This translation was generated using AI and edited lightly. Read the original in French here.
Months after her widely publicized remarks to Vanity Fair, in which she raised concerns about tariffs and the cost of living, Susie Wiles finally resigned on Thursday evening, even before her replacement was officially announced.
It is not so much her departure as the choice of her successor that is significant. Stephen Miller, a leading hardliner on immigration, succeeds the woman who represented pragmatic coordination.
Following a crushing electoral defeat, is Trump really responding to voters’ expectations, or is he simply choosing to adopt an even harder line?
Key takeaways:
- Susie Wiles’s ouster following the setback in the midterm elections is accompanied by the promotion of hardliner Stephen Miller.
- This choice signals an ideological shift toward a harder line and an aggressive return to the fundamental principles of “America First.”
- Miller’s appointment strengthens JD Vance’s position and the radical wing of MAGA ahead of 2028.
- The administration is prioritizing political confrontation rather than a pragmatic move toward the center in response to the Democrats.
Donald Trump has therefore pushed Susie Wiles aside, despite her being considered one of the central pillars of his administration.
How can we explain her removal following the midterm election defeat? Is she paying the price for an electoral failure, a loss of influence with the president, or internal rivalries? In light of her comments to Vanity Fair, what do we know about what had deteriorated in her position?
Tsiporah Fried: I believe the electoral defeat was the trigger. I do not think her comments to Vanity Fair were an indication that her downfall was already underway.
First, we need to recall the circumstances: Wiles submitted her resignation on Thursday evening, before Trump announced on Friday that she would be replaced and transferred to his political organization, Trump Political Operations. There was therefore no public break with Trump.
After a defeat of this magnitude, replacing the person responsible for coordinating the White House’s executive allows the president to send a signal that things are changing without having to call his own decisions into question.
She is probably assuming political responsibility associated with her position. Another possibility is that she may also be paying the price for the failure of an electoral strategy that she helped design, based primarily on gerrymandering and fundraising. It would therefore be simplistic to portray her as a victim.
Regarding Vanity Fair, the chronology suggests that we should not rush to establish a causal connection. The most widely publicized interviews date back to December 2025, and Trump publicly supported her at the time. As recently as October 19, Chris Whipple, a respected journalist and analyst, considered her position secure and believed that the controversy had actually strengthened her support within the president’s inner circle. We therefore cannot present her departure as a delayed punishment for those remarks without additional evidence.
Those interviews were intended to reveal the limits of her influence. Wiles acknowledged the difficulties caused by tariffs and wanted Trump to give greater priority to the cost of living. She thus appeared to be an adviser who understood the political risks, but whose close relationship with the president was not enough to change his priorities.
Nevertheless, some people believe she was one of the most powerful chiefs of staff. We should therefore be cautious when assessing her position. As for internal rivalries, they certainly exist, but the available information does not allow us to claim that any particular faction orchestrated her departure.
It is above all the choice of Stephen Miller to succeed Susie Wiles that is much more politically revealing. It shows the lessons Trump is drawing from this electoral defeat. Wiles represented a form of political discipline, coordination, and electoral pragmatism. Miller represents something more ideological: a return to the hardline approach of the president’s political agenda. This choice suggests that Trump intends to respond to the new congressional landscape with greater combativeness rather than moderation. It is therefore a signal of a harder line, rather than a sign of openness or a move toward the political center following the defeat.
Question: Susie Wiles’s comments to Vanity Fair described disagreements over tariffs, deportations, Elon Musk’s methods, and presidential retaliation. What do these comments reveal about how this White House actually operates? Was Wiles slowing down certain decisions, or was she primarily making their implementation possible?
Tsiporah Fried: First, let us recall the duties and responsibilities of the White House chief of staff. The position is often considered the second most powerful in Washington. Those of my generation will remember the iconic Leo McGarry, played by John Spencer in The West Wing. The chief of staff performs several essential functions: controlling access to the president, coordinating the administration’s teams and decisions, advising the president, and managing political relationships.
Susie Wiles’s comments provide interesting insight into how the White House operates, but they are not enough, by themselves, to reconstruct the actual balance of power.
In Trump’s highly personalized inner circle, having access to the president, being able to express disagreement, and being capable of changing a decision are three very different things. Her comments also tell us something about how Wiles wants to portray her own role. I would therefore be cautious about interpreting them.
Her remarks reveal disagreements over several decisions, but expressing reservations does not necessarily mean that she tried to block a measure, or even that she had the power to change it. It is difficult, from the outside, to measure the actual significance of these exchanges and their influence on presidential decision-making. Was Wiles slowing down certain decisions, or was she primarily facilitating their implementation? Both roles may have coexisted, depending on the issue and the circumstances.
She may have tried to warn the president about the political risks of certain decisions while simultaneously ensuring that they were implemented once the decisions had been made. I would therefore avoid portraying her either as a safeguard against the president’s actions or as a mere executor of his decisions. Her role probably fell somewhere in between: that of an official responsible for advising the president, coordinating his administration, and ensuring that his decisions were carried out.
Question: Beyond Wiles’s departure, what does the choice of Stephen Miller mean? Why does his promotion surprise some observers while seeming logical to others? What additional powers does this position give a man who already wielded considerable influence over immigration policy?
Tsiporah Fried: Stephen Miller is close to JD Vance, particularly because of their shared beliefs on immigration and trade policy. He is one of the principal architects of the mass deportation policy and the target of 3,000 migrant arrests per day, which have contributed to the excesses and abuses observed during ICE operations. His promotion, which is far from universally supported among Republicans, can be interpreted as a desire to return to America First and to Trump’s original promises.
This is a political interpretation of the appointment, because we know relatively little about the internal decision-making within Trump’s inner circle. This choice surprises those who expected a move toward the political center following the electoral defeat and the openness Trump had initially displayed toward the new Congress.
On the other hand, it seems logical if the president intends to implement his agenda with greater determination. Miller embodies both longstanding ideological loyalty and a willingness to use the full power of the executive branch to implement that agenda. His appointment also suggests preparations for confrontation with the future Democratic-controlled Congress, rather than making compromise the priority. This does not rule out occasional agreements, but the political signal is one of a harder line.
We must also consider what this change of position could bring him. Miller already wielded influence that extended far beyond immigration policy alone.
As chief of staff, he will be able to play a more direct role in coordinating teams, managing the flow of information, determining which priorities are presented to the president, and overseeing their implementation. He could therefore transform his political positions into administrative priorities in a more systematic way. However, his actual power will still depend on the freedom Trump gives him. In this White House, proximity to the president remains decisive.
Question: The electoral pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, yet Trump has chosen a hardline figure. Can this choice address the reasons behind the defeat? Wiles had already emphasized the cost of living and the need to turn Trump voters into Republican voters. Can the strategy represented by Miller achieve that?
Tsiporah Fried: Everything depends on the lesson Trump draws from the defeat. If he believes he lost because he moved away from the commitments that got him elected, then returning to America First may make a certain amount of sense. However, we need to clarify what that means: controlling immigration but also improving Americans’ living conditions and avoiding costly foreign commitments. A tough immigration policy, by itself, does not represent the entirety of the original electoral agreement.
Miller’s selection suggests that Trump does not consider the excesses of his immigration policy to have been one of the decisive factors behind his defeat.
Vance’s message following the election points in the same direction: he emphasizes the war against Iran, the cost of living, and the departure from the original America First commitments, without making abuses associated with immigration policy a central part of his analysis of the electoral setback. We can therefore see a selective interpretation of the defeat taking shape.
This is where Wiles’s warning about the cost of living remains particularly relevant. She wanted Trump to give greater attention to the everyday concerns of ordinary Americans. Any strategy to win voters back will have to produce tangible results on these issues.
Taking a combative stance against the Democrats may mobilize the most loyal voters, but it does not guarantee the return of those whose primary concern is improving their personal circumstances. We must also distinguish between loyalty to Trump and lasting support for the Republican Party. Turning his voters into Republican voters requires giving them reasons to vote when Trump is no longer a candidate.
Can Miller contribute to this transformation? Perhaps, if he helps turn promises into results. But his appointment alone does not solve this problem. The real challenge will be determining whether the proclaimed return to America First can translate into tangible improvements in voters’ everyday lives and become a sufficiently unifying political project to survive beyond Trump.
Question: Wiles clearly distinguished between the political paths taken by Vance and Rubio in their alignment with Trump. What power dynamics should we now be watching among the potential successors, the ideologues, and the officials concerned with rebuilding a majority? To what extent does Miller’s promotion strengthen Vance?
Tsiporah Fried: Stephen Miller’s promotion is an important factor to consider in this competition. His closeness to JD Vance, particularly ideologically, as reported by, among others, The Wall Street Journal, could strengthen the vice president. It potentially gives Vance another ally at the heart of the White House, in the person of someone who already exercises considerable influence over the ideological and policy-making machinery of the MAGA movement. However, this is not enough to conclude that there is a coordinated strategy aimed at 2028.
I would instead focus on three political assets in this competition: personal closeness to Trump and the ability to secure his support; control over the ideological machinery and networks of the MAGA movement; the ability to build a broader electoral coalition that extends beyond Trump’s core supporters.
Vance has significant advantages in the first two areas: his position as vice president, his closeness to Trump, and his connections with the movement’s most ideological figures. Miller’s promotion could strengthen this foundation. But this closeness also carries a risk: Vance could become more closely associated with the administration’s record and its controversial decisions.
Rubio has a different profile. His career and government experience could enable him to appeal to Republican officials and voters beyond the MAGA core. He could therefore have a different ability to unite people than Vance, although this does not necessarily guarantee him an advantage in a Republican primary. The distinction Wiles made between their respective political paths is interesting, but it does not determine their political futures.
Ultimately, the succession will depend on the combination of these three resources: Trump’s support, control of the Republican Party’s political and ideological machinery, and the ability to broaden the electoral coalition. Proximity to the president can be a decisive advantage initially, but it does not guarantee the ability to build a majority capable of succeeding him.
Question: If the electoral defeat intensifies the internal conflict, how might this play out in practice? Who will have an interest in blaming others for the defeat, encouraging leaks, or controlling appointments? Which issues could turn these rivalries into open confrontations?
Tsiporah Fried: We need to be cautious about claims of internal warfare. We know relatively little about the balance of power within Trump’s inner circle, and nothing currently allows us to claim that maneuvering around appointments or organized leaks is already taking place.
However, the public exchange between JD Vance and the president following the election reveals a difference in how they interpret the electoral defeat. In his message on X, Vance attributes a central role to the war against Iran and describes the expectations of voters who turned away from the Republican camp: ending the conflict, addressing the cost of living, and returning to America First. Trump also acknowledges the electoral cost of the war, but maintains that he would make the same decision again to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In other words, they recognize the same electoral problem but offer different political responses.
Vance emphasizes the need to respond to voters’ expectations, whereas Trump stands by the strategic decision he made. It is worth noting, incidentally, that this demonstrates real political courage on Trump’s part and also contradicts the idea that Operation Epic Fury was undertaken under Netanyahu’s influence.
This is where tensions could crystallize around a fundamental question: Should the administration maintain decisions considered strategically necessary, even when they carry an electoral cost, or should it adjust its policies to win voters back? This question could extend beyond the issue of Iran and concern foreign commitments more broadly, their economic consequences, and the administration’s ability to deliver on its America First promises.
These issues could create divisions between those who favor maintaining existing strategic decisions and those who want to draw more direct political conclusions from the electoral defeat. However, Trump welcomed Vance’s message favorably, so we cannot speak of a break between them.
One possible interpretation is that the vice president is beginning to establish an independent political position ahead of 2028 by becoming the spokesperson for certain electoral expectations, while remaining within the framework of loyalty to the president. This differentiation could allow him to prepare for his succession without openly opposing Trump. That remains an interpretation.
Above all, the exchange shows that the debate over the lessons of the electoral defeat is already taking place publicly; it does not prove that a personal confrontation has begun.
Question: Does Miller’s appointment open the door to a more disciplined executive branch or to permanent confrontation, both inside and outside the administration? How can the administration combine efficiency, border control, and respect for individual rights in the face of a Democratic-controlled Congress and a presidential succession process that is already taking shape?
Tsiporah Fried: It is difficult to predict what this appointment will produce. A better-coordinated executive branch can also be more combative: internal discipline and political confrontation can go hand in hand. Everything will depend on the priorities established by Trump, the degree of freedom given to Miller, and relations with the Democratic-controlled Congress. Immigration will undoubtedly be an important issue, but it does not encompass all voters’ expectations or all the administration’s difficulties. The cost of living, tariffs, public spending, and foreign commitments will also carry considerable weight.
The return to America First will have to translate into concrete decisions involving objectives that are sometimes difficult to reconcile.
Regarding border security, effectiveness must be assessed both in terms of results and respect for individual rights and protections. An electoral mandate authorizes a firm policy, but its implementation remains subject to the law, appeal procedures, and institutional oversight. Congress itself will have to balance its oversight responsibilities with the need to find answers to Americans’ concerns.
The preparations for 2028 could intensify disagreements, but they could also encourage certain officials to seek results capable of convincing voters beyond their own political base. Miller’s appointment sends a political signal; it does not yet tell us what relative importance will be given to confrontation, negotiation, and government action or, above all, how the relationship with Congress will be managed, a relationship that is already proving complicated.