Hillary Clinton’s attack on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s pause of cyber operations against Russia backfires spectacularly as critics remind her of her own questionable Russian dealings.
At a Glance
- Clinton criticized Hegseth for pausing U.S. Cyber Command operations against Russia, claiming he was deferential to Putin
- Critics quickly pointed out Clinton’s hypocrisy, referencing her past Uranium One deal and diplomatic “reset” with Russia
- Pentagon officials confirmed the pause was part of broader diplomatic efforts to negotiate an end to the Ukraine conflict
- Hegseth responded to Clinton by sharing a 2009 photo of her with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
- Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration’s approach, emphasizing the necessity of diplomatic engagement
Clinton’s Failed Attack on Hegseth
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted to score political points against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this week, but quickly found herself on the receiving end of a blistering reality check. Clinton took to social media to criticize Hegseth’s reported decision to temporarily pause U.S. Cyber Command’s offensive operations against Russia, sarcastically commenting, “Wouldn’t want to hurt Putin’s feelings.” Her attempted political jab, however, immediately drew attention to her own controversial history of Russian diplomacy and dealings that many Americans haven’t forgotten.
🚨 SecDef Pete Hegseth just publicly humiliated Hillary Clinton.
That's Hillary, as Sec. of State, jubilant while meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
👀 pic.twitter.com/tWRs03WZgu
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 2, 2025
According to multiple sources, Hegseth’s directive was actually part of a broader Trump administration strategy to pursue diplomatic negotiations aimed at ending the ongoing war in Ukraine. The pause specifically targeted only certain offensive cyber operations while leaving in place the National Security Agency’s defensive and intelligence-gathering activities against Russia. When asked for comment, Pentagon officials declined to provide specific details, citing operational security concerns.
The Diplomatic Context
Even The New York Times acknowledged that pausing certain military operations during sensitive diplomatic negotiations is standard practice in international relations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration’s approach, emphasizing the necessity of diplomatic engagement with Russia despite ideological differences. The temporary pause represents a strategic decision to create space for diplomatic progress rather than any kind of capitulation to Russian interests, as Clinton’s comments misleadingly suggested.
“We have to bring [Russia] to the table. You’re not going to bring them to the table if you’re calling them names, if you’re being antagonistic. That’s just the president’s instincts from years and years and years of putting together deals.” – Secretary of State Marco Rubio
A Pentagon official further clarified the administration’s position without revealing sensitive operational details: “Due to operational security concerns, we do not comment nor discuss cyber intelligence, plans, or operations. There is no greater priority to Secretary Hegseth than the safety of the Warfighter in all operations, to include the cyber domain.” This measured response stands in stark contrast to Clinton’s politically charged criticism.
Clinton’s Russian Reset Hypocrisy
Hegseth responded to Clinton’s attack by simply posting a 2009 photograph showing Clinton presenting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a symbolic “reset” button during her tenure as Secretary of State. This visual reminder of Clinton’s own diplomatic outreach to Russia effectively highlighted the hypocrisy of her criticism. During that infamous “reset” meeting, Clinton attempted to improve U.S.-Russia relations with the very same diplomatic approach she now criticizes in the Trump administration.
Critics were quick to point out Clinton’s more controversial connections to Russia, particularly the Uranium One deal, which occurred while she led the State Department. This highly questionable transaction allowed Russia to acquire a Canadian company controlling approximately 20% of U.S. uranium capacity. Adding to the appearance of impropriety, Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Kremlin-linked bank that was actively promoting Uranium One stock, while multiple individuals connected to the transaction made substantial donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The Diplomatic Path Forward
The Trump administration’s approach to Russia appears focused on pragmatic diplomacy aimed at concrete results, particularly ending the destructive conflict in Ukraine. Unlike the failed “reset” of the Obama-Clinton era, which ultimately resulted in increased Russian aggression including the initial invasion of Ukraine, the current administration is pursuing diplomatic engagement from a position of strength. This approach recognizes that meaningful dialogue with adversaries remains essential to effective statecraft, a lesson Clinton seems to have forgotten since her days carrying that ill-fated reset button.
