Ghislaine Maxwell formally invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a long-anticipated deposition before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, effectively declining to answer all substantive questions related to her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the broader trafficking investigation.

The deposition followed a subpoena authorized in July 2025 by the House Subcommittee on Government Operations as part of an ongoing congressional inquiry into how Epstein and Maxwell operated, and whether institutional failures allowed their activities to continue unchecked for years.

Background of the Subpoena

According to the committee, Maxwell was subpoenaed in July 2025 and ordered to appear for a deposition as investigators sought clarity on Epstein’s network, potential co-conspirators, and the extent of Maxwell’s role in recruitment and abuse.

However, through her legal counsel, Maxwell repeatedly informed the committee that she intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, citing a pending habeas corpus petition challenging her conviction. The committee agreed to postpone the deposition multiple times in what it described as “good-faith negotiations,” ultimately rescheduling the appearance for February 2026.

Maxwell’s Legal Position

At the start of the deposition, Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Marcus, stated that she would refuse to answer questions on constitutional grounds. He argued that her conviction was the result of a “fundamentally unfair trial,” alleging juror misconduct and broken immunity promises by federal prosecutors.

Marcus further asserted that newly discovered documents support these claims and said Maxwell could provide “the full truth” if granted clemency by President Donald Trump. He controversially claimed that Maxwell could explain why both Trump and former President Bill Clinton were “innocent of any wrongdoing,” though no evidence was presented during the deposition to substantiate that assertion.

Repeated Invocation of the Fifth Amendment

Once sworn in, Maxwell answered basic procedural questions but declined to respond to every substantive inquiry. These included questions about:

• Her personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

• Whether she participated in or facilitated the recruitment, grooming, or trafficking of minors

• Whether she directed young women to provide sexual services to Epstein or others

• Whether Epstein and Maxwell sought protection through influential political or social connections

• The identities of any alleged co-conspirators

Each time, Maxwell explicitly invoked her Fifth Amendment right, prompting the committee to formally note her refusal for the record.

When asked whether she intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to every question, her counsel confirmed that this was indeed her position.

Minority Response and Survivor Statements

Members of the minority caucus also attempted questioning, including direct inquiries about Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual abuse and whether she was aware of any misconduct involving Donald Trump. Maxwell again declined to answer.

In response, minority members entered into the record letters from Epstein survivors describing their abuse and calling for transparency, accountability, and justice. Lawmakers emphasized that survivors continue to seek answers that remain inaccessible due to Maxwell’s refusal to testify.

Implications for the Investigation

While Maxwell’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment is legally permissible, it leaves Congress without new testimony from one of the central figures in the Epstein case. The deposition underscored the limitations of congressional investigations when criminal convictions and ongoing appeals intersect with oversight efforts.

Committee leaders noted that the deposition record remains confidential under House rules and that any public release of transcripts would require agreement between the committee’s chair and ranking member.

For now, the deposition ends without substantive disclosures—but with renewed pressure from lawmakers and survivors alike for accountability, transparency, and further investigation into one of the most notorious abuse scandals in modern U.S. history.