Chelsea Clinton has spent years trying to be the calm, practical face of her family’s charity. This month, a few loud voices in Britain decided to make her life a little less calm.
Alex Bruno looked into why the Clinton Foundation is suddenly a topic over tea and biscuits.
It started with a newspaper column in London asking how the foundation’s British partners spend their money. A couple of members of Parliament picked up the thread, and soon talk radio hosts were asking the same questions with a lot more volume.
“Britain takes its charities very seriously,” said a London political commentator. “We’ll argue about a village bake sale for three weeks if the receipts look funny.” To be clear, nobody has accused Chelsea Clinton of anything. The questions are about paperwork, partnerships and who reports what to whom.
The foundation has many leaders and many programs, but Chelsea is the name people recognize. When British reporters wanted a face for the story, hers was the obvious choice.
“She’s the vice chair, she’s polite and she actually answers emails,” one former aide said. “That makes her the easiest person to ask.”
Friends say she’s taking it in stride. She has dealt with scrutiny since she was a teenager, and a few pointed columns in the British press aren’t exactly new territory.
The Clinton Foundation released a short statement saying it “welcomes transparency” and has always followed the rules in every country where it works.
A spokesperson added that the foundation’s British partners file regular reports with UK regulators and that it would happily answer any questions. “We’ve got nothing to hide and plenty of spreadsheets,” the spokesperson joked, which might be the most charity-sounding sentence ever spoken.
Britain has a strict charity watchdog, and it isn’t shy about asking organizations for details. Commentators have speculated about whether the regulator might send letters asking for more information.
So far, nothing official has been announced. Experts say that kind of review is routine and doesn’t mean anyone did something wrong.
“Getting a letter from the regulator is like getting a letter from the dentist,” said a charity lawyer in London. “Annoying, sometimes awkward, but usually it ends with a cleaning, not a disaster.”
Back in the United States, the reaction has been mostly a shrug. Clinton fans see it as another round of old criticism. Clinton critics see it as proof they were right all along. Neither group has changed its mind.
“If you liked the Clintons last week, you still like them,” said a political science professor in Ohio. “If you didn’t, you still don’t. British columnists aren’t going to move that needle.”
The Clinton name has drawn attention, praise and criticism for more than thirty years. Chelsea grew up with reporters outside the White House gates and has watched her parents face just about every kind of scrutiny there is.
“She learned early that people will say things,” a family friend said. “She also learned that the best response is usually a calm one.”
That approach has served her well. She tends to answer hard questions with facts, a smile and a pivot back to the foundation’s health programs. British reporters may find that frustrating. Her supporters call it professionalism. Either way, she isn’t likely to give the tabloids the emotional outburst they’re hoping for.
For now, Chelsea is doing what she usually does: showing up, talking about health programs and smiling through questions she’s heard a hundred times. People close to her say she’s more focused on her kids’ school schedules than on London talk radio.
“She’ll answer whatever they ask,” one friend said. “Then she’ll go back to work. That’s the whole plan.”