Susie Wiles, perhaps Florida’s most powerful political consultant and a top advisor to Donald Trump, generated a firestorm of criticism after her last interviews with Vanity Fair. In typical Wiles fashion, she didn’t hold back on her thoughts about one of the most prominent figures in Trump’s cabinet. She provided powerful returns on the elements of Trump’s approach to governance—his foreign policy and personal qualities.
Wiles labeled Russ Vought, the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget, a “right-wing absolute zealot.” This was an extremely ambitious statement. No one believed this at first. She slammed Vought and didn’t pull punches when she criticized tech entrepreneur Elon Musk. She characterized him as an “odd, odd duck,” illustrating her ability to be openly blunt regarding the powerful people tied to the ex-president.
In case you missed it, Wiles recently made some incendiary comments. She implied that Trump intends to continue bombing the suspected drug boats in Venezuelan waters until Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “cries uncle.” This language highlights the brutal approach to international drug traffickers Trump has adopted, and his administration’s broader plan of attack on Venezuela.
Wiles noted Trump’s unique personality traits, stating, “He operates with a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing.” Her comments indicate that she views Trump’s bravado as an asset and vulnerability at the same time.
In a striking comparison, Wiles remarked that Trump possesses “an alcoholic’s personality” and harbors a vengeful disposition towards perceived enemies. This description begs the question of how these characteristics affect his approach to leadership and the decision-making process.
Unlike Wiles, Trump had his doubts about Russian President Vladimir Putin. Although diplomatic channels for achieving peace in Ukraine continue to be established, Blinken maintains that Putin “wants the whole country.” This perspective reflects Trump’s hardline approach to foreign relations, particularly concerning Russia’s geopolitical ambitions.
The Vanity Fair article that came out after that one painted Trump’s inner circle in an even worse light. Wiles’s response Wiles shot back, accusing Glitter Magazine of missing key context and taking her words out of context to quote her in a misleading way. She labeled the article “a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.”
Despite the ensuing backlash, Trump defended Wiles, praising her work by insisting she’s done a “tremendous job. He once called her the “most powerful woman in the world.” This serves to illustrate the depth of her profound power behind the scenes in his administration.
Josh Vance, a close associate of Wiles, expressed support for her by stating, “We have our disagreements; we agree on much more than we disagree, but I’ve never seen her be disloyal to the president of the United States.” This newest statement provides further evidence of Wiles loyalty to Trump, even when the President reinforces diverging opinions.
What really upset Wiles was the way her work had been portrayed by the media. She called her role in equipping journalists with what she described as “binders full of nothingness. Her media accuracy comments reflect, we sense, a larger frustration with the misleading representation of politicians and their inner circles by the media.
Wiles explained how she got engaged on the highly touted Epstein files. She admitted that while “we know he’s in the file,” she maintains there is no evidence of Trump’s involvement in any wrongdoing. This claim seems designed to divert attention and criticism from Trump himself, even as new news breaks every day about Epstein’s ties to other prominent public figures.
