Hillary Clinton Criticizes Trump’s Decisions and His Administration
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stepped up her criticism of President Donald Trump and his administration, arguing that Americans are increasingly frustrated with the president’s policies and questioning whether his claims of success match the reality facing the country.
Speaking on Morning Joe on Thursday, Clinton said she strongly opposed the Trump administration and many of its policies, while stressing that her criticism was directed at the government rather than the country itself.
“I hate this administration and I hate what they are doing,” Clinton said, drawing a distinction between her opposition to Trump’s policies and her continued support for the United States.
Much of Clinton’s criticism centered on Trump’s handling of the war with Iran. She described the administration’s approach as deeply misguided and warned about the consequences of a conflict that has continued to put pressure on the U.S. economy and energy markets.
The criticism comes as Trump defends the military campaign and argues that the conflict is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The war, however, has contributed to a sharp rise in oil and gasoline prices, with Trump acknowledging this week that oil prices may not fall significantly until after the November midterm elections.
Clinton also questioned the way Trump presents his administration’s record to the public. She argued that changing the language used to describe the administration’s performance does not necessarily change the underlying reality for Americans.
Her remarks came as Trump and Republican leaders gathered in Dallas for the party’s midterm convention, where the president sought to rally voters around his agenda and urged Republicans to maintain control of Congress. Trump has increasingly placed himself at the center of the midterm campaign, effectively asking voters to treat the election as a referendum on his presidency.
For Clinton, the growing economic consequences of the Iran conflict could become particularly important politically. Rising energy costs have added to concerns about inflation and household expenses, while the prolonged military campaign has raised broader questions about whether the administration has a clear path toward ending the conflict.
The criticism also comes against the backdrop of growing debate over Trump’s foreign-policy strategy. Reuters reported this week that the conflict with Iran is increasingly being compared with the prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite Trump’s previous campaign promise to pursue a more restrained approach to foreign military engagements.
Clinton argued that voters are capable of judging the administration based on what they see in their daily lives rather than simply accepting political messaging from the White House.
Her comments reflect a broader Democratic effort to make the 2026 midterm elections a referendum on Trump’s record, particularly on the economy, foreign policy and the direction of the federal government.
Trump and his allies, meanwhile, continue to portray the administration’s policies as necessary measures to protect American security and advance the country’s economic interests. At the Republican convention, Trump defended his Iran policy, criticized Democrats and urged Republicans to turn out in November.
With the midterm elections approaching, Clinton’s renewed attacks underscore the increasingly polarized political environment surrounding Trump’s second term. For Democrats, the challenge will be turning public dissatisfaction with the administration into electoral gains. For Republicans, the challenge will be convincing voters that Trump’s policies are producing results despite the economic and geopolitical turbulence facing the country.
Hillary Clinton Faces Renewed Scrutiny Over Epstein as She Escalates Attacks on Trump
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is facing renewed scrutiny over her connections to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation as she intensifies her criticism of President Donald Trump, turning a long-running political feud into a new battle over transparency, accountability and the release of Epstein-related records.
Clinton was called before the House Oversight Committee in February as lawmakers examined Epstein’s relationships with prominent political and business figures. Her appearance followed a contentious dispute over congressional subpoenas and whether she and former President Bill Clinton had sufficiently cooperated with the investigation.
The Clintons ultimately agreed to testify, ending a confrontation that had raised the possibility of congressional contempt proceedings. Hillary Clinton’s deposition began on February 26, while Bill Clinton appeared before the committee the following day.
During her testimony, Hillary Clinton maintained that she had no meaningful knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activities. She has denied knowing about or participating in any wrongdoing involving the convicted sex offender.
The congressional inquiry, however, placed the former Democratic presidential nominee back at the center of a controversy that has repeatedly drawn some of the most powerful figures in American politics into the same debate.
Clinton Turns the Pressure Back on Trump
Rather than allowing the investigation to remain focused solely on her family, Clinton has increasingly directed attention toward Trump and his administration.
Clinton has argued that the public deserves greater transparency about Epstein’s relationships with powerful people and has questioned whether the Trump administration has been sufficiently forthcoming about the government’s handling and release of Epstein-related records.
Her criticism has added a political dimension to an already contentious investigation. Democrats have argued that scrutiny of the Clintons should not be used to divert attention from questions involving Trump, while Republicans have maintained that the investigation should examine all individuals who may have relevant information, regardless of political affiliation.
The dispute has become particularly significant because Trump himself has faced years of scrutiny over his past social relationship with Epstein. The existence of that relationship is not in dispute, although Trump has denied wrongdoing and has repeatedly rejected allegations of criminal conduct connected to Epstein.
A Political Battle Over the Epstein Files
The congressional investigation has exposed a broader divide in Washington over what should happen with the Epstein files.
Republicans have argued that the public has a right to know the full extent of Epstein’s relationships with influential figures. Democrats have generally supported greater transparency as well, while accusing the Trump administration and congressional Republicans of selectively using the issue for political purposes.
The House Oversight Committee’s investigation has therefore become more than an examination of Epstein’s network. It has evolved into another front in the broader political conflict between Trump and his opponents.
For Clinton, the timing is particularly striking.
While she faces questions about her family’s past interactions with Epstein, she has simultaneously emerged as one of Trump’s most vocal Democratic critics. Her recent attacks have focused on Trump’s administration, his foreign-policy decisions and what she describes as the consequences of his policies for Americans.
That combination has created an unusual political dynamic: Clinton is criticizing Trump at the same time that Republicans are using congressional investigations to scrutinize the Clinton family’s own history.
No Evidence Establishes Clinton’s Involvement in Epstein’s Crimes
The renewed attention surrounding Clinton should not be confused with evidence that she participated in Epstein’s criminal activities.
The congressional inquiry has focused on what Clinton and her husband knew about Epstein and their interactions with him. Clinton has denied having meaningful knowledge of his crimes. The fact that she was subpoenaed and questioned by Congress does not, by itself, establish criminal wrongdoing.
That distinction has become increasingly important as the Epstein controversy has generated intense speculation and competing political narratives.
The investigation has also produced questions about how allegations contained in released government records should be interpreted. Some allegations involving prominent figures have been described as unverified or lacking sufficient evidence, underscoring the difference between appearing in investigative material and being implicated in a crime.
An Old Rivalry Enters a New Phase
The Epstein controversy has nevertheless given both political parties another weapon in their long-running battle.
For Republicans, Clinton’s congressional testimony provides an opportunity to question the former Democratic nominee about a controversial chapter involving her family and prominent members of the political establishment.
For Democrats, the investigation offers an opportunity to challenge Trump over his own history with Epstein and to demand greater transparency from his administration.
Clinton has chosen the latter approach, increasingly using the controversy to challenge Trump rather than allowing Republicans to define the narrative around her.
That strategy carries risks.
The more aggressively Clinton attacks Trump over transparency and accountability, the more Republicans are likely to point back to the questions surrounding her own testimony. At the same time, continued scrutiny of Epstein’s connections to powerful figures means that Trump and other prominent Americans remain under pressure to answer questions about their own relationships with him.
For now, the Epstein investigation remains an unusually potent political issue precisely because it cuts across traditional party lines.
And for Hillary Clinton, the controversy has created an uncomfortable backdrop to her renewed attacks on Donald Trump: she is once again confronting her longtime political rival while simultaneously defending herself and her family against questions from Congress.
The result is a familiar Washington pattern — two political camps accusing each other of secrecy and political manipulation, while the public continues to demand answers about one of the most notorious networks of influence in modern American history.
Hillary Clinton on what she learned in the aftermath of 9/11 — and how those lessons apply today
In today’s edition of The Tea: Hillary Clinton’s long-ranging conversation with the “Morning Joe” panel.
The United States marks 25 years since the Sept. 11 attacks tomorrow, with thousands of survivors and first responders still living with illnesses tied to toxic exposure at ground zero. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (then a senator from New York) joined “Morning Joe” today to discuss what she learned in the aftermath of 9/11 — and how those lessons apply to artificial intelligence, the war with Iran, and American democracy.
MB: You write in a new piece for The Atlantic about a different part of the 9/11 story that is still coming into focus. What are we only now beginning to understand?
HC: Our own government lied to people about the air quality in the area. We circled ground zero, which was still, to me, the most emotionally vivid, horrific view of anything I’ve ever seen, like Dante’s hell.
And as we got closer, it was like a literal black stage curtain had been put across the entire area, and occasionally you would see a foot and a hand and an ax as a firefighter would come through it.
Everything that was in the air was so visible. It wasn’t just what we were feeling in the back of our throats and our noses, but it was surrounding us.
It struck me that it couldn’t be safe to breathe, but I kept being told by official sources that it was fine.
Part of what I learned is that the job of a public official in a crisis is to keep digging for as much information as possible. There were all these competing challenges — everybody wanted to get Wall Street open and “go back to normal.”
But you ought to be able to do more than one thing at a time. I was fortunate enough to put together a Senate hearing. It was the first time we began to get real data, and now all these documents are coming out from the city. Tell people the truth, to the best of your ability.
JS: The 9/11 Commission identified a “failure of imagination.” Are we seeing that now with artificial intelligence?
HC: People could not imagine that a bunch of guys would learn how to fly and then fly commercial airliners into buildings. That was a failure of imagination and a failure of honesty.
We faced it during COVID, and now we are facing it with artificial intelligence.
The alarm bells are going off. You have people inside the industry — at OpenAI, Anthropic, and elsewhere — warning about what could happen. Why are we letting ourselves be lulled into inaction?
What I’m hearing from tech leaders is “Stop us before something really bad happens. I can’t stop myself because I’m not sure he’s going to stop, and I’m not sure China is going to stop.”
In two weeks, there should be a concerted effort by this government to get off social media, quit worrying about ballrooms and ridiculous arches, and come up with a plan to enlist the Chinese. Let’s put an AI commission on warp speed and figure out how to sensibly regulate.
JS: What did we get right and wrong in the wars that came out of 9/11 — Iraq and Afghanistan? What would you do differently?
HC: Afghanistan was a decision that I think had to be made to try to track down not only Osama bin Laden, but also other Al Qaeda operatives. But Afghanistan morphed into something much bigger. It represented an effort first by the Bush administration, then by the Obama administration, to see how we could create a more stable nation.
Iraq was different. I thought the vote would be used as coercive diplomacy to force Saddam Hussein to come clean about whatever was there.
But you have to ask yourself: Where are we today? We are the ones strengthening Iran. Have we not learned anything from what we’ve done for the last 25 years?
Willie Geist: Seven months into the war with Iran, what’s the best path forward for the United States?
HC: We’re in a pickle. It seems so tragic because Iran was on the back foot, and there were a lot of pressures that could have been applied to Iran through sanctions and other activities that Trump totally bypassed to make an incredibly ill-advised attack on Iran.
Our best outcome right now is to get allies in Europe and China to help us pressure Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz. Then give space for Trump to say “I got the strait open.” Once traffic is moving, oil prices will come down, and we can step back and see how this develops.
That’s the only thing I can see that could give us anything resembling an out right now.
Jonathan Lemire: How concerned are you that the midterm elections won’t be conducted freely — or that the results won’t be honored?
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(753x271:755x273):format(webp)/cole-the-deaf-dog-112125-1a-ad248101bd174108a795d88d6afd93d8.jpg?fit=750,500&ssl=1 "Elementary School Throws Deaf Therapy Dog a Surprise Birthday Party as Students Learn Sign Language to Sing ‘Happy Birthday’")
