Hillary Clinton Faces Congress in Jeffrey Epstein Deposition, Offers Few Surprises
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent Thursday behind closed doors answering questions from the House Oversight Committee as part of Congress’s ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network and the powerful people who moved around its edges. The deposition, held in Chappaqua, New York, was conducted under oath and recorded on video, with a transcript expected to be released later.
According to reporting from Reuters, the Associated Press, and other major outlets, Clinton’s central message was consistent and unequivocal. She said she had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, does not recall meeting him, and never traveled on his aircraft or visited his properties. She acknowledged limited interaction with Ghislaine Maxwell at public events but denied any deeper connection to Epstein’s circle. Committee leaders have stated that Clinton is not accused of wrongdoing and that the purpose of the deposition is to map Epstein’s network, finances, and access to influential figures.
Clinton characterized the inquiry as politically motivated, describing it as a partisan exercise rather than a good-faith effort to uncover new information. That line of argument was expected and familiar. Washington has run this script before, and Clinton has logged more hours under congressional questioning than most public officials. Her appearance Thursday produced little in the way of dramatic revelations, but it marked another high-profile step in a probe that continues to pull prominent names into the orbit of the Epstein case years after his death.
There was, however, a moment of procedural chaos. Reuters reported that the deposition briefly paused after an image from inside the closed session was leaked to social media, prompting objections and a reset before questioning resumed. The incident underscored the degree to which even private proceedings now unfold in a public glare.
Former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify next, and his appearance may draw greater scrutiny given previously reported travel on Epstein’s aircraft, which he has said occurred before Epstein’s criminal activity became widely known. As with Hillary Clinton’s deposition, committee officials have said the goal is to build a fuller picture of Epstein’s relationships and influence rather than to bring charges.
For now, Thursday’s session produced more positioning than disclosure. The real movement will come when transcripts and video of the hearing are released, and lawmakers decide what, if anything, they believe still warrants digging. In Washington, that process has a way of stretching on.
Pentagon Presses Anthropic to Loosen AI Safeguards
The War Department’s dispute with Anthropic, the maker of the Claude artificial intelligence model, has moved from quiet contract friction to an open confrontation. According to reporting from Reuters, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, and Axios, Pentagon leaders are pressing the company to relax restrictions that currently limit certain military uses of its AI systems, including prohibitions related to autonomous weapons targeting and domestic surveillance.
The Associated Press reports that War Secretary Pete Hegseth warned Anthropic’s chief executive that the company could face consequences, including being labeled a “supply chain risk,” losing Pentagon business, or potential action under the Defense Production Act, if it does not agree to broader terms. AP also reports a specific Friday deadline for Anthropic to respond. Reuters similarly reports a Friday deadline and describes the Pentagon as seeking to ease safeguards that constrain how the model can be used on classified networks.
Anthropic has, according to AP, been the only major AI provider withholding its technology from a new internal U.S. military network over concerns about downstream use. The company’s published policies prohibit uses such as autonomous weapons targeting and certain forms of surveillance. Pentagon officials, quoted by AP, have argued that operational decisions should not be constrained by a private company’s policy framework and that any use would comply with U.S. law.
Reuters reports that the Pentagon has contacted major defense contractors, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, to assess their reliance on Anthropic’s services. That step suggests the department is evaluating alternatives if the standoff escalates. Axios frames the dispute as both a policy fight and a market competition issue, noting that rival AI firms have already entered into defense agreements under different terms.
Bloomberg characterizes the dispute as a precedent-setting moment for how far commercial AI can go in military applications, reporting that missile defense and cyber operations have been part of the broader discussion about how the technology could be used. Anthropic has said it supports national security applications but wants to maintain guardrails it believes are necessary to prevent misuse.
Already have an account? Sign In
Two ways to continue to read this article.
Subscribe
$1.99
every 4 weeks
- Unlimited access to all articles
- Support independent journalism
- Ad-free reading experience
Subscribe Now
Recurring Monthly. Cancel Anytime.
My personal take: This is less about one model and more about control. The Pentagon is racing to integrate advanced AI into planning, logistics, cyber defense, and potentially targeting workflows. Anthropic is trying to draw boundaries around how its technology can be deployed. If the War Department succeeds in compelling broader access, it would signal that commercial AI safety frameworks can be subordinated to national security priorities. If Anthropic holds firm, it may demonstrate that at least one major AI provider is willing to risk government revenue to preserve its red lines.
Either way, the line between commercial innovation and military capability is narrowing fast, and this fight may define how future AI systems enter the battlespace.
F-35 Flies with AI Combat Identification in First-of-Its-Kind Test
Lockheed Martin recently flight-tested an artificial-intelligence–assisted Combat Identification capability on the F-35, marking a small but meaningful step toward machine-assisted decision-making in the cockpit. The demonstration, known as Project Overwatch, took place at Nellis Air Force Base and integrated an AI model directly into the jet’s information-fusion system, allowing it to generate an independent identification cue for the pilot during flight. According to Lockheed, it was the first time a tactical AI model performed that function onboard an operational fighter.
The capability is not autonomous targeting and does not replace the pilot. What it does is help resolve ambiguous contacts and electronic emissions faster. Modern air combat is dense with signals, radars, and electronic noise. The F-35 already fuses that information into a coherent picture, but interpreting it quickly under pressure is still a human task. Project Overwatch adds a machine-learning model trained to distinguish types of emissions and identify likely sources, then presents that assessment to the pilot for confirmation.
Reporting from Breaking Defense and The War Zone indicates the initial focus is on sorting out confusing or overlapping emitters, particularly those tied to air-defense systems and other threat radars. Lockheed says the goal is to reduce identification ambiguity and shorten the time between detection and decision. The human still decides what to do. The machine simply narrows the uncertainty and speeds the process. At least that’s the theory.
Another element worth noting is the update cycle. Lockheed says the model can be retrained and reprogrammed on the ground and pushed back into the aircraft for subsequent sorties, suggesting a faster loop between new threat data and operational use. That’s important in an era when adversaries adjust tactics and electronic signatures quickly. A faster learning cycle could translate directly into operational tempo.
My take: This is not a dramatic leap into autonomous warfare. It is a more incremental shift, but an important one. The F-35’s advantage has always been its ability to gather and fuse data. The next phase is software that helps pilots prioritize and interpret that data at speed. Machine-assisted combat identification reduces cognitive load and buys time, two commodities that matter when seconds separate a clean engagement from a bad call.
No one handed the jet the authority to fire. What changed is that the machine can now do more of the sorting and present a clearer picture to the human at the controls.
In modern air combat, that alone can tilt the balance.
COMMENTS