Vanity Fair writer defends Susie Wiles interview, says talks were recorded

Vanity Fair writer Chris Whipple defended his interview with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles on Tuesday after Wiles denounced the portrayal as disingenuously framed. In an appearance on CNN, Whipple said the conversations were on the record and that every interview was recorded, with everything on tape. He argued that critics have not challenged a single assertion or fact in the piece, saying, “They have nothing. They literally have not challenged a single assertion or fact in the piece.”

Wiles promptly pushed back on the account, calling the article a “hit piece” in a post on X and saying significant context was disregarded. She wrote that the article published early this morning was designed to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and the White House team. In the thread, she asserted that the Trump White House had already accomplished more in eleven months than any other President in eight years, praising the leadership and vision of President Trump. The two-part Vanity Fair profile was based on months of exclusive, on-the-record conversations with Wiles, during which she was depicted as unusually candid about the President and members of his Cabinet. Wiles described Vice President JD Vance’s switch from viewing Trump as “Hitler” to becoming his running mate as “sort of political,” and said that he’s been “a conspiracy theorist for a decade.”

Whipple’s public defense followed criticism from Wiles and other administration officials after the interview was published. In her statement on X, Wiles argued that significant context was left out and that the piece reflected a broader aim to portray the Trump White House as chaotic. She added that the truth is the White House has achieved more in eleven months than many Presidents do in a full term, a claim she tied to her experience working in the administration.

The Vanity Fair profile, based on months of discussions, portrayed Wiles as unusually forthcoming about the President and his Cabinet, including remarks about senior aides and policy decisions. Whipple emphasized the documentary nature of the conversations, noting that the interviews were conducted with a view toward accuracy and context. He asserted that the piece stands on the factual record as he understood it from the sessions and corroboration with others involved in the administration. Critics of the piece pointed to perceived gaps and suggested that the publication’s framing influenced public perception of the administration’s trajectory.

The discourse around the article continued to unfold across media channels, with Wiles reiterating that the reporting did not capture the full scope of her conversations and the administration’s achievements. She closed by remarking that, regardless of the piece, the team would continue to pursue its policy agenda and messaging. “None of this will stop our relentless pursuit of Making America Great Again!” she wrote in the post.

The right-leaning coverage surrounding the Vanity Fair profile underscores ongoing tensions between media portrayals of the White House and the administration’s own narrative, particularly regarding access, context, and the accuracy of quotes and framing. The two-part profile remains a point of reference in debates over how modern presidential administrations are covered and how on-record interviews shape public understanding of executive decisions and personalities. As questions about the reliability of reporting persist, Whipple and Wiles have highlighted a broader industry conversation about accuracy, context, and the obligations of both journalists and public officials in high-visibility settings.