Hillary Clinton has stepped back into the spotlight with a pointed op-ed that’s stirring up old debates and new controversies.

On Thursday, Clinton published a piece in The Atlantic addressing the killing of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital, by federal agents. The op-ed also critiques the Trump administration’s policies and warns of what she describes as a dangerous push toward Christian nationalism.

Additionally, the piece has reignited discussions about Clinton’s past ties to Saudi Arabia and her political history, drawing both criticism and mockery on social media.

Clinton’s Op-Ed Sparks Immediate Reaction

The issue has sparked debate across political lines, with Clinton’s words reigniting tensions over values, faith, and governance. Her focus on the tragic death of Pretti, who she claims was shot while aiding a woman mistreated by federal agents, has drawn particular attention. Many question whether her framing of the incident aligns with disputed accounts suggesting Pretti harassed agents before the event.

Clinton wrote, “When I first saw the video of the killing of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital, I immediately thought of the parable of the Good Samaritan.” She goes on to paint a stark picture of federal overreach. But let’s pause—there’s a video circulating, per the Trump administration, allegedly showing Pretti spitting on agents days before his death. Is this the full story?

Her op-ed doesn’t stop at Minnesota’s streets; it aims for what she calls an “extreme vision of Christian nationalism,” threatening to upend democracy. While invoking biblical passages to bolster her argument, Clinton accuses the current administration of abandoning core values like dignity and mercy. Yet, one wonders if quoting scripture feels more like a political prop than a heartfelt plea.

Saudi Ties Resurface Amid Criticism

Then there’s the inconvenient backdrop of Clinton’s reported friendly chat with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman just a day before her op-ed dropped. Reports from years past, including those from CNN and The New York Times, note that the Clinton Foundation received millions from Saudi Arabia. How does one reconcile preaching compassion while cozying up to a regime where, according to National Review Online, private Christian prayer can be a felony?

Trump himself called out these ties back in 2016, demanding Clinton return the funds from nations with troubling human rights records. His blunt Facebook post at the time cut deep, pointing to contradictions in values. It’s a fair question: Shouldn’t financial entanglements with such governments raise eyebrows when moral lectures are on offer?

Adding fuel to the skepticism, an Ethiopian Christian woman arrested in Saudi Arabia in 2011 described harrowing mistreatment over her faith. Her account, alongside claims of systemic persecution, paints a grim picture of religious freedom there. Clinton’s silence on these specifics while waving the empathy flag feels like a missed opportunity for consistency.

Empathy Claims Meet Public Doubt

Clinton admits in her piece, “When I see brutality like we’ve all witnessed in Minnesota, I ask myself: Can I really find empathy for people who insist on dehumanizing others?” She adds, “I’m not sure, to be honest. I’m still working on it.” But according to the Daily Caller, social media isn’t buying it—Stephen L. Miller quipped that empathy and Clinton aren’t exactly synonymous in public memory.

Let’s not forget her 2016 “basket of deplorables” comment, labeling many Trump supporters with harsh descriptors. While she doubles down in the op-ed, calling intolerance deplorable, her attempt to soften it with Christian aspirations of redemption rings hollow to many. It’s tough to preach seeing goodness in everyone after dismissing millions as irredeemable.

Her critique of “slandering a peaceful protester” and “terrorizing children” over immigration status sounds noble on paper. Yet, without addressing the complexities of border policy or law enforcement challenges, it feels like a one-sided sermon. Where’s the balance in tackling tough issues without demonizing those tasked with enforcing rules?

Past Controversies Linger in Debate

Clinton’s refusal, alongside her husband, to testify in a House investigation tied to Jeffrey Epstein doesn’t help her image as a beacon of transparency. This lingering shadow adds to the perception of selective moral outrage. How can one demand accountability while dodging it personally?

The Atlantic’s post framed her piece as a warning against a “war on empathy,” paving the way for theocracy. That’s a heavy charge, but it’s worth asking if hyperbole overshadows substance here. Is this about genuine concern for democracy, or a calculated jab at an administration she’s long opposed?

In the end, Clinton’s op-ed raises valid questions about faith, governance, and compassion in turbulent times. But her history—Saudi ties, past rhetoric, and evasions—muddies the message for many who might otherwise listen. It’s a reminder that moral high ground is hard to claim when your own footing looks shaky.