Introduction
Michael Wolff's "Siege" offers readers an insider's view of Donald Trump's tumultuous presidency from 2017 to early 2019. As a follow-up to his bestselling book "Fire and Fury," Wolff once again draws on his access to White House insiders to paint a vivid picture of chaos, infighting, and a president increasingly under pressure from multiple directions.
The book provides a fly-on-the-wall account of key events and power struggles within the Trump administration, focusing on the ongoing Russia investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the shifting dynamics among Trump's advisors, and the president's erratic behavior and decision-making process. Wolff's narrative style is engaging and gossipy, offering readers a sense of being privy to private conversations and behind-the-scenes drama.
While the book has faced some criticism for its reliance on anonymous sources and occasional lack of fact-checking, it nonetheless provides a compelling and detailed account of a presidency unlike any other in modern American history. Whether you're a political junkie or simply curious about the inner workings of the Trump White House, "Siege" offers a fascinating glimpse into one of the most controversial administrations in U.S. history.
The White House Under Siege
Paranoia and Division in the Trump Administration
From the early days of Trump's presidency, the White House was gripped by a sense of paranoia and division. The catalyst for much of this tension was Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This investigation cast a long shadow over the administration, creating an atmosphere more akin to a criminal investigation than the seat of American power.
The impact of the Mueller investigation on the day-to-day operations of the White House was profound. Staff members became increasingly wary of being "in the room" during important discussions, fearing that they might witness something that could implicate them in wrongdoing. This atmosphere of suspicion and self-preservation led to a breakdown in normal communication channels and decision-making processes.
Even President Trump himself, known for his unwavering self-confidence, sought daily reassurances from his lawyers that he wasn't personally a target of the investigation. This preoccupation with the investigation distracted from the normal business of governing and created a constant state of tension within the administration.
Trump's Leadership Style and Treatment of Staff
Wolff's account paints a picture of Trump as a mercurial and often cruel boss. The president was quick to attack and mock team members he perceived as underperforming, often focusing on physical characteristics or personal insecurities. This behavior created a toxic work environment where staff members were constantly on edge, never knowing when they might become the target of the president's ire.
One particularly odd quirk noted by Wolff was Trump's apparent dislike of mustaches. He would often single out staff members with facial hair for ridicule, adding an extra layer of stress for those working in the White House.
Trump's suspicion extended even to his own family members. He reportedly accused his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, of using his White House position to further his own financial interests. This accusation stemmed from a large financing deal that Kushner's family business had secured after Trump's election.
A Medieval Court Atmosphere
The combination of paranoia, infighting, and Trump's volatile leadership style created an atmosphere in the White House that Wolff likens to a medieval court on the brink of bloodshed. Alliances shifted constantly, backstabbing was common, and everyone seemed to be looking out for their own interests rather than working together for the good of the country.
This dysfunctional environment made it difficult for the administration to function effectively or to implement coherent policies. Instead, much of the energy in the White House was expended on internal power struggles and attempts to manage the fallout from various scandals and investigations.
Steve Bannon: The Outsider's Influence
Bannon's Exile and Continued Influence
Despite being fired from his position as chief strategist in August 2017, Steve Bannon continued to wield significant influence over the Trump administration. From his self-styled "Embassy" - a townhouse on Washington's Avenue A - Bannon plotted ways to ensure that Trump would follow through on the populist, right-wing agenda that had been central to his 2016 campaign.
Bannon was particularly concerned about the influence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, whom he saw as moderating forces that might push Trump away from his campaign promises, especially regarding immigration and the proposed border wall with Mexico. To counter this, Bannon employed a clever strategy of indirect communication with the president.
Bannon's Media Strategy
Rather than contacting Trump directly, Bannon would pen critical articles in national newspapers or give interviews to radio shows. He knew that Trump, an avid consumer of media coverage about himself, would pay close attention to these messages. This allowed Bannon to continue shaping Trump's thinking and decision-making from outside the White House.
Bannon's influence was evident in some of Trump's key appointments, including Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and John Bolton as National Security Advisor. These hardline right-wingers aligned with Bannon's nationalist "America First" ideology.
The Wall and Immigration Policy
One of Bannon's primary concerns was ensuring that Trump followed through on his promise to build a wall along the Mexican border and maintain a tough stance on immigration. He saw these issues as crucial to maintaining the support of Trump's base, whom Hillary Clinton had infamously termed the "deplorables."
However, Bannon grew increasingly frustrated with Trump's equivocation on these key pledges, which he attributed partly to the moderating influence of Jared Kushner. This led Bannon to question whether Trump could still be an effective instrument for achieving his political objectives.
Bannon's Ongoing Influence
Despite his frustrations, Bannon persisted in his efforts to influence Trump's policies. He continued to feed criticisms and policy suggestions to Fox News hosts and radio personalities, knowing that Trump would be listening and likely reacting to these messages.
Bannon's ability to maintain influence even after leaving the White House demonstrates the unique nature of the Trump administration, where formal roles and hierarchies often mattered less than personal relationships and media influence.
The Mueller Investigation: A Cultural Divide
Mueller vs. Trump: A Study in Contrasts
The Mueller investigation loomed large over the Trump presidency, becoming a constant source of anxiety and frustration for the president. Beyond the legal implications, Wolff highlights how the investigation exemplified a profound cultural divide between Trump and the traditional Washington establishment.
Robert Mueller represented everything that Trump was not. He was a by-the-book, straight-laced individual with an impeccable record of public service. A Vietnam veteran, former FBI director, and moderate Republican, Mueller embodied the values of the old establishment that Trump had railed against during his campaign.
Trump, on the other hand, had built his career and public persona on flouting rules and norms. His business dealings in New York often skirted the edges of legality, and his campaign was characterized by outrageous statements and disregard for traditional political decorum.
Trump's Resentment of the Establishment
For Trump, Mueller and his team represented a patronizing, moralistic establishment that he felt had looked down on him his entire life. This personal resentment added an extra layer of tension to the already high-stakes investigation.
The president's frustration with the investigation was palpable, and it affected his behavior and decision-making throughout his term. He frequently lashed out at the investigation in public statements and on social media, calling it a "witch hunt" and attempting to undermine its credibility.
Giuliani's Defense Strategy
To combat the Mueller investigation, Trump turned to his old friend Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York. Giuliani's approach to defending Trump was markedly different from the discrete professionalism of the Mueller team.
In May 2018, Giuliani gave a now-infamous television interview where he employed a strategy that mirrored Trump's own bombastic style. Rather than addressing the specifics of the investigation, Giuliani launched personal attacks on Trump's opponents and made outlandish claims about the president's achievements, including suggesting that Trump might receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts with North Korea.
This approach, while unconventional, seemed to be effective in shifting media attention away from the substance of the Mueller investigation. Giuliani cast Trump as an anti-establishment figure being unfairly persecuted by elitists who didn't respect the will of the millions who had voted for him.
The Effectiveness of Theatrics
Giuliani's theatrical approach to defending Trump highlighted the stark contrast between the Trump administration's style and the sober, methodical approach of the Mueller investigation. While it may have seemed absurd to many observers, this strategy of deflection and distraction proved surprisingly effective in muddying the waters and maintaining support among Trump's base.
However, the question remained: how long could this strategy hold off the eventual findings of the Mueller report?
Trump's Relationships with Women
The #MeToo Movement and Trump's Past
The rise of the #MeToo movement in 2017 sent shockwaves through the corridors of power in Washington, and the Trump White House was no exception. Given Trump's history of controversial statements about women and the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape that had surfaced during the 2016 campaign, many in the administration feared that the president could become a prime target of the movement.
Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist, was particularly concerned. He claimed to know of at least 25 women who were prepared to come forward with accusations of sexual harassment or assault against Trump. Bannon feared that these stories would emerge gradually, creating a steady stream of damaging headlines that could potentially sink Trump's presidency.
Trump's Marriage to Melania
Amid this backdrop of potential scandal, Trump's relationship with his wife Melania came under increased scrutiny. Wolff's account suggests that the marriage was more of a formality than a genuine partnership.
According to insiders, Trump seemed to view his marriage as an inconvenience rather than a source of support. When asked about Melania by White House staff, he would often appear puzzled, as if unsure why she was relevant to the conversation at hand.
Wolff describes the couple as living entirely separate lives. Melania spent most of her time in a house in Maryland with their son Barron and her Slovenian parents, rarely visiting the White House. When she did visit, she was reportedly overheard saying that she "didn't belong there," suggesting a deep discomfort with her role as First Lady.
Melania's Public Image
Despite the challenges of her position, Melania maintained a composed public image in the face of revelations about her husband's behavior. When news broke in January 2018 about Trump's alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, Melania remained silent.
However, she did make one notable public statement, albeit an enigmatic one. During a trip to a shelter for migrant children in Texas, Melania wore a jacket with the phrase "I Really Don't Care, Do U?" written on the back. While Trump claimed this was a message directed at the "fake news media," many observers interpreted it as a comment on her feelings about her husband's scandals or her role as First Lady.
The Impact on the Presidency
The combination of the #MeToo movement, Trump's history with women, and the public scrutiny of his marriage created a constant undercurrent of tension in the White House. It added another layer of complexity to an already chaotic administration and provided ample fodder for Trump's critics.
Moreover, it highlighted the stark contrast between Trump's public persona and private behavior, further eroding trust in his leadership among certain segments of the population. The ongoing speculation about his personal life and treatment of women served as a constant distraction from policy matters and contributed to the overall sense of instability that characterized his presidency.
Jared Kushner's Rise to Power
An Unlikely Advisor
Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, emerged as an increasingly influential figure in the White House, despite his seemingly incongruous background. As a lifelong Democrat who had previously donated to Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign and endorsed Barack Obama, Kushner appeared to be an odd fit for Trump's administration.
This incongruity was not lost on others in Trump's circle, particularly Steve Bannon. Bannon viewed Kushner as the face of "liberal globalism" and resented his easy access to the president. He eagerly anticipated the day when Kushner would fall out of favor with Trump and be ejected from his advisory role.
Kushner's Foreign Policy Influence
Despite Bannon's hopes, Kushner's influence in the White House continued to grow, particularly in the realm of foreign policy. Kushner advocated for a more diplomatic approach to international relations, in stark contrast to the aggressive "America First" nationalism that Bannon had promoted during the 2016 campaign.
To help shape his foreign policy vision, Kushner formed an unlikely alliance with Henry Kissinger, the controversial former Nixon advisor. Despite being well into his nineties, Kissinger took Kushner under his wing, providing guidance on navigating complex international relationships.
A Shift in Foreign Policy Approach
Under Kushner's influence, the Trump administration's foreign policy began to shift away from the hostile isolationism that had characterized the 2016 campaign. Instead, there was a move towards more diplomatic engagement with both allies and rivals on the world stage.
Kushner's advice to Trump was simple: "Let's not break anything." This cautious approach represented a significant departure from the bombastic rhetoric of the campaign trail and the early days of the administration.
The North Korea Summit
One of the most visible manifestations of Kushner's influence was the summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in June 2018. This meeting, which would have been unthinkable just months earlier when Trump was threatening North Korea with "fire and fury," was a direct result of Kushner's push for diplomatic engagement.
The summit, held in Singapore, lasted for 38 minutes and resulted in a dramatic shift in the relationship between the two leaders. While no concrete agreements were reached, the meeting itself was a significant departure from previous U.S. policy towards North Korea.
Reactions and Implications
The summit shocked many in the foreign policy establishment back in Washington. There were concerns that Trump might have made unilateral concessions, such as agreeing to remove American troops from the Korean peninsula.
While these fears proved unfounded, the meeting did represent a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. It demonstrated that under Kushner's influence, Trump was willing to break with long-standing diplomatic norms and engage directly with leaders previously considered untouchable.
The Ongoing Power Struggle
Kushner's rising influence and the shift in foreign policy approach it represented highlighted the ongoing power struggles within the Trump administration. The tension between the more diplomatic approach advocated by Kushner and the aggressive nationalism promoted by figures like Bannon continued to shape the administration's policies and actions.
This internal conflict added another layer of unpredictability to an already volatile presidency, making it difficult for both domestic observers and international partners to anticipate the administration's next moves.
The Helsinki Summit: Trump Meets Putin
A Controversial Meeting
In July 2018, President Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland. This summit was highly anticipated and controversial, given the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
The meeting was unprecedented in its format: a private, one-on-one discussion between the leaders of the United States and Russia, with no other officials present. This arrangement raised eyebrows among foreign policy experts and Trump's critics, who worried about what might be discussed without witnesses or official records.
The Aftermath
The outcome of the meeting shocked many observers. Trump emerged from the two-hour private session looking visibly deflated, a stark contrast to his usual confident demeanor. Putin, on the other hand, appeared to be in control of the situation.
During the joint press conference that followed, Trump made several statements that alarmed both his supporters and critics back home. Most notably, he appeared to side with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election. This was seen as an extraordinary capitulation to a foreign leader, especially one considered an adversary by many in the U.S. government.
Domestic Reaction
The reaction in the United States was one of bewilderment followed by fury. Many questioned what had transpired during the private meeting that could have led to such a dramatic shift in Trump's demeanor and rhetoric.
Speculation ran rampant. Some wondered if Putin had compromising information on Trump, either related to financial dealings or personal behavior. Others suggested that Putin, with his KGB background and years of political experience, had simply outmaneuvered Trump diplomatically.
Security Concerns
The private nature of the meeting also raised serious national security concerns. There were fears that Trump might have disclosed sensitive information or made promises that could compromise U.S. interests. The lack of any official record of the conversation only fueled these concerns.
Trump's Response
In the days following the summit, Trump did little to allay these fears and suspicions. Instead, he lashed out at the media and denied any wrongdoing or missteps. This defensive posture only served to intensify scrutiny of the meeting and its potential implications.
Long-term Implications
The Helsinki summit marked a low point in Trump's presidency in terms of foreign policy. It damaged his credibility with allies and emboldened critics who questioned his ability to stand up to foreign adversaries. The event also highlighted the unconventional and often unpredictable nature of Trump's approach to diplomacy, which frequently put him at odds with the traditional foreign policy establishment.
The 2018 Midterm Elections
A Critical Test
The 2018 midterm elections represented the first major electoral test of Trump's presidency. With control of Congress at stake, many in the White House feared that a Democratic victory could pave the way for impeachment proceedings once the full implications of the Mueller report became known.
Campaign Strategy Disagreements
Steve Bannon, watching from the sidelines after his departure from the White House, was critical of the Republican campaign strategy. He believed that Trump's success in 2016 had been due to an insurgent, anti-establishment campaign style that energized volunteers and voters alike.
However, the 2018 campaign seemed to lack this energy. Trump's rallies, while still drawing crowds, appeared more routine and less impactful now that he was the incumbent rather than the outsider. The Republicans also chose to focus on expensive TV and radio ads rather than the grassroots, door-to-door campaigning that Bannon felt was crucial.
Democratic Mobilization
In contrast, the Democrats had mobilized a large number of volunteers for canvassing efforts. This ground game proved effective, as swing seats began to fall to Democratic candidates one after another.
Election Night at the White House
Trump's behavior on election night was particularly telling. He hosted an expensive barbecue at the White House, attended by billionaire donors. As the results came in showing significant Republican losses, Trump seemed to be in denial, congratulating himself on a "big majority" that didn't exist.
This disconnect from reality alarmed many observers, including Bannon. It seemed to represent a departure from the populist, "drain the swamp" rhetoric of the 2016 campaign. Instead, Trump appeared fully immersed in the very establishment he had once railed against.
The Results
By the end of the night, the Democrats had won control of the House of Representatives, flipping several key swing states in the process. This victory gave Trump's opponents a powerful legislative tool to challenge his administration and potentially initiate impeachment proceedings.
Implications for Trump's Presidency
The midterm results represented a significant setback for Trump and the Republican Party. They indicated a shift in public opinion and suggested that Trump's unconventional style and controversial policies were wearing thin with a significant portion of the electorate.
Moreover, the Democratic control of the House meant that Trump would face much more rigorous oversight in the second half of his term. This set the stage for increased political battles and potentially more instability within the administration.
The Mueller Report: Anticipation and Reality
Building Anticipation
For nearly two years, the Mueller investigation had loomed over the Trump presidency like a sword of Damocles. As the investigation neared its conclusion, anticipation and anxiety in Washington reached a fever pitch.
Many of Trump's inner circle, including Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, predicted that the report would be devastating for the president. Kushner thought that, at best, the administration would be found to have shown willingness to accept Russian help during the 2016 campaign. Bannon had an even more apocalyptic vision, believing that the report would expose every questionable deal and shady contact in Trump's past.
The Report's Release
When the report was finally delivered on March 22, 2019, it came as an anticlimax to many. The primary finding - that there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election - shocked many of Trump's critics who had been expecting a knockout blow.
Reactions and Interpretations
The reaction to the report varied widely. Trump and his supporters saw it as a complete vindication, with the president quickly declaring victory and bragging about his toughness and acumen in beating the investigation.
On the other hand, Trump's opponents were deeply disappointed. Many criticized Mueller for what they saw as an overly cautious approach, particularly his decision not to interview Trump personally. They argued that a face-to-face interview would have likely led Trump to incriminate himself.
Mueller's Approach
Wolff suggests that Mueller's conservative instincts led him to limit the scope of the investigation. Despite Trump's obvious flaws and potential misconduct, Mueller seemed reluctant to push too hard against a democratically elected president.
This cautious approach frustrated many who had hoped the report would lead to Trump's downfall. However, it also reflected the complex political realities of investigating a sitting president.
Implications for Trump's Presidency
While the report did not deliver the fatal blow to Trump's presidency that some had anticipated, it did not fully exonerate him either. The report detailed several instances of potential obstruction of justice, leaving the door open for further congressional investigation.
However, in the short term, the report's ambiguous findings allowed Trump to claim victory and temporarily strengthen his position. It marked a turning point in his presidency, providing him with ammunition to dismiss future criticisms as extensions of the "witch hunt" he claimed the Mueller investigation had been.
Final Thoughts
Michael Wolff's "Siege" provides a vivid and often alarming portrait of the Trump White House from 2017 to early 2019. Through his insider access and gossipy style, Wolff paints a picture of an administration in constant turmoil, led by a mercurial and often unpredictable president.
Several key themes emerge from Wolff's account:
Chaos and Infighting: The Trump White House was characterized by constant power struggles, shifting alliances, and an atmosphere of paranoia. This internal strife often hampered the administration's ability to govern effectively.
The Mueller Investigation: The ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election cast a long shadow over Trump's presidency, shaping both his behavior and the dynamics within the White House.
Trump's Leadership Style: Wolff portrays Trump as an erratic and often cruel boss, quick to lash out at perceived enemies and even his own staff. This created a toxic work environment and contributed to the high turnover rate in key positions.
Foreign Policy Shifts: The book highlights the tension between the nationalist, "America First" approach championed by figures like Steve Bannon and the more diplomatic stance advocated by Jared Kushner. This internal conflict led to some unpredictable and controversial foreign policy decisions.
Media Obsession: Trump's preoccupation with media coverage and his own public image played a significant role in shaping White House priorities and decision-making processes.
The Establishment vs. Trump: The cultural divide between Trump and the traditional Washington establishment, exemplified by figures like Robert Mueller, was a recurring source of tension throughout his presidency.
While "Siege" has faced criticism for its reliance on anonymous sources and occasional lack of fact-checking, it nonetheless provides a compelling narrative of a tumultuous period in American political history. Wolff's account suggests that despite the constant scandals and controversies, Trump managed to weather the storms through a combination of media savvy, loyal base support, and sheer force of personality.
However, the book also hints at the long-term costs of Trump's unconventional presidency. The erosion of democratic norms, the deepening of political divisions, and the damage to America's international reputation are all themes that emerge from Wolff's reporting.
As readers, we are left with a complex and often troubling picture of the inner workings of the Trump administration. While some may question the accuracy of every detail in Wolff's account, the overall portrait he paints aligns with much of what we observed from the outside during this period.
"Siege" serves as a stark reminder of the importance of stable and competent leadership in the highest office of the land. It also raises important questions about the resilience of American democratic institutions in the face of a president who seemed determined to break all the rules.
Ultimately, Michael Wolff's "Siege" is likely to be remembered as one of the most vivid and controversial insider accounts of the Trump presidency. Whether you view it as a damning exposé or a sensationalized narrative, it undeniably captures the unprecedented nature of the Trump era in American politics.