The House Oversight Committee is hearing from a billionaire on Wednesday who was named one of Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators by a 2019 FBI document.

Les Wexner is the latest person to be deposed in the House’s investigation into the federal government’s handling of Epstein’s case. 

Unlike most previous depositions, however, committee staff and potentially some lawmakers are traveling to Ohio on Wednesday morning to depose Wexner in his home state.

A spokesperson for Wexner declined to comment on the deposition and on whether he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right to avoid answering questions.

But if he cooperates with the committee’s questioning, Wexner’s insight is likely to be key to unlocking information on just how Epstein obtained his vast wealth before dying by suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019.

The 88-year-old businessman is the founder of L Brands, formerly called The Limited, through which he acquired well-known companies Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, Express, and Abercrombie & Fitch, among others.

He was also one of Epstein’s first major clients as a financial advisor, with Epstein being granted power of attorney over Wexner’s vast wealth.

Wexner also sold his Manhattan townhouse to Epstein, which was later discovered to be one of the locations where federal authorities accused Epstein of abusing young women and girls under 18.

But Wexner has never been criminally accused nor charged in relation to the late pedophile’s crimes.

A letter from Wexner to his Wexner Foundation charity dated Aug. 7, 2019, said he ended his relationship with Epstein sometime after the first federal investigation into his crimes emerged nearly 20 years ago.

Wexner also accused Epstein of misusing his vast wealth.

‘As the allegations against Mr. Epstein in Florida were emerging, he vehemently denied them. But by early fall 2007, it was agreed that he should step back from the management of our personal finances. In that process, we discovered that he had misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family,’ read the letter, obtained by Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

‘This was, frankly, a tremendous shock, even though it clearly pales in comparison to the unthinkable allegations against him now. With his credibility and our trust in him destroyed, we immediately severed ties with him. We were able to recover some of the funds.’

Wexner is the fourth person appearing before the House Oversight Committee in its Epstein probe.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., previously oversaw the panel through the depositions of former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr, ex-Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, who was the U.S. attorney in Florida who signed off on Epstein’s infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, and convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

Maxwell’s deposition lasted less than an hour after she invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions unless she was granted clemency by President Donald Trump.

The U.S. is preparing to expand the deployment of advanced missile systems in the northern Philippines, placing additional long-range strike capability within range of key Chinese military assets and reinforcing Washington’s effort to counter Beijing’s growing assertiveness across the Indo-Pacific.

U.S. and Philippine officials announced plans to increase deployments of ‘cutting-edge missile and unmanned systems’ to the treaty ally, as both governments condemned what they described as China’s ‘illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive activities’ in the South China Sea.

The move comes as confrontations between Chinese and Philippine vessels have intensified in disputed waters and as Beijing continues to pressure Taiwan, raising the stakes across the region’s most sensitive flashpoints.

It builds on the deployment of the U.S. Army’s Typhon missile system in northern Luzon, Philippines, a ground-based launcher capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles that can travel more than 1,000 miles.

Tomahawks can travel more than 1,000 miles — a range that, from northern Luzon, Philippines, places portions of southern China and major People’s Liberation Army (PLA) facilities within reach. The positioning also allows the U.S. and Philippine militaries to cover large swaths of the South China Sea and key maritime corridors connecting it to the broader Pacific.

The U.S. first deployed the Typhon system to Luzon, Philippines, in April 2024. An anti-ship missile launcher known as the Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System was deployed in 2025 to Batan Island in the northernmost Philippine province of Batanes.

That island faces the Bashi Channel, a strategic waterway just south of Taiwan that serves as a critical transit route for commercial shipping and military vessels moving between the South China Sea and the Western Pacific. Control of that channel would be vital in any potential Taiwan contingency.

Beijing has urged Manila to withdraw the U.S. systems from its territory, but officials under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. have rejected those demands.

‘China has consistently stated its firm opposition to the United States’ deployment of advanced weapons systems in the Philippines. The introduction of strategic and offensive weapons that heighten regional tensions, fuel geopolitical confrontation, and risk triggering an arms race is extremely dangerous. Such actions are irresponsible to the people of the Philippines, to Southeast Asian nations, and to regional security as a whole,’ Chinese embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu told Fox News Digital.  ‘The United States is not a party to disputes in the South China Sea and has no standing to intervene in maritime issues between China and the Philippines.’

‘The Taiwan question lies at the very heart of China’s core interests. China’s determination to defend its national sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity is unwavering. Any provocation that crosses red lines on Taiwan will be met with resolute countermeasures, and any attempt to obstruct China’s reunification is doomed to fail,’ Liu continued. 

Neither side detailed how many additional systems would be sent or whether the deployments would be permanent, but Philippine Ambassador to Washington Jose Manuel Romualdez said U.S. and Filipino defense officials discussed deploying upgraded missile launchers that Manila may eventually seek to purchase.

‘It’s a kind of system that’s really very sophisticated and will be deployed here in the hope that, down the road, we will be able to get our own,’ Romualdez told The Associated Press.

Romualdez stressed that the deployments are intended as a deterrent.

‘It’s purely for deterrence,’ he said. ‘Every time the Chinese show any kind of aggression, it only strengthens our resolve to have these types.’

China repeatedly has objected to the missile deployments, warning they threaten regional stability and accusing Washington of trying to contain its rise.

In a joint statement following annual bilateral talks in Manila, the U.S. and the Philippines underscored their support for freedom of navigation and unimpeded commerce in the South China Sea — a vital global trade artery through which trillions of dollars in goods pass each year.

‘Both sides condemned China’s illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive activities in the South China Sea, recognizing their adverse effects on regional peace and stability and the economies of the Indo-Pacific and beyond,’ the statement said.

China claims virtually the entire South China Sea despite an international tribunal ruling in 2016 that invalidated many of its sweeping claims. In recent years, Chinese coast guard and maritime militia vessels have clashed repeatedly with Philippine ships near disputed shoals, including Second Thomas Shoal.

The expanded missile deployments also come as the Pentagon balances rising tensions in multiple theaters. In recent weeks, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group — which had been operating in the Indo-Pacific — was redirected toward the Middle East as the U.S. moved to bolster its posture amid escalating tensions with Iran. 

The deployments also reflect a broader U.S. effort to strengthen its military posture along the so-called ‘first island chain’ — a string of territories stretching from Japan through Taiwan and the Philippines that forms a natural barrier to Chinese naval expansion into the Pacific.

Washington has deepened defense cooperation with Manila under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, expanding U.S. access to Philippine bases, including sites in northern Luzon close to Taiwan.

China in May released a national security white paper criticizing the deployment of an ‘intermediate-range missile system’ in the region — widely viewed as a reference to the U.S. Typhon launcher in the Philippines. The document accused unnamed countries of reviving a ‘Cold War mentality’ and forming military ‘small groups’ that aggravate regional tensions.

For U.S. planners, dispersing mobile, land-based missile systems across allied territory complicates Beijing’s military calculus. Instead of relying solely on ships and aircraft, the U.S. can field ground-based systems that are harder to track and capable of holding Chinese naval and air assets at risk.

For Beijing, however, such deployments reinforce its long-standing claim that the United States is encircling China militarily.

As tensions simmer in both the South China Sea and around Taiwan, the positioning of long-range U.S. missile systems on Philippine soil underscores how the strategic competition between Washington and Beijing is increasingly being defined by geography — and by which side can project credible deterrent power across it.

Senate Republicans now have enough support within their conference to pass Trump-backed voter ID legislation, but a major hurdle remains.

The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has secured the backing of 50 Senate Republicans, following a pressure campaign by the White House and a cohort of Senate conservatives over the past several weeks.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has led the charge in the upper chamber, ramping up his efforts last week as the bill moved through the House.

Lee told Fox News Digital that he was ‘ecstatic’ about the progress made in shoring up support for the legislation and hoped the Senate would move as quickly as possible to consider it. 

‘I would love to see us turn to it next week, perhaps the day after the State of the Union address,’ Lee said. ‘I think that would be good timing. But I think this needs to get done sooner rather than later.’

That multifaceted campaign — both on social media and behind closed doors in the Senate — proved successful, drawing support from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and several others.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, became the 50th senator to back the bill. That gives Republicans the internal support they need to advance the legislation procedurally, but only if they turn to the standing, or talking, filibuster.

Before leaving Washington, D.C., for a weeklong break last week, Lee and other supporters, including Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rick Scott, R-Fla., pitched the voter ID proposal and potential pathways to pass it to colleagues.

‘We had some good senators stand up and say, ‘No, we got to fight for this,’’ Johnson told Fox News Digital. ‘I’m with them. We need to fight for this.’

Still, the effort faces heavy resistance from Senate Democrats, who are nearly unified in their opposition.

The only potential outlier is Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who has pushed back against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., characterization of the bill as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ but has not said whether he would ultimately support the SAVE America Act.

Despite that possibility, Schumer and most of his caucus plan to block the legislation.

‘We will not let it pass in the Senate,’ Schumer told CNN’s Jake Tapper. ‘We are fighting it tooth and nail.’

Not every Senate Republican is onboard, either. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has announced she will vote against the measure, while Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., have not signed on as co-sponsors.

One option to bypass Democratic opposition would be nuking the filibuster and its 60-vote threshold — a move some congressional Republicans argue has effectively become a ‘zombie filibuster,’ since legislation can be blocked simply by withholding votes rather than holding the floor.

Despite previous pressure from President Donald Trump to eliminate the filibuster, the move does not have the votes among Republicans to succeed — a point Thune underscored last week.

‘There aren’t anywhere close to the votes — not even close — to nuking the filibuster,’ Thune said.

That leaves a return to the standing, or talking, filibuster — the precursor to today’s procedural hurdle. Under that approach, Senate Democrats would be required to hold the floor and publicly debate their opposition, as senators did for decades before the modern filibuster became standard practice.

The idea appears to be gaining traction among some Republicans, though critics warn it could effectively paralyze the upper chamber for days, weeks or even months, depending on Democrats’ resolve.

Lee said that many senators he’s spoken with are open to the idea, and that those who were reluctant didn’t believe it wouldn’t work. 

‘I understand why people might have questions about a procedure that we’re not familiar with,’ Lee said. ‘It doesn’t mean we don’t have to do it, because we do.’

Meanwhile, Trump has suggested he could take matters into his own hands if Congress cannot pass the SAVE America Act.

In a Truth Social post last week, Trump called the legislation a ‘CAN’T MISS FOR RE-ELECTION IN THE MIDTERMS, AND BEYOND.’

‘This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW! If we can’t get it through Congress, there are legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted,’ Trump wrote. ‘I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.’

The Senate inched closer to striking a compromise on a Homeland Security (DHS) funding deal as the partial government shutdown entered its fourth day Tuesday.

Whether Senate Democrats and the White House can reach a deal this week while lawmakers are out of town remains an open question.

Negotiations between the Trump administration and Senate Democrats were seemingly at an impasse through much of Monday after little activity over the weekend. The White House provided a counteroffer to Democrats’ list of demands midway through last week, which they summarily rejected and, in turn, blocked attempts to fund DHS.

But that changed when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., office announced that Senate Democrats had sent their counterproposal to the White House late Monday night. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was wary of whether Schumer and his caucus would actually put forth a response, but remained hopeful that negotiations would continue. 

‘We’ll see if they are at all serious about actually getting a solution to this, or whether they just want to play political games with these really important agencies,’ Thune told Fox News Digital. 

He also noted that lawmakers went through the same exercise last year when Senate Democrats slow-walked negotiations during the 43-day shutdown.  

‘It’s wrong, in my view, for Democrats to use these folks as collateral in yet another harmful government shutdown,’ Thune said.

The administration wants to keep the dialogue going, a White House official told Fox News Digital.

‘The Trump administration remains interested in having good-faith conversations with Democrats,’ the White House official said.

The official noted that Senate Democrats’ refusal to extend DHS funding is affecting several key functions under the agency’s umbrella, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Secret Service.

‘President Trump has been clear — he wants the government open,’ the official said.

The partial government shutdown, which went into effect over the weekend, stems from Schumer and Senate Democrats’ demands for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

ICE operations are unlikely to be significantly affected by the lapse in DHS funding, as legislation backed by President Donald Trump allocates billions of dollars to immigration enforcement.

Both sides remain at odds over how far those changes should go. Senate Republicans have signaled willingness to cede some ground but have drawn a red line on certain demands, such as requiring ICE agents to obtain judicial warrants or prohibiting them from wearing face coverings during enforcement actions.

Senate Democrats, however, describe their 10 demands as straightforward reforms designed to ensure federal immigration agents adhere to standards similar to those governing local and state police.

‘There’s not much we need to figure out,’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told Fox News Digital. ‘Either you think ICE agents are special, and they get to own our streets with no accountability, or that ICE agents should follow the same rules as everyone else — that’s all Democrats are asking for.’

The State Department’s allegation that China conducted a yield-producing nuclear test in 2020 is reigniting debate in Washington over whether the United States can continue its decades-long moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. 

U.S. officials warned that Beijing may be preparing tests in the ‘hundreds of tons’ range — a scale that underscores China’s accelerating nuclear modernization and complicates efforts to draw Beijing into arms control talks.

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said recently that the United States has evidence China conducted an explosive nuclear test at its Lop Nur site.

‘I can reveal that the U.S. government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons,’ DiNanno said during remarks at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament.

He added that ‘China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22 of 2020.’

DiNanno also accused Beijing of using ‘decoupling’ — detonating devices in ways that dampen seismic signals — to ‘hide its activities from the world.’

China’s foreign ministry has denied the allegations, accusing Washington of politicizing nuclear issues and reiterating that Beijing maintains a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing.

But the accusation has sharpened questions about verification, deterrence and whether the U.S. stockpile stewardship program — which relies on advanced simulations rather than live detonations — remains sufficient in an era of renewed great-power nuclear competition.

Why small nuclear tests are hard to detect

Detecting small underground nuclear tests has long been one of the thorniest problems in arms control.

Unlike the massive atmospheric detonations of the Cold War, modern nuclear tests are conducted deep underground. If a country uses so-called ‘decoupling’ techniques — detonating a device inside a large underground cavity to muffle the seismic shock — the resulting signal can be significantly reduced, making it harder to distinguish from natural seismic activity.

That vulnerability has been debated for decades in discussions over the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which China signed but never ratified. Even a relatively small underground detonation can provide valuable weapons data while remaining difficult to detect.

‘If you detonate a device inside a large underground cavity, you can significantly attenuate the seismic signature,’ said Chuck DeVore, chief national initiatives officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a former Pentagon official. ‘That makes it much harder to detect with confidence.’

Are simulations enough?

China signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996 but has not ratified it, and the treaty has never entered into force. It has maintained a voluntary testing moratorium — a commitment that a yield-producing detonation would contradict.

As China expands its nuclear arsenal and major arms control frameworks falter, the Cold War principle of ‘trust but verify’ is under growing strain.

‘The arms control community should feel thoroughly discredited at this point,’ DeVore said, arguing that policymakers should not assume Western restraint will be reciprocated by Beijing.

For decades, the U.S. has relied on the Stockpile Stewardship Program — advanced computer modeling and simulations — to ensure its weapons remain reliable without explosive testing. DeVore warned that this approach may no longer be sufficient if competitors are conducting live detonations.

‘The question presupposes that we only live in a technical world,’ he told Fox News, arguing that relying solely on simulations while rivals ‘cheat at every treaty they’ve ever signed’ risks leaving the United States behind.

DeVore also pointed to what he described as a growing institutional challenge.

‘Virtually everyone who had direct experience with live testing is now retired,’ he said. ‘Rebuilding that expertise would take years.’

But not all nuclear experts agree that resuming testing is the answer.

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, cautioned that a return to live detonations would be far more complex and costly than critics of the current system suggest.

‘Yield testing isn’t a magic switch,’ Sokolski said. ‘If you want meaningful reliability data, you don’t do one test — you do many.’

He noted that the United States conducted more than 1,000 nuclear tests during the Cold War, building a deep database that now underpins the program. Restarting that process, he argued, would likely require years of preparation and significant funding before yielding strategic benefits.

‘The debate isn’t pro-nuclear weapon versus anti-nuclear weapon,’ Sokolski said. ‘It’s about what’s technically necessary and what’s economical.’

A debate inside the weapons complex

Sokolski said the disagreement extends even within the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.

‘Certainly at one of our major labs that likes using calculations — that’s Livermore — they would say you’re home,’ he said, referring to confidence in advanced simulations and hydrodynamic modeling.

Others place greater weight on empirical validation and preserving the option of live testing.

The dispute, he said, is not ideological but technical — centered on confidence levels, cost and long-term strategic planning.

Allies and the credibility question

The implications extend beyond Washington and Beijing. 

Sokolski warned that the credibility of ‘extended deterrence’ — the U.S. commitment to defend allies under its nuclear umbrella — could come under strain if doubts grow about American resolve or capability.

‘Do they think you’re going to come to their defense?’ Sokolski said. ‘If they don’t, it doesn’t matter how reliable your weapons are, extended deterrence isn’t going to work very well.’

Allies such as Japan and South Korea long have relied on U.S. nuclear guarantees rather than pursuing independent arsenals. Any perception that the balance is shifting could complicate regional stability and long-standing nonproliferation efforts.

The policy crossroads

For now, U.S. lab directors continue to certify that the American arsenal remains safe, secure and reliable without explosive testing. But Heather Williams, director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said sustained testing by competitors — particularly absent transparency — could alter that calculus.

‘If Russia and China continue their nuclear testing activities without providing some sort of transparency, then the technical community might make a different assessment,’ she said.

The debate confronting U.S. policymakers is not simply whether to test, but under what conditions testing would meaningfully strengthen deterrence rather than accelerate competition.

Trump previously has suggested the U.S. should ensure testing ‘on an equal basis’ with competitors, though his administration has not formally announced a policy shift.

Trump in October 2025 suggested the U.S. should consider resuming nuclear weapons testing ‘on an equal basis’ with other powers, and at one point said that if others were testing, ‘I guess we have to test.’ 

The president did not clarify whether he meant full nuclear explosive detonations, which the U.S. has not conducted since 1992,  or other forms of testing such as delivery system evaluations that do not involve nuclear explosions. Any return to explosive testing would represent a significant shift in U.S. policy.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.