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

The White House
The white house with green lawn and trees
Photo by Josh on Unsplash

The Politics of Gratitude: Why Washington Punishes the Loyalty It Cannot Price

On a Sunday night in August, Senator Jon Ossoff told a campaign rally in Atlanta that President Trump would rather build his ballroom and “travel with Natalie” than do his job. He never used her last name. He did not need to. Natalie Harp, the White House aide known to colleagues as Trump’s “human printer” for trailing him with a portable printer and transcribing his social-media dictation, had become a punchline before most Americans knew who she was.

The backlash arrived within hours. White House officials accused Ossoff of insinuating an affair; Republican Rep. Brandon Gill noted that Harp survived bone cancer only because the Right to Try Act, which Trump signed in 2018, let her seek an experimental treatment outside the normal approval process, and dismissed any other reading of the moment as unfair. Weeks earlier, Harp had been at the center of a far more consequential story: in July, she was one of a handful of aides, alongside the defense secretary and two senior staffers, chosen to accompany Trump on a covert switch of aircraft as he left a security summit in Turkey after officials detected a credible Iranian threat, while most of the traveling delegation stayed behind on a decoy plane. That is the real proximity Ossoff's line was needling. Then came a detail that complicated the story further: Trump had personally given Harp and several other aides cash gifts of $45,000 apiece, which a former federal ethics official called troublesome, since money on that scale can leave a recipient feeling indebted to whoever signs the check.

Keep ReadingShow less
A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed behind U.S. President Donald Trump.

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cartography of Convenience: Why Rushed Renaming Erodes Public Trust

In tough economic times, governments often reach for the easiest kind of progress: a new name on an old sign. Wage stagnation, inflation, crumbling roads, and rising rents are hard problems that take years and real money to fix. Renaming a street, a lake, or a strait is not. It costs a fraction as much and lets officials point to something they “did.” A new name never fixes a pothole or lowers a grocery bill. This year offered an unusually rich catalogue of the habit, reaching from a city council in Texas to a wartime waterway in the Persian Gulf.

A Concept Borrowed From the Cremation Ground

Indian philosophy has an old idea called shmashana vairagya, describing the sudden clarity a person feels standing at a cremation ground, when ordinary ambitions look small. The feeling fades once the mourner goes home. Public policy has its own version of this cycle. In the raw hours after a tragedy, a scandal, or a surge of national feeling, officials decide, sometimes within a single social media post, what belongs on a map or a sign forever. The emotion passes in hours. The bill, when there is one, stays for years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on February 6, 2026.

(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

A Demagogue in the White House: Will the Guardrails Hold?

A demagogue does not seize all power at once. He takes it piece by piece.

In Trump’s second administration, those pieces accumulated in plain sight. The president generated so much disruption and noise that Americans struggled to keep pace. Each new controversy displaced the last, obscuring a more consequential story: the steady accumulation of presidential power.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner at the White House.

Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner in the East Room of the White House on September 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

When Leaders Disagree, Ceremony Plays an Important Role

When Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived at the White House on 24 September, the U.S. welcomed him with an elaborate display of ceremony. The Army Herald Trumpets sounded a fanfare, the Chinese and American national anthems were played, and the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps performed. A military review was followed by a flyover involving a B-2 bomber and four F-22 fighter jets, according to the White House. It was an extraordinary production for two countries that still disagree on some of the most important issues in international politics.

Talks between President Donald Trump and Xi touched on trade, artificial intelligence and Taiwan. The visit was marked by warm words and some signs of cooperation, but it did not erase the fundamental competition between the United States and China. So why was all this ceremony staged? It is tempting to dismiss political pomp as mere window dressing: an expensive historical relic surrounding the serious business taking place behind closed doors. As a music historian, however, I think this misunderstands what ceremony does. Ceremony can become particularly valuable when words alone are not enough.

Keep ReadingShow less