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

Why Trump’s antics don’t work on our allies

From left to right: Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and France's President Emmanuel Macron hold a meeting during a summit at Lancaster House on March 2, 2025, in London, England.

(Justin Tallis/WPA Pool/Getty Images/TNS)

Why Trump’s antics don’t work on our allies

It is among the most familiar patterns of the Trump era. First, the president says or does something weird, rude or otherwise norm-defying. Some elected Republicans object, and the response from Trump and his minions is to shoot the messenger. The dynamic holds constant whether it’s big (January 6 pardons) or small (tweeting “covfefe” just after midnight).

The essence of this low-road-for-me-high-road-for-thee dynamic rests on the belief that Trumpism is a one-way road. Insulting Trump, deservedly or not, is forbidden, while Trump’s antics should be celebrated when possible, defended when necessary, or ignored when neither of those responses is possible. But he should never, ever face consequences for his own actions.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump never actually had a plan

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, on March 23, 2026. President Donald Trump said Monday that there are "major points of agreement" in US- Iran talks which he said must result in Tehran giving up its nuclear ambitions and enriched uranium stockpile.

(TNS)

Trump never actually had a plan

US President Trump spoke at the Saudi Future Investment Initiative on Friday, March 27. He offered a pristine example of what he calls “the weave.” What detractors take for incontinent verbal rambling is, in his own telling, genius-level embroidery of a rhetorical mosaic.

While spinning his tapestry of soundbites, the wartime president declared that the Iranians “have to open up the Strait of Trump — I mean, Hormuz. Excuse me, for — I’m so sorry, such a terrible mistake. The fake news will say he ‘accidentally said’ (chuckle), now there’s no accidents with me. Not too many. If there were, we’d have a major story. No. Well, we had that with the Gulf of Mexico. Remember the Gulf of Mexico? And one day I said, ‘Why is it the Gulf of Mexico?’ ”

Keep ReadingShow less
Border Communities Know ICE’s Impunity All Too Well

Close-up of a rusty iron fence painted with stars and stripes at the American-Mexican border in Tijuana.

Border Communities Know ICE’s Impunity All Too Well

The Department of Homeland Security shutdown has officially passed one month as lawmakers continue to debate limits on ICE’s use of force. Though we’ve arrived at this legislative standoff due to aggressive, and sometimes fatal, immigration enforcement actions in cities in our country’s interior, for communities along the U.S.–Mexico border, such abuses are nothing new. As I reveal through my academic research, immigration agents have operated with near-total impunity at the border for decades.

I uncovered patterns of excessive violence, coercion, and abuse at land ports of entry, through which more than 200 million people including workers, students, and visitors legally enter the U.S. every single year. The link between agents’ actions on the streets of American cities and the way they operate at the southern border is inevitable—yet something the current conversation about ICE and potential reforms overlooks.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Exit Coalition: A Bipartisan Chance to Defend the Institution
us a flag on pole under cloudy sky

The Exit Coalition: A Bipartisan Chance to Defend the Institution

In the year marking the United States Semiquincentennial, dozens of members of Congress—from both parties—will quietly make a consequential decision: they will not return. Most coverage treats this as routine political churn—retirements, career moves, the normal rhythm of electoral life. But in a Congress defined by constraint and dysfunction, these departures create something rare and fleeting: freedom to act independently.

Fifty-plus lawmakers across the House and Senate are not seeking reelection in 2026—well above the typical 25 to 35 members who step aside in most election cycles. Republicans account for roughly 40 of those departures, including nearly 35 in the House. Some are retiring outright. Others are pursuing higher office. A smaller number are simply stepping away.

Keep ReadingShow less