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.

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.

Arguing that noncitizens could be on state voter rolls — something that is illegal under federal law — the Trump administration is escalating its campaign to obtain registration data ahead of the 2026 midterms, despite a string of federal court setbacks.

The strategy has unfolded on three fronts: cooperation from Republican-led states willing to share voter data, lawsuits against roughly two dozen blue and purple states that have refused, and a legislative push in Congress to tighten national voting requirements. Federal judges have so far rebuffed the administration’s legal demands, but the Justice Department is widening its campaign as Election Day draws near. 

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative group Advancing American Freedom, said voter rolls are a central focus ahead of the midterms because of the Trump administration’s concerns that noncitizens are on them and could end up voting. It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.

‘The problem is, blue states, like Oregon, they have no interest in that kind of verification, so they’re not actually doing what they ought to be doing, which is running data-based comparisons with the [Department of Homeland Security],’ von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital.

The DOJ has made sweeping demands for not just publicly available voter roll data, but also sensitive information, such as voters’ partial Social Security numbers and dates of birth.

The latest state to successfully fight the DOJ’s request is Michigan, where Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said the federal government was not entitled to its 7 million voters’ personal information beyond what was already available.

The DOJ cited three federal laws, the Civil Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, that it said gave the Trump administration the right to the confidential information. Judge Hala Jarbou disagreed.

‘The Court concludes that (1) HAVA does not require the disclosure of any records, (2) the NVRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not records concerning the implementation of list maintenance procedures, and (3) the CRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not documents that come into the possession of election officials,’ Jarbou, a Trump appointee wrote.

Federal judges in Oregon and California have also thrown out the DOJ’s lawsuits. The DOJ could appeal the decisions. A department spokesperson declined to comment for this story.

But the DOJ has seen cooperation from red states, such as Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, who were among several to reach a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ that led the states to hand over the information the department wanted.

In another maneuver, Attorney General Pam Bondi pressured Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, to provide the Midwest battleground’s voter rolls, saying in a warning letter that such action would help ease unrest in the state that stemmed from a federal immigration crackdown there. 

Democrats were enraged by the letter and have argued the Trump administration is infringing on states’ rights to conduct their own elections.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Ct., argued the letter was a ‘pretext for Trump to take over elections in swing states,’ while a state lawyer described the letter as a ‘ransom note.’ The DOJ, at the time, told Fox News Digital Democrats were ‘shamelessly lying’ about the letter’s purpose. Bondi said that handing over the voter rolls was among several ‘simple steps’ Minnesota could take to ‘bring back law and order.’ A lawsuit is still pending in Minnesota over the voter rolls.

In Congress, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act would make it a national requirement that people registering to vote provide in-person proof of citizenship, such as birth certificates or passports. The legislation also includes a new national requirement for photo ID at the polls.

The bill has widespread Republican support. The House passed the SAVE Act last week, and even moderate Republican senators like Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., have said they are on board with it. The bill is still stalled in the Senate, however, because it needs 60 votes to pass, meaning several Democrats would need to support it. Currently, none do. 

Von Spakovsky noted that the SAVE Act had a key provision that would allow private citizens to bring lawsuits over it.

‘There’s no question in my mind that if the Save Act gets passed, there are election officials in blue states that will be reluctant to or may refuse to enforce the proof of citizenship requirement,’ von Spakovsky said. ‘The Save Act provides a private right of action, so that means that citizens in Oregon could sue those election officials if they’re refusing to comply with the Save Act.’

He said the private right of action provision would also provide recourse for citizens if Democrats take over the DOJ in the next administration and refuse to enforce the SAVE Act.

Trump has repeatedly argued that noncitizen voting poses a threat to election integrity and has pressed Republican lawmakers to tighten federal requirements. Last week, he floated attempting to impose identification requirements through executive order if Congress does not act.

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

A much broader bill called the Make Elections Great Again Act is still moving through the House and faces a steeper uphill climb to passage.

In addition to national documented proof of citizenship requirement, the MEGA Act would end universal mail voting, eliminate ranked-choice voting and ban ballots postmarked by Election Day from being accepted after that day, which would outlaw postmark rules in 14 states and Washington, D.C.

Vice President JD Vance, former Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama were among the prominent political figures who issued statements following the death of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. The civil rights leader and two-time Democratic presidential primary candidate was 84.

Vance indicated that one of his family members voted for Jackson in the 1988 Democratic presidential primary and for Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.

‘I have a close family member who voted in two presidential primaries in her entire life. Donald Trump in 2016 and Jesse Jackson in 1988,’ Vance wrote in a post on X. ‘RIP Jesse Jackson.’

Former Vice President Kamala Harris recalled getting positive reactions from others when she had a ‘Jesse Jackson for President’ bumper sticker on her car when she was a law student.

‘As a young law student, I would drive back and forth from Oakland, where I lived, to San Francisco, where I went to school. I had a bumper sticker in the back window of my car that read: ‘Jesse Jackson for President.’ As I would drive across the Bay Bridge, you would not believe how people from every walk of life would give me a thumbs up or honk of support. They were small interactions, but they exemplified Reverend Jackson’s life work — lifting up the dignity of working people, building community and coalitions, and strengthening our democracy and nation,’ she noted in a post on X.

‘I was proud to partner with and learn from him on this work throughout my career, and I am so grateful for the time we spent together this January. Reverend Jackson was a selfless leader, mentor, and friend to me and so many others,’ she wrote.

Former President Barack Obama noted in a statement that he and former first lady Michelle Obama ‘were deeply saddened to hear about the passing of a true giant, the Reverend Jesse Jackson.’

‘Michelle got her first glimpse of political organizing at the Jacksons’ kitchen table when she was a teenager. And in his two historic runs for president, he laid the foundation for my own campaign to the highest office of the land,’ Obama noted. ‘Michelle and I will always be grateful for Jesse’s lifetime of service, and the friendship our families share.’

The Vatican will not join President Donald Trump’s newly formed Board of Peace, its top diplomatic official said Tuesday, signaling reluctance from the Holy See to take part in the post-war initiative.

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said the Holy See ‘will not participate in the Board of Peace because of its particular nature, which is evidently not that of other States,’ the Vatican’s official news outlet reported.

The Board of Peace, which was chartered in January and includes nearly 20 countries, is tasked with managing recovery efforts in the Gaza Strip after the Israel-Hamas war.

While responding to questions about Italy declining to join the board, Parolin said ‘there are points that leave us somewhat perplexed,’ adding that ‘there are some critical points that would need to find explanations.’

‘The important thing is that an attempt is being made to provide a response,’ he said. ‘However, for us there are certain critical issues that should be resolved.’

Parolin continued, ‘One concern is that, at the international level it should above all be the UN that manages these crisis situations. This is one of the points on which we have insisted.’

Pope Leo, the first U.S. pope, received an invitation to join the peace board in January.

Leaders from 17 countries participated in the initial charter signing ceremony in Davos, Switzerland, in late January, including presidents and other senior government officials from Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Central and Southeast Asia.

Israel formally joined the board last week ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump at the White House.

Several other countries were also invited by the White House, including Russia, Belarus, France, Germany, Vietnam, Finland, Ukraine, Ireland, Greece and China.

Poland and Italy on Wednesday said they would not join.

Trump announced Sunday that board members have pledged more than $5 billion in aid for Gaza.

The president said the funding would be formally pledged during a meeting Wednesday in Washington, D.C.

Fox News Digital’s Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

Senate Democrats have panned the GOP’s push for voter ID legislation as akin to segregationist laws from the Deep South, but the architect of the bill in the Senate says their arguments are detached from reality.

‘It’s paranoid fantasy,’ Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told Fox News Digital. ‘These are absurd arguments. They should be ashamed to make them.’

Lee was responding to comments from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has doubled down on his claim that the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act is ‘Jim Crow 2.0.’

The bill, which passed the House last week and has been introduced and championed by Lee in the Senate, would require photo ID to vote in federal elections, proof of citizenship to register and would mandate that states keep voter rolls clear of ineligible voters.

Schumer and his caucus plan to block the bill, arguing that it is a tool of voter suppression that would disproportionately harm poorer Americans and minority groups.

But Lee argued that providing identification or proof of citizenship is routine in everyday life — whether undergoing a background check to buy a firearm or filling out tax forms when starting a new job.

‘By their logic, it’s Jim Crow to require somebody to establish citizenship before taking a job with a new employer, and that’s insane,’ Lee said.

‘And so then they argue here, well, voting is so fundamental, and we have constitutional protections protecting our right to vote,’ he continued. ‘Well, we’ve got constitutional protections protecting our right to bear arms, and yet that doesn’t cause us to dispense with proving who you are and your eligibility to buy a gun. This has just been insane.’

Without Democratic support, however, the pathway to sending the legislation to President Donald Trump’s desk is complicated.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has vowed to bring the SAVE America Act to the floor, and Republicans have the votes to move it through its first key procedural hurdle. From there, Democrats can block it with the 60-vote filibuster, which Lee often refers to as the ‘zombie’ filibuster.

Eliminating the filibuster is out of the question for several of Lee’s colleagues, but Republicans are warming to reinstating a talking, or standing, filibuster, which would require Senate Democrats to make their case against the bill on the floor over hours of debate.

Trump has already suggested he would issue an executive order if the legislation fails, which Lee declined to speculate on without first knowing what exactly would be done.

But he noted that it was all the more reason to pass the SAVE America Act, given the ever-swinging political pendulum in Washington, D.C.

‘It’s still really critically important that we pass this law, because let’s assume that he issued such an order, and that it does most or all of what we needed to do here, that gives us protection for the moment, to whatever degree he’s able to do that through an executive action,’ Lee said. ‘But we need something that can last longer than he’s in office.’

An 88-year-old billionaire businessman and former Victoria’s Secret chief is the latest person to fall within the House Oversight Committee’s investigative crosshairs.

The crimes of late billionaire sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein are well-known, having gained new media attention in recent months after Congress forced the Department of Justice (DOJ) to disclose millions of pages of documents.

But less is known about the figures who operated within Epstein’s orbit and how they helped him get the vast international sphere of influence he enjoyed before finding himself in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial, where he killed himself in 2019.

Leslie ‘Les’ Wexner, founder of L Brands, the former chief of Victoria’s Secret, is one of those figures, having been named a co-conspirator of Epstein in a recently uncovered FBI document from 2019.

Wexner is the founder of L Brands, formerly known as The Limited, which included Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, and Pink. He also helped found Abercrombie & Fitch, a clothing brand that was once popular among teens in the U.S.

Wexner has never been charged with crimes related to the late financier, and a spokesperson for the mogul told Fox News Digital that the ‘Assistant U.S. Attorney told Mr. Wexner’s legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect.’ 

But documents released by the DOJ allege that Wexner was one of the key players in how Epstein built his wealth and later ran his illicit empire.

One file from 2013 that appears to have been in the possession of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) titled ‘Jeffrey Epstein Source of Wealth,’ said Wexner ‘became a well-known client’ of Epstein’s financial management firm in 1987.

At the time, Wexner was identified as the founder and chairman of the Ohio-based women’s clothing brand The Limited.

‘Since all but one of his financial clients are anonymous, it has been speculated that much of Epstein’s lavish lifestyle was once financed by Wexner,’ reads the document, which appears to be an email. Wexner’s spokesperson declined to comment on the allegations.

That paper also noted that Wexner sold his massive Manhattan townhouse — reported to be the largest private residence in the New York City borough — to Epstein.

A 2019 FBI witness statement from a man who purported to be Wexner’s bodyguard from 1991 to 1992 said Wexner ‘sold his mansion in New York to Epstein for $20.’

The same witness statement alleged that ‘Epstein got all of his money from Wexner.’

A 1998 document obtained by Fox News Digital, however, shows Wexner sold his home to Epstein for a $20 million price tag. Half was paid via cashier’s check, while the other half was covered by a promissory note, the record shows.

Epstein’s Manhattan mansion was raided by the FBI in July 2019 as part of the federal sex trafficking investigation. There, law enforcement officials found vast troves of evidence, including photos of partially or fully nude women and girls, including ones who appeared to be minors.

The DOJ’s unsealed indictment against Epstein also said it was one of the places where he ‘enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and recruited, dozens of minor girls… to engage in sex acts with him, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars in cash.’

Wexner reportedly bought the mansion in 1989 for $13.2 million before selling it to a corporation partially controlled by Epstein for an ‘undisclosed amount,’ according to Business Insider. It was then reportedly transferred to a U.S. Virgin Islands-based company controlled by Epstein for $0 in 2011.

The home was reportedly valued at $77 million at the time of the raid, making it a massive portion of Epstein’s wealth.

A heavily redacted email chain from July 2025 that appears to show witness statement summaries, with the subject line, ‘RE: Epstein – Cellmate Interview,’ also said, ‘Steve Scully stated Wexner was #1 on Epstein’s speed dial.’

Steve Scully appears to be a reference to a former IT contractor who lived and worked on Epstein’s private island of Little St. James from 1999 through 2005. Wexner’s spokesperson declined to comment on Scully’s claim.

Wexner even signed a document in 1991 giving Epstein vast control over his finances via power of attorney, according to the New York Times. That document gave Epstein the power to sign checks, borrow money, and buy or sell real estate on Wexner’s behalf, the report said.

A letter Wexner wrote to his nonprofit, the Wexner Foundation, in August 2019 said that while he did give power of attorney to Epstein, their relationship ended soon after the 2007 federal investigation first began into the late financier in Florida.

‘[B]y 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. This was, frankly, a tremendous shock, even though it clearly pales in comparison to the unthinkable allegations against him now,’ the letter said.

‘With his credibility and our trust in him destroyed, we immediately severed ties with him. We were able to recover some of the funds. The widely reported payments Mr. Epstein made to the charitable fund represented a portion of the returned monies. All of that money — every dollar of it — was originally Wexner family money.’

But other documents released by the DOJ allege that Epstein and Wexner’s relationship went further than financial management.

An FBI witness statement by Robert Morosky, a former executive for Wexner’s fashion brand, said, ‘He had information regarding the use of ‘Limited’ brand aircraft used in the 1990s to transport young girls from Mexico to the U.S.’

‘Morosky did not wish to give any additional information at that time; however if someone would like to pursue this information he could be reached on his personal cellular phone,’’ the statement said.

It’s unclear if the lead was ever pursued, but a spokesperson for Wexner told Fox News Digital, ‘The allegation is false. Mr. Morosky was terminated from the company in 1987 and therefore in no position to know anything about the use of Limited planes in the 1990s.’

A witness statement from 2020, with the identity of the female witness redacted, said she claimed to have ‘often’ seen Epstein and Wexner together.

She ‘stated that often Wexner would have models who could not have been over 18 years old do private viewings for him and Epstein. She said the models would be wearing [swimsuits] and some were in lingerie,’ the document read.

Wexner’s spokesperson declined to comment on those claims and called her account of seeing the pair together ‘vague.’

The female witness said she ‘would help with getting people to work at parties at Wexner’s compound in catering and other positions,’ and that ‘anyone who went to work there had to have a full background check and there were certain areas of the house where they could not go without an approved escort.’

However, there was no indication of what years or period of time her claims are focused on.

A source with knowledge of company procedures argued the situation could not have happened, however. Model fittings always involved teams of 15 to 20 professionals and Epstein was never a part of that, the source maintained.

Wexner is scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee in Ohio on Wednesday morning.

Fox News Digital reached out to Wexner’s attorney for comment on the deposition and on the aforementioned claims.