potentially novel use of Congress’ contempt power against a former President in the modern era.
Comer, a Kentucky Republican who chairs the House Oversight Committee, announced Tuesday that the panel would proceed with a contempt markup next week after Clinton failed to testify behind closed doors as ordered.
The committee had also subpoenaed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a separate deposition scheduled for Wednesday and warned both Clintons they could face contempt proceedings if they did not appear.
“I think everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up,” Comer told reporters on Capitol Hill, per ABC News. He emphasized that the subpoenas were not issued unilaterally, adding, “This wasn’t something that I just issued as chairman of the committee. This was voted on by the entire committee in a unanimous vote of the House Oversight Committee to subpoena former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”
Comer later said, “We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress.”
Federal officials and former federal officials have faced contempt votes in recent years, including a contempt vote against Attorney General Merrick Garland in June 2024, which the Justice Department, then under his leadership, did not prosecute. But a contempt citation targeting a former President and a former First Lady would be unusual in the post-1975 political era, testing the boundaries of Congress’ oversight authority and the Justice Department’s willingness to pursue such referrals.
The Clintons, in a four-page public letter released Tuesday morning, sharply criticized Comer’s approach and warned of broader consequences.
“Despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment,” the letter states. “This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves.”
This is not about Right or Left, it’s about Right and Wrong. pic.twitter.com/IVQh3yHEGG
— Bill Clinton (@BillClinton) January 13, 2026
The couple argued that the committee’s focus on compelling their in-person testimony has been a distraction from examining the federal government’s handling of Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. “If the Government didn’t do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work,” they wrote, adding, “There is no evidence that you are doing so.”
Comer and other Republicans have said they want to question the Clintons about the former President’s past association with Epstein, including Clinton’s travel on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s.
A lawyer for the Clintons, David Kendall, argued in letters to the committee that the couple lacks information relevant to the investigation and should be permitted to provide sworn written statements instead of appearing in person. Kendall has said there is “simply no reasonable justification for compelling a former President and Secretary of State to appear personally,” citing past instances in which the committee excused former officials after written certifications, per ABC.
Under federal law, criminal contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor offense for willful noncompliance with a valid congressional subpoena, punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison if convicted, according to the Congressional website.
The process requires a committee vote, followed by approval by the full House, before the matter is referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. The Justice Department retains discretion over whether to prosecute, and it has frequently declined to do so in cases involving executive branch officials.
If the House advances a contempt resolution against Clinton, the case would place the Justice Department at the center of a high-stakes dispute involving congressional oversight, separation of powers, and a former President of the United States.
