Fire and Fury

Fire and Fury Plot Summary

Introduction

On a warm June day in 2015, as Donald Trump descended the golden escalator in Trump Tower to announce his candidacy for president, few political experts gave him any chance of success. The bombastic real estate mogul and reality TV star seemed more likely to generate headlines than votes. Yet sixteen months later, he would shock the world by defeating Hillary Clinton to become the 45th President of the United States, ushering in one of the most disruptive periods in modern American political history. This remarkable political journey represents a profound challenge to our understanding of how American democracy functions. Through examining the unprecedented power struggles within the Trump White House, the elevation of family members to positions of influence, and the systematic attacks on traditional institutions like the press and intelligence community, we gain insight into a presidency that operated unlike any before it. Whether you're a political junkie seeking to understand the mechanics behind the chaos or simply a concerned citizen wondering how traditional political norms were so quickly upended, this exploration of the Trump administration's inner workings reveals how personality-driven leadership tested the resilience of American democratic institutions.

Chapter 1: The Improbable Rise: From Reality TV to the White House (2015-2016)

Donald Trump's ascent to the presidency represents one of the most extraordinary political journeys in American history. When he announced his candidacy in June 2015, the real estate mogul and reality television star was widely dismissed as a sideshow by political experts and establishment figures. With no political experience, a penchant for provocative statements, and a skeletal campaign organization, Trump seemed destined for an early exit from the Republican primaries. Yet his "Make America Great Again" message resonated powerfully with voters who felt abandoned by both parties, particularly in the Rust Belt states devastated by deindustrialization. The Trump campaign operated in perpetual chaos, cycling through three different campaign managers in eighteen months. After Corey Lewandowski's confrontational "Let Trump be Trump" approach led to his dismissal, Paul Manafort briefly took the helm before questions about his Russian and Ukrainian ties forced him out. The final and most consequential leadership change came in August 2016, when the Mercer family, influential conservative donors, helped install Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway to lead the operation. Bannon, the rumpled former Breitbart executive, provided ideological direction to Trump's populist instincts, championing an "America First" platform focused on economic nationalism, immigration restriction, and opposition to globalization. What made Trump's victory all the more remarkable was that few within his own campaign expected to win. Internal polling showed a likely defeat, and Trump himself had made virtually no preparations for a transition to government. Instead, many viewed the entire enterprise as a brand-building exercise that would position Trump for future media ventures. This lack of expectation created a surreal atmosphere on election night, with Trump himself reportedly shocked by the results. The hastily assembled transition team struggled to fill thousands of government positions while the president-elect continued holding victory rallies rather than focusing on governance preparation. The campaign's success stemmed largely from Trump's unprecedented ability to dominate media coverage through provocative statements and Twitter pronouncements. Traditional candidates spent millions on advertising while Trump received billions in free media exposure. His rallies became cultural phenomena, drawing enormous crowds energized by his unfiltered speaking style and willingness to violate political taboos. As one campaign insider noted, "We realized that controversy was better than conventional wisdom. Every time the media said he was finished, his poll numbers went up." This counterintuitive dynamic revealed deep public dissatisfaction with political elites and conventional wisdom. Trump's victory represented a profound rejection of the status quo, signaling widespread disillusionment with both political parties and established institutions. His success with working-class white voters who had previously supported Democrats shattered the "blue wall" of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania that had been considered a reliable Democratic firewall. The result sent shockwaves through the political establishment and raised fundamental questions about polling methodology, media influence, and the changing nature of political communication in the digital age. Most significantly, it demonstrated that traditional qualifications and political experience could be overcome by a candidate who successfully positioned himself as an authentic voice for those who felt forgotten by the political system.

Chapter 2: Competing Power Centers: Bannon vs. Kushner in the West Wing

The Trump White House quickly crystallized into warring factions engaged in a constant battle for influence over a president who had little interest in policy details but was intensely focused on his media image. Two primary power centers emerged, representing fundamentally different visions for the administration. Steve Bannon, the rumpled former Breitbart executive, positioned himself as the guardian of "Trumpism" - the nationalist, populist agenda that had fueled the campaign. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, represented a more moderate, pragmatic approach aligned with New York business interests and traditional Republican policies. Their clash would define the administration's early months and set patterns of dysfunction that persisted throughout Trump's presidency. Bannon operated from a cluttered West Wing office, often unshaven and disheveled, working long hours to implement what he called the "deconstruction of the administrative state." He placed ideological allies in key positions and pushed for immediate action on campaign promises like the travel ban, withdrawal from international agreements, and infrastructure spending. Bannon viewed chaos as strategically advantageous, believing it would keep opponents off-balance while allowing for radical change. His nationalist vision prioritized economic protectionism, immigration restrictions, and a retreat from global commitments - policies he believed had won Trump the election and would maintain his connection with his base. Kushner, by contrast, moved through the White House with the quiet confidence of someone whose position was secured by family ties. Polished and soft-spoken, he accumulated an extraordinarily broad portfolio including Middle East peace, government innovation, China relations, and the opioid crisis, despite having no relevant experience. Kushner advocated for more conventional approaches, concerned about market reactions and international relationships. He brought in figures from Goldman Sachs like Gary Cohn to staff economic positions, much to Bannon's dismay. Kushner's faction, derisively labeled "globalists" by Bannon, sought to moderate Trump's more disruptive impulses and maintain relationships with the business community and traditional allies. The president himself seemed to encourage this competition, believing it would produce the best outcomes through a Darwinian struggle. Trump vacillated between these competing visions, often agreeing with whoever had spoken to him last. This management style, whether deliberate or not, created an environment of perpetual competition among his advisers. As one senior staffer observed, "The president likes conflict. He thinks it creates better policy. He thinks it's the way to get the best outcome." In practice, however, it produced policy whiplash and prevented the development of coherent strategies across government. By April 2017, the conflict reached a breaking point. Bannon had been removed from the National Security Council, a significant blow to his standing. Media reports increasingly portrayed him as isolated, with the president himself publicly downplaying Bannon's role. "I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late," Trump told the New York Post, a statement that cut deeply given Bannon's pride in his contribution to the victory. Meanwhile, Kushner's influence expanded, particularly after Trump's decision to launch missile strikes against Syria following a chemical weapons attack - an intervention Bannon strongly opposed as contrary to the "America First" agenda. The Bannon-Kushner feud represented more than just a personality clash - it reflected fundamental questions about what Trumpism would mean in practice. Would the administration pursue the nationalist agenda that had energized Trump's base, or would it evolve toward more conventional Republican governance? The battle between these competing visions created a West Wing environment characterized by leaks, backstabbing, and constant realignment. This dysfunction prevented the development of consistent policy and contributed to the administration's difficulty in translating campaign promises into effective governance. As Bannon himself would later remark after his departure, "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over."

Chapter 3: Media Warfare: Trump's Battle Against the Press

Donald Trump's relationship with the media represented a radical departure from previous administrations. Rather than viewing the press as an essential, if sometimes adversarial, institution in a democratic society, Trump positioned the media as "the enemy of the people" - a hostile force to be combated rather than accommodated. This unprecedented hostility reflected both his personal history of manipulating New York tabloids and his strategic understanding of how media conflicts could energize his base. The resulting war between the president and the press became one of the defining features of his administration, fundamentally altering the information ecosystem of American politics. The administration's media strategy operated on multiple levels. At its most basic, it involved flooding the information environment with so many controversies, statements, and distractions that no single issue could dominate for long. Trump's early-morning Twitter pronouncements would regularly set the day's news agenda, forcing journalists to chase new statements rather than deeply investigating ongoing stories. This "firehose of falsehood" approach overwhelmed traditional media's capacity to thoroughly fact-check and contextualize claims before moving to the next controversy. As one former communications staffer noted, "Every day was crisis communications, which meant we never had time for proactive messaging about what we were actually trying to accomplish." Sean Spicer's first press briefing established the combative tone that would characterize the administration's relationship with reporters. Sent out by the president to insist, against all evidence, that Trump's inauguration crowd was "the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer immediately sacrificed his credibility. This episode introduced the concept of "alternative facts," as Kellyanne Conway would later describe it, epitomizing an approach where the administration would create parallel information realities for different audiences. Rather than conceding factual errors, the White House would typically double down, creating an environment where truth itself became a partisan issue. Behind the scenes, the White House communications operation was as fractured as the rest of the administration. Multiple competing press operations emerged, with Kushner, Bannon, and other senior officials maintaining their own media contacts and messaging strategies. The president himself was perhaps the most prolific source of leaks, regularly calling friends and media figures to discuss internal matters. These competing information streams created a chaotic media environment where determining the administration's actual positions often proved challenging. The traditional White House press operation was fundamentally transformed, with briefings becoming combative spectacles rather than information exchanges. Trump's personal media consumption habits heavily influenced policy and personnel decisions. He watched hours of cable news daily, particularly Fox News, which functioned almost as a feedback loop with the administration. Hosts like Sean Hannity maintained direct communication with the president, while administration officials regularly appeared on Fox programs to speak directly to Trump rather than through formal channels. This created a situation where cable commentators sometimes had more influence on presidential thinking than cabinet secretaries or policy experts. As one senior advisor observed, "The president's reality is largely shaped by what he watches on television." The media warfare strategy proved remarkably effective with Trump's base, who increasingly relied on ideologically aligned media that reinforced administration narratives while dismissing critical coverage as "fake news." However, it came at significant costs to democratic discourse and the administration's own effectiveness. By treating media relations as a zero-sum battle rather than a necessary function of democratic governance, the Trump administration found itself unable to effectively communicate policy initiatives or build broader support beyond its core base. The constant conflict consumed enormous amounts of senior staff time and attention that might otherwise have been directed toward governance. Most significantly, it contributed to an unprecedented polarization of the information environment, where Americans increasingly inhabited separate realities defined by their media consumption rather than shared facts.

Chapter 4: Family First: Nepotism and the Kushner-Trump Influence

The unprecedented role of family members in the Trump White House, particularly Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner, represented one of the administration's most distinctive and controversial features. Despite lacking government experience, the couple quickly accumulated vast portfolios and significant influence, creating tensions with more experienced officials and raising concerns about nepotism and conflicts of interest. Their presence reflected Donald Trump's fundamental approach to leadership - prioritizing personal loyalty and family ties over expertise or experience, a model developed over decades in his family business that transferred awkwardly to government. Jared Kushner's responsibilities were remarkably broad from the outset. The president tasked his son-in-law with achieving Middle East peace, reforming the federal government through the newly created Office of American Innovation, managing relations with China and Mexico, addressing the opioid crisis, and serving as a general troubleshooter on priority issues. This expansive portfolio reflected Trump's deep trust in family members over career officials or political appointees, but it also created confusion about lines of authority and accountability within the administration. Career diplomats and subject matter experts found themselves sidelined as Kushner established back-channel communications with foreign leaders that bypassed the State Department. Ivanka Trump initially planned to serve as an informal adviser before officially joining the administration as an unpaid assistant to the president in March 2017. She positioned herself as a moderating influence focused on women's economic empowerment, workforce development, and family issues. Her presence in key meetings with foreign leaders and at international forums like the G20 summit drew criticism from those who questioned her qualifications, but it reflected her father's reliance on family counsel above all others. As one White House official observed, "The president trusts family members in a way he simply doesn't trust anyone else. They're the only ones he believes have no agenda other than his success." The couple's influence extended beyond their formal responsibilities to personnel decisions, advocating for the hiring of figures like economic adviser Gary Cohn and deputy national security adviser Dina Powell while pushing for the removal of those they viewed as problematic, including Steve Bannon. Their preference for establishment business figures and moderate Republicans often put them at odds with the nationalist wing of the administration, creating a persistent internal struggle for influence over the president. Kushner and Ivanka represented what Bannon derisively called the "New York Democrats" within the administration, pushing for more conventional approaches on issues like climate change, LGBT rights, and immigration. This family-centered power structure created significant management challenges. Career officials and political appointees found themselves navigating not just normal bureaucratic channels but also the family dynamics of the Trump clan. Decisions seemingly made through formal processes could be reversed after family dinner conversations. The couple's status as both government officials and family members created an unusual dual role where they could shift between official and personal capacities depending on the circumstances. As one senior advisor noted, "There was no way to win an argument if Jared or Ivanka took the opposite side. Everyone knew they'd have the final word with the president regardless of the merits." Critics raised legitimate concerns about conflicts of interest, as both Ivanka and Jared maintained substantial business interests while serving in the White House. Their global business connections created potential vulnerabilities in their diplomatic work, particularly in regions where their companies had financial relationships. The administration's dismissal of these concerns as partisan attacks reflected a broader resistance to traditional ethical constraints and separation between personal and government interests. This blurring of lines between family, business, and government represented one of the most significant departures from historical norms in the modern presidency.

Chapter 5: Foreign Policy by Instinct: Disrupting Traditional Alliances

Donald Trump entered office with little foreign policy experience and a set of instincts that often contradicted traditional American approaches. His "America First" worldview was skeptical of international institutions, military interventions, and long-standing alliances that he viewed primarily through a transactional, cost-benefit lens. This perspective led to immediate tensions with traditional allies and a realignment of American priorities on the world stage, creating unprecedented uncertainty about America's global role and commitments. The administration's foreign policy was further complicated by competing power centers with fundamentally different worldviews. Bannon and his nationalist allies advocated for economic protectionism, military disengagement, and immigration restrictions. Meanwhile, figures like National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson—dubbed the "adults in the room" by media—worked to maintain traditional American commitments and alliances. Kushner established his own foreign policy operation focused on the Middle East and China, often working independently of the State Department. These factions frequently worked at cross-purposes, creating confusion among foreign leaders about America's true intentions. The April 2017 chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria, provided an early test case for Trump's foreign policy approach. Images of children suffering from chemical exposure clearly affected the president emotionally. Despite his previous criticism of Middle Eastern interventions and warnings against attacking Syria, Trump quickly authorized a missile strike against a Syrian airbase. The decision reflected not a coherent strategic shift but rather an impulsive reaction to disturbing imagery - what one adviser described as "seeing the president moved from 'why would we do anything' to 'we have to do something'" in the span of hours. This pattern of personal, instinctual decision-making would characterize much of Trump's foreign policy. Trump's skepticism toward traditional alliances created significant tensions with long-standing partners. His criticism of NATO members for insufficient defense spending, while based on legitimate concerns, was delivered in ways that questioned America's commitment to collective security. His first meeting with NATO leaders in Brussels became notorious for his pushing aside the Montenegrin prime minister to position himself at the front of a group photo, symbolizing his approach to alliance management. Similarly, his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal alienated European allies while yielding few tangible benefits. These actions reflected Trump's transactional view of international relations, where alliances were evaluated primarily on their immediate economic value rather than their strategic importance. The president's personal diplomacy style further disrupted traditional international relations. Trump developed close relationships with authoritarian leaders like Russia's Vladimir Putin, Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Salman, and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, while frequently criticizing democratic allies. His first foreign trip as president to Saudi Arabia resulted in a lavish reception that appealed to Trump's preference for personal flattery and grand spectacle. Meanwhile, interactions with leaders like Germany's Angela Merkel and Canada's Justin Trudeau were marked by visible tension and occasional public insults. This approach personalized international relations to an unprecedented degree, making American foreign policy increasingly dependent on the president's personal impressions and relationships rather than strategic interests. Despite the chaos and contradictions, certain consistent themes emerged in Trump's foreign policy. He maintained a deep skepticism toward military interventions and nation-building efforts, repeatedly seeking to reduce American troop commitments overseas. He prioritized trade concerns in diplomatic relationships, viewing trade deficits as evidence of American weakness rather than complex economic phenomena. And he consistently favored bilateral negotiations over multilateral frameworks, believing he could secure better terms for the United States through direct engagement. Whether these approaches would ultimately strengthen or weaken America's global position remained one of the central questions of his presidency, as traditional allies adjusted to a new reality where American leadership could no longer be taken for granted.

Chapter 6: The Russia Shadow: Investigation and Obstruction Controversies

The Russia investigation emerged as the most persistent and threatening challenge to the Trump presidency, evolving from initial questions about campaign contacts with Russian officials into a sprawling probe that consumed the administration's attention and energy. What began as media reports about potential connections between Trump associates and Russian interests quickly escalated into a full-scale special counsel investigation that would ultimately examine not only possible coordination with Russia but also potential obstruction of justice by the president himself. The seeds of the Russia controversy were planted during the campaign, when Trump made numerous favorable comments about Vladimir Putin and publicly encouraged Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails. After the election, U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that Russia had conducted a sophisticated influence operation to undermine Clinton and help Trump. The president-elect's dismissive response to these findings—comparing intelligence agencies to Nazi Germany and suggesting they were politically motivated—created immediate tension with the national security establishment he was about to lead. The investigation gained momentum in February 2017 when National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigned after just 24 days in office, following revelations he had misled Vice President Pence about conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak regarding sanctions. Flynn's departure highlighted the administration's vulnerability on Russia-related matters and raised questions about who knew what and when. Attorney General Jeff Sessions soon faced his own Russia-related controversy, recusing himself from overseeing the investigation after failing to disclose his own meetings with Kislyak during his confirmation hearings—a decision that infuriated Trump and permanently damaged their relationship. The crisis reached a critical turning point in May 2017 when Trump abruptly fired FBI Director James Comey, who had been leading the Russia investigation. The White House initially claimed the dismissal was based on Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation, but Trump soon undermined this explanation by telling NBC's Lester Holt that he had been thinking about "this Russia thing" when making the decision. Days later, he reportedly told Russian officials in the Oval Office that firing Comey had relieved "great pressure" from the investigation. These statements transformed what might have been a controversial but defensible personnel decision into a potential obstruction of justice case. Trump's response to the investigation followed a consistent pattern: public attacks on the legitimacy of the probe combined with behind-the-scenes efforts to control or curtail it. He regularly denounced the investigation as a "witch hunt" and "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats and the "deep state." Meanwhile, according to multiple accounts, he repeatedly pressured Justice Department officials to end or limit the investigation, considered firing Mueller on multiple occasions, and explored using presidential pardons to protect associates. These actions were often prevented or moderated by White House Counsel Don McGahn and other advisors who warned of the political and legal consequences. The investigation created deep divisions within the White House over how to respond. Some advisors, led by Bannon, advocated creating a separate legal and communications operation to insulate the president from the investigation while allowing the administration to continue functioning. Others, particularly family members Jared and Ivanka, pushed for a more aggressive approach to discredit the investigation. Trump himself vacillated between these strategies, sometimes following legal advice to avoid commenting on the probe before unleashing Twitter tirades that undermined his own legal position. As one senior official observed, "The president was often his own worst enemy when it came to the Russia thing." The Russia problem revealed a fundamental tension in the Trump presidency: the conflict between Trump's personal interests and the institutional responsibilities of the presidency. Traditional boundaries between the White House and Justice Department were repeatedly breached, raising concerns about the rule of law and the independence of law enforcement. The investigation cast a shadow over the White House, creating a siege mentality and consuming enormous amounts of senior staff time and attention that might otherwise have been directed toward governance. Most significantly, it demonstrated the challenges of applying traditional norms and expectations to a president who approached the office with a businessman's instinct for self-protection rather than a public servant's commitment to institutional integrity.

Chapter 7: Revolving Door: Unprecedented Turnover and Administrative Chaos

The Trump administration experienced unprecedented turnover, cycling through senior officials at a rate that far exceeded previous presidencies and created persistent instability. Within the first year alone, the White House lost its National Security Advisor, Chief of Staff, Press Secretary, Communications Director (multiple times), and numerous other senior positions. This revolving door reflected both Trump's management style—honed in reality television where dramatic firings were entertainment—and the extraordinary challenges of working in an environment characterized by competing power centers, shifting presidential favor, and constant chaos. Michael Flynn's resignation after just 24 days as National Security Advisor set the pattern for departures that would follow. Flynn, a retired lieutenant general who had been a loyal campaign surrogate, was forced out after misleading Vice President Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. His brief tenure highlighted a recurring problem: the administration prioritized personal loyalty to Trump over traditional qualifications or vetting, leading to appointments that proved unsustainable under government scrutiny. Flynn's replacement, H.R. McMaster, was a respected military intellectual who never established a personal rapport with Trump and found himself constantly undermined by rival factions. The communications team experienced particularly severe instability. Sean Spicer resigned as Press Secretary after six months when Trump appointed financier Anthony Scaramucci as Communications Director without consulting him. Scaramucci's tenure lasted just eleven days before he was fired following a profanity-laced interview attacking other White House officials. This episode exemplified the administration's dysfunction: Scaramucci had been hired by Trump over staff objections, had no communications experience, and was removed by new Chief of Staff John Kelly before he had officially started the job. The communications department would continue cycling through directors and spokespeople, never establishing consistent messaging. Reince Priebus's departure as Chief of Staff in July 2017 marked the collapse of the initial White House structure. As RNC Chairman, Priebus had been an uneasy partner to Trump during the campaign but was appointed to help bridge the gap between the outsider president and the Republican establishment. However, he never received the authority traditional chiefs of staff wielded to control access to the president or enforce discipline. Undermined by Bannon, Kushner, and ultimately Trump himself, Priebus was unceremoniously fired via presidential tweet while returning from an event on Air Force One—a humiliation that reflected Trump's comfort with public cruelty toward staff. John Kelly, a retired Marine general who replaced Priebus, attempted to impose military discipline on the chaotic White House. He restricted access to the president, implemented a more formal policy process, and marginalized disruptive influences. Kelly's efforts produced a temporarily more structured environment but ultimately faltered against Trump's resistance to constraints. The president chafed under Kelly's management, regularly undermining him by making policy announcements without consultation and continuing to call friends and outside advisors. Their relationship deteriorated as Kelly was caught between his military sense of duty and his growing alarm at Trump's behavior. Steve Bannon's firing in August 2017 eliminated one of the administration's most controversial but ideologically consistent voices. As chief strategist, Bannon had pushed for nationalist policies on trade, immigration, and foreign policy while engaging in open warfare with the "globalist" faction led by Kushner and economic advisor Gary Cohn. His departure came after increasing isolation within the White House and a controversial interview where he contradicted Trump's position on North Korea. Though forced out, Bannon vowed to continue supporting Trump's agenda from the outside, declaring "the Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." This constant turnover created several damaging effects: institutional knowledge was repeatedly lost; staff spent more time on internal positioning than policy development; foreign governments and domestic stakeholders struggled to identify reliable counterparts; and the administration's ability to implement consistent policies was severely compromised. As one departing official noted, "We never reached a steady state where people understood their roles and could focus on governing instead of survival." The revolving door became both a symptom and a cause of the administration's dysfunction, creating a vicious cycle where instability led to poor performance, which led to more firings and resignations, further increasing instability.

Summary

The Trump presidency represents one of the most extraordinary disruptions in American political history, fundamentally challenging institutional norms and traditional governance models. At its core, this administration was defined by an unresolvable tension: a president whose personal instincts and management style were fundamentally at odds with the structures and constraints of democratic governance. Trump approached the presidency as he had his business empire and reality television career—valuing personal loyalty over expertise, preferring chaos to order, and making decisions based on instinct rather than deliberative processes. This approach produced constant internal conflict, unprecedented staff turnover, and policy initiatives that frequently collapsed under their own contradictions. The lasting significance of the Trump era extends beyond specific policies to its impact on American political culture and institutions. The administration normalized behaviors previously considered disqualifying in public life—from open conflicts of interest to explicit attacks on the press and judiciary. It revealed both the resilience of some democratic guardrails and the fragility of others that depended more on norms than laws. For future leaders and citizens alike, the Trump presidency offers a profound lesson about the delicate balance between democratic institutions and personality-driven politics. It demonstrates that while America's constitutional system contains many checks and balances, its effective functioning ultimately depends on leaders who accept constraints on their power and recognize that democratic governance requires compromise, consistency, and respect for institutional roles beyond personal interest.

About Author

Loading...

Michael Wolff

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.Michael Wolff is an American author, essayist, and journalist, and a regular columnist and contributor to USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, and the UK edition of GQ. He has received two National Magazine Awards, a Mirror Award, and has authored seven books, including Burn Rate (1998) about his own dot-com company, and The Man Who Owns the News (2008), a biography of Rupert Murdoch. He co-founded the news aggregation website Newser and is a former editor of Adweek.In January 2018, Wolff's book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House was published, containing unflattering descriptions of behavior by U.S. President Donald Trump, chaotic interactions among the White House senior staff, and derogatory comments about the Trump family by former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.

Read more