In a rare and remarkably candid series of interviews, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has offered an unvarnished portrait of President Donald Trump, his governing style, and the tensions shaping his second term—remarks that have sent ripples through Washington’s political and media circles.
The comments, published Tuesday by Vanity Fair following more than 10 recorded conversations with author Chris Whipple, include Wiles’ striking characterization of the president as having “an alcoholic’s personality,” despite Trump being a lifelong teetotaler. The phrase, she explained, was meant to describe exaggerated traits such as impulsivity, intensity, and a compulsive appetite for action. “There’s a view that there’s nothing he can’t do—nothing, zero, nothing,” Wiles said, underscoring Trump’s confidence-driven approach to power.
A Window Into Trump’s Governing Style
Wiles, widely regarded as one of the most disciplined and effective chiefs of staff in recent history, acknowledged that revenge plays a role in some of the president’s decision-making. “I don’t think he wakes up thinking about retribution,” she said, “but when there’s an opportunity, he will go for it.” Her remarks appeared to validate critics who have argued that several high-profile investigations and prosecutions targeting Trump’s political opponents risk appearing vindictive.
Trump himself responded dismissively, telling the New York Post that he did not read the article but conceded he has a “possessive and addictive type personality.” He also praised Wiles, calling her performance “fantastic” and downplaying any suggestion that her job could be in jeopardy.
Policy Disagreements Behind Closed Doors
The interviews reveal multiple instances where Wiles’ advice was ignored. She said she urged caution on mass deportations, warning of potential errors, and advised against pardoning violent January 6 rioters, a recommendation Trump ultimately rejected. On trade, she described a “huge disagreement” among advisers over tariffs and said she unsuccessfully pushed the president to delay major announcements.
Perhaps most controversially, Wiles suggested Trump’s aggressive posture toward Venezuela went beyond public explanations. She described the president as wanting to continue military actions “until [President Nicolás] Maduro cries uncle,” adding that such actions would ultimately require congressional authorization.
Frank Assessments of Allies
Wiles also offered blunt evaluations of key figures within Trump’s orbit. She described Vice President JD Vance as having been “a conspiracy theorist for a decade,” though she acknowledged his loyalty to the president. Vance later responded by defending Wiles, saying, “I’ve never seen her be disloyal to the president.”
On tech billionaire Elon Musk, she remarked that he is “an odd, odd duck, as I think geniuses are,” while expressing alarm at his role in dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development. She was similarly critical of Attorney General Pam Bondi, saying she “completely whiffed” in handling the Epstein files, and labeled Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought a “right-wing absolute zealot.”
Fallout and Damage Control
The reaction inside Trump world was swift and stunned. “It’s in every group chat,” one ally told reporters. Another senior adviser summed it up in a single word: “Yikes.”
Within hours of publication, Wiles took to social media to defend herself, calling the article a “disingenuously framed hit piece” and insisting her remarks were taken out of context. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed that defense, stating, “The president has no greater or more loyal advisor than Susie.”
Whipple, however, stood by his reporting, noting that every interview was recorded. “Everything was scrupulously in context,” he said, adding that no factual inaccuracies had been identified.
Why It Matters
What has fueled the intrigue is not only what Wiles said, but why she said it. Known as one of the most calculated figures in American politics, Wiles is not prone to impulsive disclosures. As one adviser observed, she did not deny making the comments—only the framing.
Whether these interviews were intended as historical candor, internal signaling, or a misjudged moment of openness remains unclear. What is certain is that they have exposed the inner workings of Trump’s White House in a way few expected—and reignited debate over leadership, loyalty, and power in a second Trump presidency.
As one longtime observer put it, “Every quote sounds like her voice. That’s what makes this so explosive.”
