Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The interview that could change history

Opinion

The interview that could change history

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles looks on during a bilateral meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Polish President Karol Nawrocki in the Oval Office at the White House on Sept. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C.

Alex Wong/Getty Images/TCA

Susie Wiles has a reputation. Ask anyone in Washington and words like “strategic,” “disciplined,” and “skilled” come up. She’s widely held to be one of the most effective tacticians in modern politics.

She’s also known for her low-key, low-drama energy, preferring to remain behind-the-scenes as opposed to preening for cameras like so many other figures in President Trump’s orbit.


Trump’s nickname for his chief of staff is “The Ice Maiden,” referring to her coolheaded nature. The former mayor of Jacksonville said Wiles is “a political savant” who possesses “just otherworldly sort of political instincts.” She herself has said her specialty is “creating order from chaos.”

So, how the hell did a two-part, 11-interview Vanity Fair exposé, in which Wiles unabashedly and recklessly critiques members of Trump’s inner circle, contradicts Trump himself, and reveals some truly stunning behind-the-scenes details — on the record — come to be?

The astonishing set of interviews writer Chris Whipple conducted with Wiles over months has rocked Washington, sent Trump’s comms shop into hyperdrive, and has everyone wondering how Wiles, such a political pro, let this even happen.

Is she sabotaging him? Is she trying to get out and in the most explosive way possible? Is she using the press to force some course-correction inside the White House?

I suspect the explanation is far more simple and less sinister: ego.

For one, it’s hard to say no when a glossy outlet like Vanity Fair pitches a longform profile, complete with photo shoots. For another, it’s not hard to imagine someone like Wiles believing they could outsmart the reporter and control the narrative. But when you give 11 interviews worth of access, you relinquish control. Wiles either got too comfortable or too cocky.

Regardless, the damage is done. Her revelations are out there for everyone to read — and, thanks to recordings, hear.

But just what will the damage be? Are Wiles’ admissions merely salacious or could they hurt Trump and Republicans as we approach a midterm election year?

There’s good reason to believe it will be the latter. Here are the most damning parts of her interview:

Retribution: One of the most immediate effects of Wiles’ interview could be her admission that Trump is pursuing political opponents for retribution. It’s an argument his targets, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI head James Comey, are making right now to judges who will decide whether those cases have any merit. Expect the comments to end up cited in current and future court filings.

Regime change: Wiles contradicts Pentagon and White House messaging on Trump’s lethal boat strikes, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Trump have justified as a war on drugs. Wiles admits Trump “wants to keep blowing boats up until [Venezuelan President Nicolas] Maduro cries uncle.” Regime change, in addition to being unconstitutional, isn’t what the America First MAGA crowd voted for, and they’ll likely let him know that. Additionally, that admission could end up being instrumental if someone like Hegseth is ever tried for war crimes.

Tariffs: Wiles says what everyone but Trump seems to know, which is that not everyone agrees with his trade war. Of the rollout, she says “So much thinking out loud is what I would call it.” And, “There was a huge disagreement over whether [tariffs were] a good idea.” As voters gear up for midterms and blame tariffs for rising prices and unemployment, this admission could haunt Trump and Republicans.

Epstein: Wiles absolutely demolishes Attorney General Pam Bondi on her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, and how it angered some in the MAGA fold, like Joe Rogan fans. “I think she completely whiffed on appreciating that that was the very targeted group that cared about this,” she says. “First she gave them binders full of nothingness. And then she said that the witness list, or the client list, was on her desk. There is no client list, and it sure as hell wasn’t on her desk.” Discrediting the AG casts a pall on the entire administration, as well as its attempts at burying the investigation.

At a time when Trump’s world is caving in on him, these kinds of free-wheeling, inner-sanctum revelations, and from one of his most trusted and respected advisers, could be disastrous for Trump, disastrous for some of his cabinet members, disastrous for Republicans looking to hold onto their majority.

For a woman known for creating order out of chaos, she just poured gasoline on a fire.

S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.


Read More

A Man Who Keeps His Word — Even When He’s Joking

U.S. President Donald Trump tours the Ford River Rouge Complex on January 13, 2026 in Dearborn, Michigan.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

A Man Who Keeps His Word — Even When He’s Joking

We’ve learned why it’s a mistake to treat Trump’s outrageous lines as “just talk”

“We shouldn’t need a mid-term election” is his latest outrageous statement or joke. Let’s break down the pattern.

When a candidate says something extreme, we, the public, tend to downgrade it: He’s joking. He’s riffing. He’s trolling the press. We treat the line like entertainment, not intent.

Keep ReadingShow less
From “Alternative Facts” to Outright Lies

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem on January 7, 2026 in Brownsville, Texas.

(Photo by Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images)

From “Alternative Facts” to Outright Lies

The Trump administration has always treated truth as an inconvenience. Nearly a decade ago, Kellyanne Conway gave the country a phrase that instantly became shorthand for the administration’s worldview: “alternative facts.” She used it to defend false claims about the size of Donald Trump’s inauguration crowd, insisting that the White House was simply offering a different version of reality despite clear photographic evidence to the contrary.

That moment was a blueprint.

Keep ReadingShow less
Zohran Mamdani’s call for warm ‘collectivism’ is dead on arrival

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his wife Rama Duwaji wave after his ceremonial inauguration as mayor at City Hall on Jan. 1, 2026, in New York.

(Spencer Platt/Getty Images/TNS)

Zohran Mamdani’s call for warm ‘collectivism’ is dead on arrival

The day before the Trump administration captured and extradited Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, many on the right (including yours truly) had a field day mocking something the newly minted mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, said during his inaugural address.

The proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America proclaimed: “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Lie of “Safe” State Violence in America: Montgomery Then, Minneapolis Now

Police tape surrounds a vehicle suspected to be involved in a shooting by an ICE agent during federal law enforcement operations on January 07, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

The Lie of “Safe” State Violence in America: Montgomery Then, Minneapolis Now

Once again, the nation watched in horror as a 37-year-old woman was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. The incident was caught on video. Neighbors saw it happen, their disbelief clear. The story has been widely reported, but hearing it again does not make it any less violent. Video suggest, there was a confrontation. The woman tried to drive away. An agent stepped in front of her car. Multiple shots went through the windshield. Witnesses told reporters that a physician at the scene attempted to provide aid but was prevented from approaching the vehicle, a claim that federal authorities have not publicly addressed. That fact, if accurate, should trouble us most.

What happened on that street was more than just a tragic mistake. It was a moral challenge to our society, asking for more than just shock or sadness. This moment makes us ask: what kind of nation have we created, and what violence have we come to see as normal? We need to admit our shared responsibility, knowing that our daily choices and silence help create a culture where this violence is accepted. Including ourselves in this 'we' makes us care more deeply and pushes us to act, not just reflect.

Keep ReadingShow less