Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, is considered not only Donald Trump’s most important advisor, but also the most intelligent, ice-cold strategist who, like no one else, has control over the timing and content of political staging and the manipulation of public perception. She is also seen as an invisible force in the background who almost never speaks to journalists “on the record,” let alone shows her face.
If she did do that this week, in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine, flanked by photographer Christopher Anderson’s portraits in which every pore of her skin is visible, then it shouldn’t be viewed as an accident. In several conversations with journalist Chris Whipple over the course of this year, Wiles made a few unflattering statements about her boss and the US government’s inner circle that, as expected, made headlines around the world: Trump has the “personality of an alcoholic,” Vice President JD Vance has been “a conspiracy theorist for a decade,” and Elon Musk is a “weird bird.”
Mama Wiles and her rascals
Many commentators actually did her the favor of reading these comments as a surprising criticism of her boss and his confidants, as a spectacular case of candor, and some even as a kind of betrayal or public letter of resignation. Under normal circumstances, this interpretation would certainly be plausible. But who else should Wiles’ descriptions shock? The fact that such harsh words are, for once, officially heard from Trump’s environment instead of from whistleblowers or apostates is a spectacle – but one that Wiles very consciously wanted to bring to the stage. Beyond the evil tips, it presents the men in power exactly as many people like to see them: as obsessive decision-makers who don’t take political correctness so seriously, as strong personalities and geniuses who can’t be had without a few quirks. And herself like a strict mother who already has her rascals under control.
In passing, shortly before the files are published, she puts Trump’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein into perspective. And it gives the MAGA camp, which has recently been very divided, the opportunity to present itself as a unified unit. After the interview was published, there was a hail of expressions of solidarity with Wiles; her quotes had of course been taken out of context; it was said that any attempt to divide the government was doomed to failure. As if following a prepared script, those attacked turned the criticism into a positive one: Trump agreed with Wile’s statement about his alcoholic personality – that’s why he doesn’t drink. Vance admitted that he does believe in conspiracy theories – “but only the ones that are true.”
Wiles herself described the article as a “mendacious smear campaign” against her and the government. She should know, after all, she set it up herself.
Related reading
