The House Oversight Committee’s deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell ended less than an hour after it began on Monday morning, when the convicted accomplice of the late Jeffrey Epstein pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

Maxwell appeared before lawmakers virtually for a closed-door interview in the House bipartisan probe into the federal government’s handling of Epstein’s case.

She is currently serving out a 20-year sentence at a Texas prison.

Both House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a member of the committee, said they expected Maxwell to plead the Fifth Amendment in the lead-up to her scheduled sit-down.

The former British socialite was found guilty in December 2021 of being an accomplice in Epstein’s scheme to sexually traffic and exploit female minors.

The DOJ said at the time of her sentencing that Maxwell ‘enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways.’

Comer announced lawmakers would hear from Maxwell late last month during a meeting on holding former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear for his Epstein probe.

‘We’ve been trying to get her in for a deposition. Our lawyers have been saying that she’s going to plead the Fifth, but we have nailed down a date, Feb. 9, where Ghislaine Maxwell will be deposed by this committee,’ Comer said at the time.

Contempt proceedings against the Clintons stalled, however, after they agreed via their attorneys to appear in person on Capitol Hill just days before the full House of Representatives was expected to vote on referring the pair to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal charges.

Comer’s team had been in a back-and-forth with Maxwell’s attorney for months trying to nail down a date for her to speak to committee lawyers.

He agreed to delay her previous planned deposition in August after her lawyer asked him to wait until after the Supreme Court decided whether it would hear her appeal. The Supreme Court turned down Maxwell’s case in October.

She and the Clintons’ depositions are part of the House Oversight Committee’s months-long probe into how the government handled Epstein’s case. 

Neither party has put a stake in the ground on the issue that will drive the next presidential election cycle. Artificial intelligence is expected to transform the global economy at a dizzying pace, radically reordering nearly every industry and bringing with it unprecedented disruptions in the labor market.

Nobody is prepared to address what could be the biggest issue of 2028. In a recent earnings call, xAI founder Elon Musk described an exciting era of abundance in which AI and robotics take over labor and Americans enjoy what he calls ‘universal high income.’ But that vision raises more questions than it answers.

Where do people go when entire industries shrink? How do we fulfill our need for meaningful work? Who decides how to distribute this ‘universal high income?’ What is the role of higher education? How much government would we need?

As America approaches its 250th anniversary this summer, we celebrate principles of individual liberty, free markets and limited government that have propelled our prosperity for more than two centuries. Are those principles compatible with Musk’s vision of a post-labor economy featuring universal income distribution? 

We have to come to terms with where this AI revolution could take us. In the world of politics, which tends to follow where the winds are blowing, what are the principles that remain timeless? Who do we trust to steer us in these uncertain waters?

Economic incentives are about to shift dramatically. Will free-market Republicans be tempted to become protectionists? Will big government progressives have to embrace deregulation and nuclear energy to protect threatened industries?

I expect every other issue to take a backseat to the looming questions that affect young and old, rich and poor. Traditional political alignments may be turned on their heads. This is too important for us to get it wrong. We can’t just respond reflexively. 

AI may offer Americans a generational opportunity to double down on the foundational principles that historically drove our prosperity. But we can expect strong headwinds pushing us toward revisiting the collectivist experiments that have consistently failed in the past.

The rules are changing. You used to be able to protect your likeness, your works. We had patents, trademarks, boundaries. But now with deepfakes, generative AI and apps that will undress anyone at the touch of a button, we need to come together to establish a better framework of boundaries.

Both parties need to come up with a vision to steer AI toward empowerment, foster independence and amplify human potential rather than erode it. Historical precedents suggest technological advances, though disruptive, ultimately create more opportunities than they destroy.

I’m hopeful that AI will create new roles we cannot yet fully imagine, perhaps allowing workers to focus on strategic and creative roles that machines can’t replicate. AI doesn’t have to be the end of work. It can be the beginning of better work.

Economic incentives are about to shift dramatically. Will free-market Republicans be tempted to become protectionists? Will big government progressives have to embrace deregulation and nuclear energy to protect threatened industries?

But in the process of getting from here to there, we face challenges that will test our resolve and the foundational principles that sustain our past success. AI threatens to create the perfect opportunity for globalists to build the central-planned economy they’ve always wanted.

America is very good at harnessing innovation to foster independence. If we approach this the right way, AI may empower us to innovate — to build a future where every American contributes on their own terms. We know that government doesn’t create jobs. Entrepreneurs do.

The key is not to resist, but to embrace AI as a tool that enhances independence — freeing us for meaningful pursuits like family, community and invention. We can build a future where every American contributes on their terms. For 250 years, these principles have stood the test of time. Instead of resisting progress we need to be directing it to more productive use.

Senate Republicans confirmed half a dozen of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees last week, continuing a quick pace to green-light as many of his picks as possible.

While the Senate GOP is moving fast to confirm Trump’s judicial nominees, the president and some of his allies want to see an over-century-old tradition in the Senate that provides bipartisan guardrails to the judicial nomination process be eviscerated.

They contend that the blue slip tradition is slowing down Republicans from being able to confirm picks, and that Democrats are holding the process hostage. 

‘Nuking the blue slip would be a huge mistake,’ Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told Fox News Digital.

Tillis, like several other Republicans, has argued that the blue slips are a valuable tool of the minority, and that inevitably, the GOP would need to use the tradition to their advantage when Democrats regain control of the upper chamber.

The Senate has confirmed 33 judges since the start of Trump’s second term, a figure that dwarfs the number of total judicial nominees, including U.S. attorneys, district and circuit court judges, moved through the upper chamber during his first go-round in the White House.

During the first year of his first term, the Senate confirmed 19 Article III nominees, including the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. 

Though Republicans are far ahead of Trump’s first time clip, Democrats under former President Joe Biden still outpaced them in this metric. Biden clocked 42 total judicial nominees confirmed during the first year of his term.

Whether the Senate can outpace Trump’s final total of 234 judicial nominees from his first term remains to be seen, but for now the blue slip appears to be safe. 

Still, Trump sounded off on the practice late last year in the Oval Office, arguing that the GOP should ‘get rid of blue slips, because, as a Republican President, I am unable to put anybody in office having to do with U.S. attorneys or having to do with judges.’

Much of his frustration with the tradition, which has been around for over 100 years in the upper chamber, likely stemmed from the nominations of Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan getting derailed by blue slips last year.

He’s taken his frustrations out on Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a vocal proponent of the practice, and other Republicans that want to maintain the tradition. 

Notably, Grassley modified the tradition in 2017 to allow for circuit court judges to skirt the process, further boosting the number of judges Republicans were able to confirm under Trump despite Democratic objections. 

When asked if the Senate’s pace in confirming judicial nominees further affirmed that the blue slip was here to stay, Grassley told Fox News Digital, ‘It doesn’t need to be a present question.’

‘Because it’s a question of 110 years, and everybody in the Senate wants to maintain the blue slip,’ Grassley said.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing one of the most serious crises of his premiership after a cascade of resignations, renewed scrutiny over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington and mounting unrest inside the ruling Labor Party ahead of a critical meeting of members of Parliament Monday evening.

On Monday, Scottish Labor leader Anas Sarwar became the most senior party figure to call for Starmer’s resignation, saying ‘the distraction needs to end and the leadership in Downing Street has to change,’ according to the Associated Press. His intervention piles fresh pressure on the prime minister.

At the center of the crisis are newly publicized materials detailing Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein, revelations that have reshaped the political stakes and triggered questions about vetting at the highest levels of government. Documents cited by Fox News Digital report Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein after his 2008 conviction, and that Epstein transferred about $75,000 in 2003 and 2004 to accounts connected to Mandelson or his husband.

Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s chief of staff and one of the most influential figures inside Downing Street, stepped down on Sunday after acknowledging his role in recommending Mandelson for the diplomatic post. In a resignation statement obtained by The Guardian, McSweeney said the decision was ‘wrong’ and he accepted responsibility, calling his departure the ‘only honorable course.’

The pressure intensified hours later when Tim Allan, the prime minister’s director of communications, also resigned, according to GB News. Allan, a veteran New Labor strategist, became the second senior aide to exit as the political fallout deepened.

Dr. John Hemmings, director of the National Security Center at the Henry Jackson Society, told Fox News Digital the prime minister is now under escalating political pressure and that ‘it’s unclear as to whether he’ll survive.’

‘Prime Minister Starmer is coming under ever-increasing political pressure to resign here in London in the wake of the scandal around Lord Mandelson — his appointed ambassador to the United States — and his connection to Jeffrey Epstein. He has lost two close aides and is under attack for his China foreign policy. The Chagos Deal is under scrutiny and his trip to Beijing was largely viewed as devoid of real results,’ Hemmings said.

Alan Mendoza, executive director of the Henry Jackson Society, added: ‘It is extraordinary to be in a situation where a prime minister who won a landslide general election victory only 20 months ago is now on the verge of being forced to resign. We are here as a result of a series of policy U-turns and bad judgment calls culminating in the Lord Mandelson debacle. His fate is now ultimately in the hands of the Parliamentary Labor Party tonight. If he feels he no longer has their confidence, then there is every chance that this will be the end of Keir Starmer.’

Starmer has sought to contain the damage, saying he regrets the appointment. In remarks reported by GB News on Monday, the prime minister said: ‘I have been absolutely clear that I regret the decision that I made to appoint Peter Mandelson. And I’ve apologized to the victims, which is the right thing to do.’ He added that scandals of this kind risk undermining public faith in politics.

The prime minister now faces a showdown with Labor lawmakers, with backbench MPs expected to challenge his leadership at a party meeting Monday evening U.K. time. A senior Labor MP told GB News the ‘clock is ticking’ and called for decisive action to ‘cleanse politics.’

Downing Street has insisted Starmer will not resign despite the double departure. A spokesperson told journalists that the prime minister is ‘getting on with the job in hand and delivering change across the country,’ and he remains ‘upbeat and confident,’ and retains Cabinet support.

The political damage, however, extends beyond staffing turmoil. Mandelson was withdrawn from the ambassador role after additional details about his relationship with Epstein emerged, and he resigned from the Labor Party earlier this month, leaving Starmer confronting what experts describe as the most acute test of his leadership since taking office.

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Carnahan and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party secured a sweeping win in Sunday’s parliamentary elections, capturing about 316 seats in the 465-member lower house and achieving a governing supermajority alongside allies. The result gives her a strong mandate to advance a conservative agenda focused on defense, immigration and economic reforms, the Associated Press reported.

A heavy metal fan and drummer, Takaichi — who has long cited former British PM Margaret Thatcher as a personal and political inspiration — expressed gratitude for President Trump’s support, thanking him for his congratulatory message following the victory and signaling continued alignment with Washington.

Trump praised her leadership in a post after the results were announced. ‘Congratulations to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and her Coalition on a LANDSLIDE Victory in today’s very important Vote,’ Trump wrote on social media, ‘Sanae’s bold and wise decision to call for an election paid off big time. Her Party now runs the Legislature, holding a HISTORIC TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY — The first time since World War II. Sanae: It was my Honor to Endorse you and your Coalition. I wish you Great Success in passing your Conservative, Peace Through Strength Agenda. The wonderful people of Japan, who voted with such enthusiasm, will always have my strong support.’

The election outcome represents one of the strongest performances for the ruling party in years and solidifies Takaichi’s position only months after taking office as Japan’s first female prime minister.

Following the results, Takaichi said she was prepared to move forward with policies aimed at making Japan ‘strong and prosperous,’ as she seeks to implement reforms and bolster national security, the Associated Press reported.

Her agenda includes boosting defense spending, revising security policies and stimulating economic growth, while maintaining a tougher posture toward regional threats such as China. Known for her hawkish stance on Beijing, Takaichi is expected to maintain Japan’s close alignment with the United States.

‘Takaichi’s landslide win shows other leaders that defiance of China can be popular with voters. Nobody has to appease or please Xi Jinping anymore,’ Asia analyst Gordon Chang told Fox News Digital.

U.S. officials also welcomed the outcome. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described aid on Fox News’ ‘Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo’ that Takaichi is a strong ally and emphasized that her leadership strengthens the strategic partnership between Washington and Tokyo.

Takaichi’s victory is widely seen as a geopolitical signal as well as a domestic political triumph. Analysts say the strengthened mandate could deepen cooperation with the United States on security and economic policy at a time of rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

The snap election, called just months into her premiership, was widely viewed as a referendum on her leadership. With the opposition fragmented, voters delivered a decisive result that now gives Takaichi political space to pursue her agenda through the remainder of the parliamentary term.

Takaichi backs strengthening Japan’s defense posture and supports constitutional revision to expand the role of the military. Economically, she has praised the stimulus-driven policies associated with former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Her public thanks to Trump underscores how central the U.S. alliance remains to Tokyo’s strategy moving forward, experts say, as she prepares to translate electoral momentum into legislative and security action at home and abroad.

Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.