: The State Department has finalized a new privacy-preserving app intended to give users worldwide access to what officials describe as the same uncensored internet available to Americans, even in countries with strict online repression such as China and Iran and as Europe enacts tighter content oversight. 

The platform, Freedom.gov, will roll out ‘in the coming weeks,’ Fox News Digital has learned. 

It will operate as a one-click desktop and mobile application compatible with iOS and Android devices.

The app is open-source and includes built-in anonymity protections. 

‘In the interest of total transparency, we made Freedom.gov completely open-source. But we also made it completely anonymous,’ a State Department official said. ‘Anyone can see how it works. No one, including us, can track or identify you.’

According to the official, the application does not log IP addresses, session data, browsing activity, DNS queries or device identifiers that could be used to personally identify users.

Specific details about the app’s underlying technical structure were not disclosed.

Governments with sophisticated censorship systems historically have moved quickly to block or criminalize circumvention tools. Authorities can restrict app downloads, block domains, throttle traffic or impose penalties on users.

Whether Freedom.gov maintains accessibility in heavily restricted environments may depend on its technical architecture and its ability to adapt to countermeasures.

The initiative is being led by Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who oversees the State Department’s Digital Freedom office.

‘Freedom.gov is the latest in a long line of efforts by the State Department to protect and promote fundamental freedoms, both online and offline,’ Rogers said. ‘The project will be global in its scope, but distinctly American in its mission: commemorating our commitment to free expression as we approach our 250th birthday.’

Reuters previously reported that the State Department was developing the Freedom.gov platform.

The rollout comes amid intensifying global battles over internet governance, as governments across Europe and beyond move to assert greater control over online content.

In Europe, regulators have tightened oversight under new laws aimed at policing digital platforms. The European Union’s Digital Services Act expands government authority over major platforms and requires removal of illegal content, including hate speech and extremist material, with regulators empowered to impose steep fines for violations.

In the United Kingdom, the Online Safety Act imposes new obligations on platforms to address harmful and illegal content and includes age-verification requirements for certain services. Critics warn the measures risk incentivizing aggressive content removal and expanding government influence over lawful speech online.

Elsewhere, restrictions have been more direct. Russia recently moved to ban WhatsApp, further consolidating state control over digital communications.

China maintains the world’s most sophisticated online censorship system, widely known as the ‘Great Firewall,’ blocking foreign news outlets and social media platforms while promoting a state-controlled digital ecosystem.

Iran repeatedly has imposed sweeping internet shutdowns during periods of unrest. During protests, government blackouts have cut citizens off from global communications.

The Wall Street Journal previously reported that thousands of Starlink satellite internet terminals were covertly brought into the country following a blackout, in an effort backed by the United States to help dissidents bypass censorship. 

Iranian authorities have attempted to jam satellite signals and criminalized possession of such equipment. Satellite connectivity — which does not rely on domestic telecommunications infrastructure — has emerged as one of the few viable lifelines during shutdowns.

The Supreme Court rebuked President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, ruling that the Constitution gives Congress — not the president — authority over tariffs.

But the decision may not be the final word. From the Trade Expansion Act to the Trade Act of 1974 and even Depression-era statutes, multiple legal avenues remain that could allow Trump to reassert aggressive trade powers.

In a 6-3 decision led by George W. Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the ‘framers gave [tariff] power to Congress alone, notwithstanding the obvious foreign affairs implications of tariffs.’

George H.W. Bush-appointed Justice Clarence Thomas, Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh and George W. Bush-appointed Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

On ‘Liberation Day’ in 2025, Trump cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), drafted by former Rep. Jonathan Brewster-Bingham, D-N.Y., to declare an emergency situation in which foreign countries were ‘ripping off’ the U.S.

With that avenue now closed by Roberts, Trump could try to use the same national security rationale to invoke the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which in part allows the Commerce Department to impose tariffs on ‘article[s]… imported… in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten or impair the national security.’

Unlike the IEEPA, the JFK-era law has been tested in the courts, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has since built on his predecessor Wilbur Ross’ 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs imposed under the act, adding 407 more imports to the tariff list on the grounds that they are ‘derivative’ of the two approved metals.

During his 2025 confirmation hearing, Lutnick voiced support for a ‘country by country, macro’ approach to tariffs and agreed with the president that the U.S. is ‘treated horribly by the global trading environment.’

While tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act are not immediate and require the Commerce Department to conduct a formal investigation, the law provides a court-tested avenue for the president.

In the wake of Friday’s ruling, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and others celebrated the court’s affirmation that Trump cannot use ’emergency powers to enact taxes,’ but Congress has previously approved another avenue to impose tariffs.

Then-Rep. Albert Ullman, D-Ore., crafted a bill signed by President Gerald Ford that expressly gave presidents broader authority to impose tariffs: the Trade Act of 1974.

A federal appeals court in September ruled against thousands of companies that challenged tariffs on China imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act.

In this case, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, a Trump appointee, could seek retaliatory tariffs against countries with unfair trade barriers, according to Global Policy Watch.

An investigation, including negotiations with the targeted countries, would then ensue, and Greer could ultimately be cleared to impose trade restrictions if the probe finds that the U.S. is being denied trade agreement benefits or that such a deal is unjustifiable.

However, in most cases, imposed tariffs sunset after four years, according to reports.

In Trump’s favor, it could be argued that the same reasoning Roberts used to strike down the IEEPA authority could backfire on tariff opponents because the 1974 law explicitly gives the executive branch trade-restriction authority.

Another section of the Ford-signed law could also be used to unilaterally impose tariffs.

Section 122, the ‘Balance of Payments’ portion of the law, allows Trump to temporarily enforce tariffs or import quotas in certain situations.

A president may impose tariff duties of up to 15% for 150 days against all or certain countries if they are found to be ‘maintain[ing] unjustifiable or unreasonable restrictions on U.S. commerce,’ according to the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

‘This authority is intended to give the executive branch flexibility to respond quickly to trade practices that may harm U.S. economic interests or to correct significant balance-of-payments deficits,’ the trade group said in a June report.

However, reports show Section 122 has not been tested in court as extensively, which could lead to lawsuits and legal uncertainty.

Another potential policy option for Trump is one that drew sharp criticism when President Herbert Hoover signed it against the advice of economists early in the Great Depression.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, named for Republican Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon, imposed tariffs on tens of thousands of imports in hopes of protecting American producers facing dire economic conditions.

Hawley’s great-granddaughter, Carey Cezar of Baltimore, told NBC News in 2025 that she voted for Kamala Harris and opposed Trump’s tariffs after her ancestor’s name resurfaced in public discourse.

Other critics of Smoot-Hawley say it is a key reason the Depression was so dire and expansive.

However, the law still provides a mechanism for the Commerce Department to determine when a good is being ‘dumped’ on U.S. consumers or whether a foreign country is unfairly subsidizing an export to the U.S., and to respond with tariffs.

Additionally, while Trump has imposed tariffs largely on a country-by-country basis, Smoot-Hawley requires that levies be applied on a product-by-product basis.

A fifth avenue that is largely unreachable by Trump is the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922.

Sen. Porter McCumber, R-N.D., and Rep. Joseph Fordney, R-Mich., passed a bill allowing Republican President Warren Harding to impose much higher tariffs than were standard at the time, in hopes of protecting U.S. farmers from a sharp decline in revenue following World War I.

In one of the first contemporary rebukes of protectionism, Fordney-McCumber was criticized for permitting tariffs as high as 50% on countries, including allies, which opponents said had the unintended consequence of hurting America’s ability to service its war debts.

Fordney-McCumber was eventually superseded by Smoot-Hawley, and any remaining provisions are considered obsolete following the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, signed by President Franklin Roosevelt to undo some of Congress’ trade restrictions.

The RTAA shifted tariff authority from Congress to the president, granting authority for bilateral negotiations aimed at lowering tariffs at the time.

That dynamic, often called ‘reciprocity,’ is being used in the Trump era not to lower tariffs but to raise them.

President Donald Trump slammed the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that ruled he does not have the authority to levy sweeping tariffs under a specific emergency powers law, noting he will pursue ‘alternatives’ to tariffs under emergency law.

‘Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,’ Trump said during a White House press briefing Friday afternoon. ‘We have alternatives. Great alternatives. Could be more money. We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it. We’re taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ll continue to do so.’

The president also announced he is imposing a 10% ‘global tariff’ following the court’s decision.

‘Today I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,’ Trump said. ‘And we’re also initiating several section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.’

The high court blocked Trump’s tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in what amounts to a major test of executive branch authority. 

Trump called the ruling ‘deeply disappointing,’ saying he was ‘ashamed’ of certain members of the court.

‘I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,’ the president said. ‘In actuality, I was very modest in my ask of other countries and businesses because… I wanted to be very well-behaved.

‘I didn’t want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court, because I understand the court. I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy. I have very effectively utilized tariffs over the past year to make America great again,’ he said.

A source outside the Trump administration told Fox News that an aide came into the closed-door White House breakfast with governors earlier Friday and handed Trump a note about the Supreme Court ruling.

The source said Trump ‘called it a disgrace, and then he went on with the remarks.’

Some of the Supreme Court’s nine justices will likely be sitting in the audience when the president delivers the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

‘The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no,’ Trump said during the news conference. ‘They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation… They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.’

In the opinion, the high court declared, ‘Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate… importation,’ as granted to the President in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.’

Trump has made tariffs a key plank of his economic agenda since retaking the Oval Office last year, but his policies have not come without controversy.

Republican reaction to the ruling has been mixed.

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., slammed the high court’s decision.

‘The Supreme Court just undercut the President’s ability to defend American workers. President Donald Trump was elected to fight unfair trade and stop the United States from being ripped off. I’m outraged by this decision; it’s clearly judicial overreach,’ Carter asserted in a post on X.

But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., welcomed the ruling.

‘In defense of our Republic, the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes. This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism,’ Paul noted in a post on X.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., also hailed the decision.

‘The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common-sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months. In the future, Congress should defend its own authorities and not rely on the Supreme Court. Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics,’ Bacon wrote in a post on X.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Congress and the administration will determine the ‘best path forward’ in the coming weeks.

‘No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades,’ Johnson wrote in an X post.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Congressional Republicans are pushing back against Democratic claims that their marquee voter ID legislation would wreak havoc on elections in the country.

Congressional Democrats have panned the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act as a tool of voter suppression — saying it’s a bill that allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to monitor Americans’ voter information and create barriers for married women to vote, among several other claims.

Along with requiring photo ID to vote, the bill would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, mandate states to actively verify and remove noncitizens from voter rolls, expand information sharing with federal agencies, including DHS, to verify citizenship, and create new criminal penalties for registering noncitizens to vote.

Trump has time and again pushed voter ID, calling the election reforms in the bill a ‘CAN’T MISS FOR RE-ELECTION IN THE MIDTERMS, AND BEYOND.’ 

Some of the bill’s strongest proponents fact-checked those claims in interviews with Fox News Digital.

‘If you look at what it actually says, rather than what Democrats aggressively and, I believe, disingenuously are arguing right now — they’re overlooking the requirements of the SAVE America Act — those requirements are actually really generous,’ Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told Fox News Digital. ‘They’re really flexible.’

Here’s a closer look at some of the most common claims Democrats have made about the SAVE America Act — and how Republican supporters of the bill are responding.

Claim: ‘Federalizing voter suppression’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., routinely has bashed the SAVE America Act as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ — the segregationist laws of the Deep South largely done away with by the Civil Rights Act.

‘It has nothing to do with protecting our elections and everything to do with federalizing voter suppression,’ Schumer said earlier in February on the Senate floor.

But Republicans argued that Democrats were being ‘hypocritical’ in their voter suppression charge, particularly when it comes to voter ID.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., whose home state is one of 36 that either requests or requires a form of photo identification before voting, argued that voter ID laws across the country had no effect on turnout.

‘This idea that they’re saying that it’s going to suppress any vote — it’s never done that anywhere,’ Scott told Fox News Digital. ‘They said that when Georgia passed it, and they had record turnout. So it’s not true at all. I mean, how many people do you know who don’t have an ID?’

Claim: DHS will have access to legal voters’ data

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., argued during a press conference that this iteration of the SAVE Act — with its new name — is ‘worse’ than the version that passed the House in April because it gave DHS access to Americans’ voter data.

He appeared to be referring to a provision that would allow DHS to begin potential deportation proceedings against a noncitizen found on a state’s voter rolls.

‘This version, as I understand it, would actually give DHS the power to get voting records from states across the country,’ Jeffries said earlier in February. ‘Why would these extremists think that’s a good idea? That we as Democrats are going to accept at this moment in time? We’d want DHS and ICE, who have been brutally, viciously and violently targeting everyday Americans, to have more data about the American people? It’s outrageous.’

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who led both the SAVE Act and SAVE America Act in the House, argued Democrats were ‘really reaching’ for criticism.

‘This actually allows and empowers states to be able to — as many of them want to do — check their voter rolls against the citizenship database that they’re currently prohibited from doing under a judicial interpretation of federal law,’ Roy said.

‘So, long-winded way of saying, no — the SAVE system exists, we have citizenship data, and we’re simply going to allow the checking of voter rolls against citizenship data.’

Claim: Suppresses married women’s right to vote

Another oft-repeated argument by Democrats is that the legislation would make it harder for American women to vote — specifically married women whose last names are now different from those on their birth certificates.

That’s because the bill would require proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or a Real ID, to register to vote.

‘Republicans aren’t truly afraid of noncitizens voting, which we all know is already illegal, already grounds for deportation,’ House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., said earlier this month. ‘They’re afraid of women voting.’

Rep. Emilia Sykes, D-Ohio, said during the same press conference, ‘If your current name does not exactly fit and match the name on your birth certificate or citizenship papers, you could be blocked from registering to vote, even if you are a lifelong naturalized or American-born citizen.’

But Roy again said this was untrue.

‘This is absolute nonsense, and we specifically allow for a provision to make sure that no one can possibly be left behind,’ he said.

‘If a woman tried to register to vote with different names on her birth certificate and driver’s license,’ Roy said. ‘We literally put in the statute that all you have to do is sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that, ‘I am that person. This is my birth certificate … and this is my driver’s license that is reflecting my married name.’’

President Donald Trump has reportedly reacted to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that ruled he does not have the authority to levy sweeping tariffs under a specific emergency powers law.

A source outside the Trump administration told Fox News that an aide came into the closed-door White House breakfast with governors and handed Trump a note about the Supreme Court ruling.

The source said Trump ‘called it a disgrace, and then he went on with the remarks.’

The high court blocked Trump’s tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in what amounts to a major test of executive branch authority. 

Some of the Supreme Court’s nine justices will likely be sitting in the audience when the president delivers the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

In the opinion, the high court declared, ‘Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate… importation,’ as granted to the President in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.’

Trump has made tariffs a key plank of his economic agenda since retaking the Oval Office last year, but his policies have not come without controversy.

Republican reaction to the ruling has been mixed.

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., slammed the high court’s decision.

‘The Supreme Court just undercut the President’s ability to defend American workers. President Donald Trump was elected to fight unfair trade and stop the United States from being ripped off. I’m outraged by this decision; it’s clearly judicial overreach,’ Carter asserted in a post on X.

But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., welcomed the ruling.

‘In defense of our Republic, the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes. This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism,’ Paul noted in a post on X.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., also hailed the decision.

‘The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common-sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months. In the future, Congress should defend its own authorities and not rely on the Supreme Court. Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics,’ Bacon wrote in a post on X.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Some Republicans are quietly cheering the Supreme Court’s decision blocking most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Friday, even as it deals a blow to a cornerstone of the commander-in-chief’s foreign policy and economic strategy.

One conservative House GOP lawmaker granted anonymity to speak freely, for example, said they were ‘relieved.’

‘It’s the right result,’ they said. ‘I am already seeing messages of relief and approval from other members of the Republican conference, as well. I expect that even more will express that relief. This helps to ensure Congress keeps its power over tariffs and preserves separation of power.’

Another Trump-aligned House Republican told Fox News Digital, ‘I think the Supreme Court rightfully decided that this was an Article I authority.’

‘Conservatives don’t like tariffs as a long-term strategy,’ the second House Republican said. ‘The president was right to use them as a tool, and he was right to use them to get outcomes on certain things. But in a long-term way…it’s a tax on consumers.’

The conservative-majority high court ruled on Friday that Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The White House’s interpretation of the 1977 law was used as the basis for sweeping ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs that Trump first unveiled last year.

But Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the law would have more expressly mentioned tariff authority if that is what it was meant for.

Roberts said ‘the president must ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs,’ which ‘he cannot.’

The ruling, and subsequent wave of relief, isn’t the first time Republicans have bucked Trump and his tariffs. The Senate on several occasions has voted against specific parts of the strategy, and the House voted last week to end Trump’s emergency declaration on Canada aimed at ending tariffs there.

‘Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months,’ Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., one of six House Republicans who voted against the Canada tariffs last week, told Fox News Digital. ‘Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics.’

One House GOP aide bluntly told Fox News Digital after the ruling, ‘Tariffs suck and are useless.’  

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., one of the most vocal opponents of tariffs in the Senate, contended in a post on X shortly after the ruling that the Supreme Court ‘struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes.’

‘No future administration, including a socialist one, can use ‘emergency’ powers to get around Congress and tax by decree,’ Paul said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

But not every Republican was thrilled by the result, nor their colleagues’ attitude toward the hefty blow dealt to Trump’s agenda and the ripple effect it could have on his economic policies. One Republican source described the outpouring of relief or opposition as ’50/50.’

A GOP Senate source told Fox News Digital, ‘If this is a relief to any Republican, then they clearly don’t care about their president’s agenda.’ 

‘The administration will find a way around this, and should, but anyone who’s celebrating right now is probably missing a part of their brain,’ the source said. ‘I don’t understand how someone can see President Trump and the American people lose trillions of dollars and smile.’

Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News Digital that he was disappointed by the decision, but not surprised, and noted that the court was divided on the issue.

‘President Trump’s tariffs were delivering results — bringing our trading partners to the table, securing ten trade agreements, and driving supply chains and manufacturing back to the United States,’ Marshall said. ‘These tools were also advancing our national security interests, including pressuring countries like India to stop purchasing Russian oil.’ 

A third House Republican granted anonymity to speak candidly told Fox News Digital the Supreme Court decision was ‘a severe blow’ because the tariffs ‘were making progress that we finally have on fair trade.’

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be deposed by the House Oversight Committee in their hometown instead of in Washington, D.C. next week, Fox News Digital has learned.

The Clintons are testifying under oath for the committee’s probe into Jeffrey Epstein. Hillary Clinton’s deposition is scheduled for Feb. 26 while Bill Clinton will sit down with congressional staff and lawmakers on Feb. 27.

‘The Clintons’ depositions will be held in Chappaqua, New York on February 26 and 27 as an accommodation for their schedules. The depositions are in accordance with House and Committee rules,’ a spokeswoman for the House Oversight Committee told Fox News Digital.

The former first couple purchased their home in Chappaqua, just north of New York City, in 1999, and it has been their main residence since leaving the White House.

Their depositions will come after months of back-and-forth with committee Republicans about various terms for the closed-door meetings.

‘The Clintons’ testimony is critical to understanding Epstein and [Ghislaine Maxwell’s] sex trafficking network and the ways they sought to curry favor and influence to shield themselves from scrutiny,’ House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told Fox News Digital on Thursday evening. ‘Their testimony may also inform how Congress can strengthen laws to better combat human trafficking. Our goal for this investigation is straightforward: we seek to deliver transparency and accountability for the American people and for survivors.’

House Republicans nearly moved forward with a vote on holding them both in contempt of Congress last month after the Clintons’ lawyers ripped Comer’s subpoenas as legally invalid and a breach of separation of powers.

While some Democrats agreed with the move, the majority of them accused Comer of persecuting the Clintons on political grounds.

If the votes were successful, they would both have been referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for prosecution. A guilty verdict for contempt of Congress carries up to one year in jail and a maximum fine of $100,000.

But days before the expected vote, the Clintons’ counsel told Comer they would agree to testify.

In the days since, however, both Clintons have waged a public pressure campaign demanding they get public hearings instead of a closed-door transcribed and taped interview. 

‘I have called for the full release of the Epstein files. I have provided a sworn statement of what I know. And just this week, I’ve agreed to appear in person before the committee. But it’s still not enough for Republicans on the House Oversight Committee,’ Bill Clinton posted on X this month.

‘Now, Chairman Comer says he wants cameras, but only behind closed doors. Who benefits from this arrangement? It’s not Epstein’s victims, who deserve justice. Not the public, who deserve the truth. It serves only partisan interests. This is not fact-finding, it’s pure politics.’

Comer has said that public hearings are not out of the question, but not before depositions behind closed doors.

Bill Clinton was known to be friendly with Epstein long before the federal case against him first emerged and has appeared in documents on the late pedophile released by the DOJ. But neither he nor Hillary Clinton are implicated in any wrongdoing.

The Clintons are two of over a dozen people and entities who have been subpoenaed for information in the committee’s bipartisan Epstein probe.

It’s not unprecedented for the committee to travel for depositions, either. Committee staff and some lawmakers were in Ohio on Wednesday to depose former Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner, a former client of Epstein’s financial advisory firm who was named in documents released by the DOJ about the late pedophile thousands of times.