Listen to the article
Trump Unfazed by Chief of Staff’s “Alcoholic Personality” Comment in Vanity Fair Profile
President Donald Trump dismissed concerns about White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles’ characterization of him as having “an alcoholic’s personality” in a recent Vanity Fair interview, telling the New York Post he wasn’t offended by the remark.
“No, she meant that I’m — you see, I don’t drink alcohol. So everybody knows that — but I’ve often said that if I did, I’d have a very good chance of being an alcoholic,” Trump explained. “I’ve said that many times about myself. I’m fortunate I’m not a drinker. If I did, I could very well, because I’ve said that — what’s the word? Not possessive — possessive and addictive type personality.”
The comments came after Vanity Fair published the first part of a two-part story about Wiles and the second Trump administration on Tuesday. The profile contained several unflattering remarks about Trump and members of his inner circle, which White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed were “wildly” taken out of context.
In the article, Wiles reportedly described Vice President JD Vance as a “conspiracy theorist for a decade” and said Attorney General Pam Bondi “completely whiffed” handling the release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. She also characterized Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought as “a right-wing absolute zealot” and called SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who leads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an “odd duck” and an “avowed ketamine (user).”
Following publication, Wiles pushed back against the portrayal, calling the article a “disingenuously framed hit piece” on social media. “Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story,” she wrote on X. “I assume, after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team.”
Despite the apparently candid critiques, Wiles also praised Trump’s Cabinet in the article, describing it as “a world-class Cabinet, better than anything I could have conceived of.” This positive assessment was included among the more controversial comments.
The publication prompted a swift defense from administration officials, including those who were criticized in the article. Vice President Vance downplayed Wiles’ characterization during an event in Allentown, Pennsylvania, saying they’ve privately joked about his conspiracy theorist label. “Sometimes I am a conspiracy theorist, but I only believe in the conspiracy theories that are true,” Vance remarked.
Attorney General Bondi also rallied behind Wiles, posting on X that “any attempt to divide this administration will fail” and “any attempt to undermine and downplay President Trump’s monumental achievements will fail.” She added, “We are family. We are united.”
Budget Director Vought, who previously served during Trump’s first term, called Wiles an “exceptional” chief of staff and said her leadership has created the most seamless period he’s experienced across both Trump administrations. “In my portfolio, she is always an ally in helping me deliver for the president,” Vought said. “And this hit piece will not slow us down.”
Other cabinet officials joined the chorus of support. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth described Wiles as “the most TRUSTED, most PROFESSIONAL & most EFFECTIVE Chief of Staff of my lifetime,” while UN Ambassador Mike Waltz, who previously served as National Security Advisor, praised her as “the Queen of Florida politics” who is “calm under fire, forthright, & results focused.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered perhaps the most effusive praise, calling Wiles “the single most effective operator whom I have ever met” and challenging Vanity Fair’s portrayal of the administration. “No one is more insightful, effective, and loyal,” Bessent said. “She never loses sight of the big picture while managing the daily agenda.”
The unified response from the Trump administration demonstrates an effort to present a united front despite the potentially divisive comments. The White House referred media inquiries about the matter to Trump’s statements in the New York Post, while representatives for Elon Musk and Conde Nast, Vanity Fair’s parent company, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
The ongoing tensions between the White House and critical media coverage are not surprising. It will be important for both sides to approach these issues as objectively as possible, rather than getting caught up in partisan mudslinging.
Trump’s dismissal of Wiles’ comment about his ‘alcoholic personality’ seems a bit defensive. While he may not drink, his leadership style does appear to share some similarities with an addictive personality. Curious to see how this plays out politically.
I’m not sure I buy Trump’s explanation here. Even if he doesn’t drink, the comparison to an ‘alcoholic personality’ seems quite pointed. It suggests deeper issues with impulse control and decision-making that merit further scrutiny.
It’s interesting to see how the Trump administration responds to these types of unflattering portrayals. While the Vanity Fair article may have taken some comments out of context, I think it’s important to address any legitimate concerns about the president’s temperament and decision-making style.
This is a complex situation where reasonable people could disagree. While the Vanity Fair piece may have sensationalized things, Trump’s defensive response also raises questions about his ability to handle constructive criticism. A more measured approach could go a long way.
Regardless of one’s political leanings, I think it’s valuable to have an open and honest dialogue about the leadership qualities of our elected officials. This Vanity Fair piece, while potentially biased, does raise some interesting points worth considering.
This back-and-forth between the White House and Vanity Fair is emblematic of the broader partisan divisions in US politics. I hope both sides can find a way to engage more constructively on these issues in the future.