Says Hillary Clinton’s “been very clear where she stands on trade.”
— John Podesta on Sunday, June 14th, 2015 in comments on NBC’s “Meet the Press”
One might expect that as a former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton would have well-defined views on the ongoing fight over President Barack Obama’s trade agenda.
But critics of the Democratic presidential candidate have chastised Clinton for taking a vague position on the debate over the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. Democrats are deeply divided over the deal.
“Surely, a person who was secretary of state understands something about American leadership,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on Fox News Sunday June 14. “And to refuse to even take a position (on TPP) is just sort of mystifying to me.”
Clinton’s supporters say there’s nothing mystifying about Clinton’s position. Here’s how Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta explained it to Meet the Press’ Chuck Todd.
“She’s been very clear on where she stands on trade,” Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta explained to Meet the Press’ Chuck Todd.
PolitiFact decided to check it out.
To a certain extent, Clinton has laid out where she stands on trade in general. But she has avoided saying whether she definitively supports the pending deal and the fast-track trade authority many believe is necessary to make the deal happen.
Here’s a selection of her recent comments, starting with the most recent:
June 14 at an Iowa rally: Just a few hours after the morning shows, Clinton said Obama should “work with his allies in Congress” to ensure better protection for workers and “to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible.” Even though she urged them to make some changes to the deal, she didn’t specify the exact changes, nor did explicitly express overall support or disapproval.
May 22 at a New Hampshire press conference: Clinton said she has some questions about the TPP, regarding the potential for currency manipulation and the controversial investor-settlement-dispute mechanism, as well as health and environmental concerns. “I’ve been for trade agreements, I’ve been against trade agreements, voted for some, voted against others, so I want to judge this when I see exactly what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards,” she said.
May 19 at a small business lending roundtable: “I’ve said over and over again any trade deal that I will support must increase jobs, must increase wages, must give us more economic competitive power around the world to sell our products and must be good for our national security.”
So Clinton has said she supports trade under certain conditions, though she hasn’t really said anything that shows how she would vote if she was still a member of the Senate today. Namely, she hasn’t said whether or not she would vote to grant Obama fast-track trade promotion authority, the legislative maneuver that would make it easier to pass a trade deal — currently the main source of Democrat infighting over trade.
Speaking about TPP in a 2014 Council on Foreign Relations interview, Clinton briefly talked about fast track, saying only that she thought it was “not likely” that Congress would grant Obama the authority. But she said that she hoped the administration would be able to convince Congress and the American people that it’s critical for the American economy to address “border barriers to our products” so that the deal could pass even without fast track.
Before Clinton’s 2016 campaign officially launched Clinton made statements that showed general support for TPP, even saying that the deal as it stood then satisfied many of her concerns.
Speaking in Australia in 2012, she said the “TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.”
It’s also interesting to note Clinton’s 2008 campaign position on pending trade deals and how they changed when she joined the Obama administration.
In an April 2008 speech where she discussed a proposed trade agreement with Colombia, she said, “As I have said for months, I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.”
But as secretary of state in 2010, she said of the same deal: “First, let me underscore President Obama’s and my commitment to the Free Trade Agreement. We are going to continue to work to obtain the votes in the Congress to be able to pass it. We think it’s strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.”
Our ruling
Podesta said Hillary Clinton has been “very clear on where she stands on trade.”
It’s hard for any neutral person to say Clinton has been clear about trade, particularly in the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Clinton has avoided answering whether she supports grants Obama fast-track trade promotion authority, which is seen as the linchpin to cutting a trade deal in Asia.
Clinton has said what she would like in an ideal trade deal in terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But she has yet to say definitively whether or not Obama’s pending trade deal meets her standards — though she has admitted some provisions could use improvement. This is a change from just a couple years ago, when she seemed more supportive than not of the pending trade deal.
Does any of this sound “very clear” to you? We’ll concede a little wiggle room based on Podesta’s wording.
But that’s about it. We rate this claim Mostly False.
(Editor's note: An earlier version Tuesday's fact-check about Obamacare included an incorrect number for the $1.7 billion in monthly tax credits potentially at risk for 6.4 million people in Georgia and 33 other states in the lawsuit King v. Burwell.)
About the Author
