Siege

Siege Plot Summary

Introduction

In the chaotic early morning hours of January 20, 2017, Donald Trump took the oath of office and became the 45th President of the United States, ushering in one of the most turbulent administrations in modern American history. What followed was an unprecedented period of internal power struggles, legal battles, and institutional challenges that would test the resilience of American democracy. The West Wing quickly transformed into a battlefield where competing factions vied for influence, where family members wielded extraordinary power, and where traditional governance norms were routinely shattered. This examination of the Trump White House reveals three critical dynamics that defined his presidency: the constant legal siege from investigations that threatened his administration's very existence; the unprecedented fusion of family and governmental power through Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's roles; and the revolutionary relationship between the president and conservative media that created a powerful messaging machine. These intertwined forces created a presidency unlike any other - one where conventional wisdom was constantly upended, where institutional guardrails were tested daily, and where the personal and political became indistinguishable. For anyone seeking to understand modern American politics, the Trump era represents a crucial case study in how power operates when traditional constraints are removed and personality dominates governance.

Chapter 1: Legal Siege: Mueller's Investigation and Trump's Defensive Maneuvers

By early 2018, the Trump presidency had entered a new phase of existential crisis as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation loomed over the White House. Mueller, appointed following FBI Director James Comey's controversial firing, had assembled a team of seasoned prosecutors who were methodically building cases against key Trump associates. The investigation had already secured guilty pleas from former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, while former campaign chairman Paul Manafort faced multiple indictments. This steady legal advance created an atmosphere of paranoia within the administration, with staffers routinely retaining personal attorneys and fearing they might become witnesses against colleagues or the president himself. Trump's response to this threat revealed much about his leadership style. Rather than adopting a coordinated legal strategy, he cycled through attorneys at a dizzying pace. His legal team, initially comprised of John Dowd, Ty Cobb, and Jay Sekulow, found themselves in the impossible position of managing a client who demanded constant reassurance while refusing to engage with details. "I'm not a target, right?" Trump would repeatedly ask, insisting on affirmative answers regardless of reality. When Dowd resigned in frustration in March 2018, Trump turned to his longtime friend Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor whose television performances would often bewilder even Trump's allies. Giuliani's approach was revolutionary in its brazenness - rather than mounting a conventional legal defense, he created spectacle and confusion, openly contradicting previous White House statements and embracing novel legal theories about presidential power. The April 2018 FBI raid on Michael Cohen's office represented perhaps the gravest threat to Trump. Cohen had long served as Trump's personal fixer, handling sensitive matters and potentially knowing more about Trump's business practices than almost anyone else. As Cohen came under intense legal pressure, his relationship with Trump deteriorated rapidly. Having been denied a White House position after the election, Cohen felt slighted. Now under scrutiny, he began making public appearances at Manhattan cafés, smoking cigars for the paparazzi - sending a pointed message to the president that he was visible and vulnerable. Trump's approach to Cohen revealed a fundamental flaw in his crisis management: rather than nurturing this crucial relationship, he publicly belittled his former fixer, creating exactly the situation he most feared. Throughout this period, Trump increasingly turned to media allies to wage a public relations battle against Mueller. Fox News personalities like Sean Hannity provided a platform for attacking the investigation's legitimacy, while the president himself tweeted incessantly about the "witch hunt." This strategy aimed to discredit any eventual findings and rally the Republican base against what Trump characterized as an establishment coup attempt. The battle lines were drawn not just in legal briefs but in the court of public opinion, where Trump hoped to secure his political survival regardless of Mueller's conclusions. This approach would prove remarkably effective, as public opinion about the investigation increasingly split along partisan lines, with Republican voters largely adopting Trump's characterization of the probe as illegitimate. The Mueller investigation exposed deep fissures within the Justice Department and tested constitutional boundaries around presidential power. Trump repeatedly considered firing Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal. These impulses were checked only by warnings from advisers that such moves would trigger a constitutional crisis reminiscent of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. The investigation thus became not just a legal matter but a stress test for American institutions, raising fundamental questions about whether traditional checks and balances could constrain a president determined to protect himself at all costs.

Chapter 2: Family Politics: Kushner-Ivanka Power Dynamics in the West Wing

The influence of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump within the White House represented an unprecedented blending of family and governmental power. From the earliest days of the administration, the couple positioned themselves as moderating influences on the president, cultivating an image as sophisticated, cosmopolitan counterweights to the nationalist populism championed by figures like Steve Bannon. Their presence in the West Wing violated traditional norms against nepotism and created a parallel power structure that frequently undermined the formal chain of command, with senior officials often uncertain whether directives came from the president or his family members. Kushner carved out an extraordinarily expansive portfolio for someone with no prior government experience. He claimed responsibility for Middle East peace, relations with China and Mexico, government innovation, criminal justice reform, and numerous other initiatives. This broad remit reflected not only his ambition but also the president's trust in family over professionals. Kushner's approach to governance mirrored his background in real estate: transactional, relationship-focused, and often operating outside traditional diplomatic channels. This was most evident in his handling of North Korea policy, where he quietly worked with Chinese intermediaries to arrange the Singapore summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un in June 2018, telling his father-in-law that making peace could win him the Nobel Prize. The couple's financial entanglements created persistent ethical concerns throughout the administration. Kushner's family real estate business, particularly the troubled property at 666 Fifth Avenue purchased for $1.8 billion just before the 2008 financial crisis, faced a looming deadline to refinance $1.4 billion in debt. This financial pressure raised questions about whether Kushner's policy positions, especially regarding countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, might be influenced by his search for investors. Steve Bannon viewed Kushner's international dealings with particular suspicion, believing the Kushner family's desperate need for cash was turning U.S. foreign policy into "an investment banking scheme dedicated to the refinancing of the Kushner family debt." Ivanka Trump, meanwhile, positioned herself as a champion for workforce development initiatives and women's economic empowerment while maintaining her own business interests. During the family separation crisis at the border in June 2018, she persuaded the president to walk back his administration's harsh policy, demonstrating her ability to influence her father on certain issues. She frequently represented the administration at international forums, including the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea, where she was treated with the protocol typically reserved for heads of state. Yet her influence was inconsistent, and she struggled to temper her father's most destructive impulses, particularly regarding climate change and LGBTQ rights, issues she had supposedly advocated for before entering the White House. Within the White House, Jared and Ivanka operated as a unified team, working to marginalize rivals and advance their preferred policies. They played a key role in the dismissal of several senior officials, including Steve Bannon and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Their relationship with subsequent Chief of Staff John Kelly became particularly strained when Kelly attempted to impose military discipline on the chaotic White House, including restricting the couple's direct access to the president. The resulting power struggle consumed significant energy and attention, with Kelly reportedly describing his role as "the worst job I've ever had" largely due to the complications created by the couple's unique status. By mid-2018, Kushner had developed a long-term strategy focused on the 2020 campaign, believing that regardless of what happened in the midterms, Trump could win re-election with the right approach. His model, he told friends, was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had survived numerous scandals by maintaining the loyalty of his base. This political calculation would shape much of the administration's subsequent decision-making, with policy increasingly subordinated to electoral considerations as the family's fortunes became inextricably linked with the president's political survival.

Chapter 3: Media Manipulation: Fox News and the Presidential Messaging Machine

The symbiotic relationship between Donald Trump and Fox News represented a revolutionary fusion of media and political power. At the center of this alliance stood Sean Hannity, whose nightly program evolved from mere commentary into something approaching a shadow communications operation for the White House. Hannity and Trump spoke by phone as often as six or seven times daily, with conversations sometimes lasting more than thirty minutes. Chief of Staff John Kelly was astounded that there were days when Trump spent as many as three hours talking to Hannity, more time than he devoted to many policy briefings. These conversations served multiple purposes. For Trump, Hannity provided a willing audience for his endless complaints, a source of constant reassurance, and regular updates on television ratings - one of the few metrics that consistently held the president's interest. For Hannity, the relationship represented both a professional opportunity and what he considered a patriotic duty. "I calm him down," Hannity explained with solemn modesty to Fox colleagues. The relationship transformed Fox News from an independent conservative voice into effectively "the Trump network." After Roger Ailes's departure in 2016, the network lacked strong leadership, and its prime-time lineup - Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham - aligned themselves completely with Trump. As one insider observed, "Fox was no longer the brand; Trump was the brand." This alignment created significant tension within the Murdoch empire. Rupert Murdoch, who had initially dismissed Trump as a "charlatan and a fool," found himself having to kowtow to the president to protect Fox's profitability. Meanwhile, his son James Murdoch was revolted by both Trump and the network's prime-time lineup, creating bitter family conflicts. "The Murdoch family had become collaborators," James declared, warning that "the world would remember." This internal conflict occasionally surfaced in the network's coverage, with the news division sometimes reporting information unfavorable to Trump, only to have the opinion hosts aggressively counter-program in the evening. The Fox hosts didn't just report on Trump's policies - they actively shaped them. Immigration became the network's most reliable ratings driver, and Hannity constantly reinforced Trump's hardline stance during their calls. When the administration's family separation policy created a public relations disaster in June 2018, Hannity urged Trump to stand firm, insisting that toughness on immigration was key to the midterm elections. In July 2018, the Fox-White House pipeline was formalized when former Fox News executive Bill Shine joined the administration as communications director, creating a direct conduit between the network and the White House. Hannity's program became the epicenter of efforts to discredit the Mueller investigation. Night after night, he advanced conspiracy theories about a "deep state" plot against Trump, often using language that mirrored the president's own tweets. This messaging strategy aimed to inoculate Trump supporters against any damaging findings that might emerge from the investigation. By preemptively attacking the credibility of investigators, Hannity helped create an alternative reality where Trump was the victim rather than the subject of legitimate scrutiny. This approach proved remarkably effective, as public opinion about the investigation increasingly split along partisan lines. The Trump-Fox relationship occasionally showed signs of strain, particularly when the network's news division reported information unfavorable to the president. Trump would respond with angry tweets criticizing the network, only to return to praising his favorite hosts hours later. This pattern revealed the transactional nature of the relationship – both parties recognized their mutual dependence but maintained enough independence to occasionally assert leverage. As the 2018 midterm elections approached, this alliance would be tested by electoral realities that even the most skillful media manipulation could not entirely obscure, demonstrating both the power and limitations of this unprecedented media-political partnership.

Chapter 4: Foreign Policy Chaos: NATO Tensions and the Helsinki Summit

July 2018 marked a dramatic turning point in Trump's foreign policy as he embarked on a European trip that would fundamentally reshape America's relationship with its allies and adversaries. The journey began with the NATO summit in Brussels, where Trump arrived with a single-minded focus on getting European nations to increase their defense spending. What unfolded, however, was a diplomatic catastrophe of historic proportions that revealed the extent to which Trump's personal grievances had come to dominate American foreign policy. At the NATO meetings, Trump displayed open contempt for the alliance, declaring that it "bores the shit out of me." He launched an extraordinary attack on Germany, claiming it was "totally controlled by Russia" due to its energy deals. His behavior was described by witnesses as having "a kind of drunkenness" to it, though Trump famously doesn't drink. He canceled meetings with several world leaders, arrived late for key sessions, and even threatened to unilaterally withdraw from the sixty-nine-year-old alliance if other members didn't immediately increase their defense spending. These actions sent shockwaves through the diplomatic community, with many questioning whether NATO could survive Trump's presidency. The situation deteriorated further during Trump's visit to Britain. In an interview with the Murdoch-owned tabloid The Sun, conducted shortly after his arrival, Trump blithely undermined Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit negotiations, suggested her rival Boris Johnson would make "a great prime minister," and criticized London's Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan. The interview was published while Trump was attending a black-tie dinner hosted by May in his honor, creating an unprecedented diplomatic embarrassment. Though Trump later attempted to walk back some of his comments, the damage was done, further straining the "special relationship" between the United States and Britain. The most shocking moment came in Helsinki on July 16, when Trump met privately with Russian President Vladimir Putin. After more than two hours behind closed doors with only translators present, Trump emerged for a joint press conference where he appeared, in Steve Bannon's words, "like a beaten dog." Standing beside Putin, Trump publicly sided with the Russian leader over his own intelligence agencies regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election. "I don't see any reason why it would be Russia," Trump declared, contradicting the unanimous conclusion of American intelligence services. When asked directly whether he held Russia accountable for anything, Trump responded by criticizing the FBI and boasting about his electoral college victory. The Helsinki summit created a crisis of confidence within Trump's own administration. Defense Secretary James Mattis pointedly skipped a cabinet meeting the following day. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, informed on live television that Trump had invited Putin to the White House, couldn't hide his astonishment, responding with a surprised "That's going to be special." Chief of Staff John Kelly muttered, "This shit is out of control. Nobody can carry this anymore." The fallout was so severe that Trump was forced to attempt a walk-back the following day, claiming he had misspoken and meant to say "wouldn't" instead of "would" - a clarification that convinced virtually no one. The European trip revealed not just Trump's unusual deference to Putin, but also the complete breakdown of normal national security processes within his administration. Traditional interagency coordination had been abandoned, with Trump preferring to rely on his instincts rather than briefing materials. Career diplomats and military leaders found themselves in the uncomfortable position of reassuring foreign counterparts that traditional American policies remained in place, even as the president's statements suggested otherwise. The resulting chaos left America's global standing diminished and its allies uncertain about the reliability of U.S. commitments, creating a vacuum that rivals like Russia and China were eager to fill.

Chapter 5: The Border Wall Obsession: Symbol, Strategy and Government Shutdown

The border wall between the United States and Mexico occupied a singular place in Trump's political imagination. Having made it the centerpiece of his campaign announcement in 2015, Trump viewed the wall as both a policy priority and a powerful symbol of his commitment to his base. By 2018, however, the wall had made little progress from concept to reality. Despite Republicans controlling both houses of Congress during his first two years in office, Trump had failed to secure significant funding for construction, creating a growing disconnect between his promises and achievements that threatened his credibility with core supporters. This disconnect became particularly acute following the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats won control of the House of Representatives. Facing a December 2018 deadline to fund the government, Trump suddenly drew a line in the sand, insisting he would not sign any spending bill that didn't include $5.7 billion for wall construction. This demand came after conservative media personalities, particularly Ann Coulter, publicly criticized him for failing to deliver on his signature promise. Trump's sensitivity to such criticism revealed how deeply his political identity was tied to the wall concept and how vulnerable he was to pressure from right-wing commentators who claimed to speak for his base. The resulting government shutdown, which began on December 22, 2018, became the longest in American history, lasting 35 days. Throughout this period, Trump vacillated between hardline demands and vague offers of compromise. His negotiating position was undermined by Democrats' unified opposition and growing public disapproval of the shutdown. Nancy Pelosi, newly installed as Speaker of the House, skillfully outmaneuvered Trump, even canceling his State of the Union address until the government reopened. This power play demonstrated how dramatically the political dynamics had shifted following the midterms, with Pelosi emerging as the first Democratic leader capable of effectively challenging Trump. Within the White House, the shutdown exposed deep divisions over strategy. Jared Kushner advocated for a compromise that would trade wall funding for concessions on immigration issues like DACA, believing this could form the basis for a grand bargain. More hardline advisers, including immigration policy architect Stephen Miller, opposed any concessions that might be perceived as amnesty. Trump himself seemed unclear about his bottom line, alternating between maximalist demands and suggestions that the "wall" might be redefined as enhanced fencing or technological barriers. This strategic confusion reflected the broader dysfunction within the administration, where competing power centers often pursued contradictory objectives. The shutdown's resolution on January 25, 2019, represented a clear defeat for Trump. He agreed to reopen the government for three weeks without receiving any wall funding, hoping that a bipartisan conference committee might produce a more favorable outcome. When that committee proposed only $1.375 billion for border barriers – far less than his original demand – Trump faced a difficult choice: accept this limited funding, trigger another shutdown, or seek an alternative approach. He ultimately chose to declare a national emergency on February 15, 2019, claiming this would allow him to redirect military construction funds toward wall building. This extraordinary step reflected both Trump's determination to fulfill his signature promise and his frustration with the normal legislative process. Legal challenges were immediately filed, ensuring that the wall would remain entangled in litigation for months or years. The episode illustrated Trump's willingness to test constitutional boundaries when conventional political channels failed to deliver his desired outcomes, as well as his inability to translate campaign rhetoric into effective governance. It also demonstrated how a symbolic issue could paralyze the entire federal government, with hundreds of thousands of workers going unpaid while political leaders fought over what was fundamentally a campaign slogan rather than a carefully considered policy solution to complex immigration challenges.

Chapter 6: Midterm Reckoning: Republican Losses and Democratic House Control

The 2018 midterm elections represented a crucial test of Trump's political strength and the Republican Party's fortunes under his leadership. As the campaign season began, Trump faced historically low approval ratings for a first-term president, hovering around 40 percent. Republican strategists worried that suburban voters, particularly college-educated women, were abandoning the party in response to Trump's divisive rhetoric and chaotic governance style. These concerns were amplified by an unprecedented wave of Republican retirements, with 41 House incumbents choosing not to seek reelection, including Speaker Paul Ryan, who announced his departure in April. Trump approached the midterms with characteristic bravado, insisting that his personal popularity would defy conventional political wisdom. He embarked on an aggressive campaign schedule, holding rallies almost daily in the final weeks before the election. These events featured increasingly harsh rhetoric on immigration, including warnings about a migrant "caravan" approaching the southern border. This messaging strategy reflected Trump's belief that base mobilization, rather than persuasion of swing voters, offered the best path to victory. Yet in meetings about key House races, he grew "restive and inattentive within minutes," unable to remember the names of vulnerable Republican representatives and dismissing them as "flyovers" and "men's shop salesmen." The Republican Party was deeply divided on how to approach the elections. The Republican National Committee, the congressional leadership, and most of the establishment wanted to run on the tax reform bill passed in late 2017, highlighting economic achievements rather than the controversial president. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was telling donors not to even bother contributing to House races, focusing instead on preserving the Senate majority. Steve Bannon, however, had a different strategy. Operating from his townhouse on Capitol Hill, which he called "the Embassy," Bannon assembled a team of Trump loyalists to run a parallel campaign focused entirely on the president. "It's not tax reform, stupid," Bannon insisted. "It's Trump." Election night delivered a clear rebuke to Trump and the Republican Party. Democrats gained 41 House seats, well above the 23 needed to secure a majority. The results revealed a stark geographic and demographic realignment, with Democrats making significant gains in suburban districts that had previously been Republican strongholds. College-educated voters, particularly women, abandoned the GOP in numbers that confirmed strategists' worst fears. While Republicans maintained control of the Senate, even expanding their majority slightly, this provided little comfort given the favorable map they enjoyed that cycle, with most competitive races occurring in states Trump had won handily in 2016. The loss of the House carried profound implications for Trump's presidency. Democrats would now possess subpoena power and the ability to launch investigations into various aspects of his administration, business dealings, and personal conduct. Nancy Pelosi, returning as Speaker after eight years in the minority, promised aggressive oversight while carefully managing calls for immediate impeachment proceedings. The prospect of divided government meant that Trump's legislative agenda would face significant obstacles for the remainder of his term, forcing him to rely more heavily on executive actions and judicial appointments to advance his priorities. Within Republican circles, the midterm results prompted soul-searching about the party's future direction. Some argued that Trump's focus on inflammatory cultural issues had alienated crucial swing voters, while others maintained that candidates who distanced themselves from the president had fared worse than those who embraced him. This debate reflected deeper tensions about whether the party should double down on Trumpism or seek to broaden its appeal. As attention began turning toward the 2020 presidential election, these questions would only grow more urgent, with the midterm results suggesting that Trump's path to reelection would be considerably more difficult than his supporters had hoped.

Chapter 7: Mueller Report Aftermath: Contested Conclusions and Political Fallout

After nearly two years of investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted his final report to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019. The submission came at a moment of maximum anticipation, with many Trump critics expecting the report to deliver a devastating assessment of the president's conduct. The actual conclusion proved far more ambiguous, creating space for competing interpretations that would shape the political landscape for months to come and demonstrate how even seemingly objective facts had become subject to partisan framing in the Trump era. Barr moved quickly to seize control of the narrative, releasing a four-page summary of Mueller's findings just two days after receiving the report. This summary emphasized that Mueller had not established a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, while noting that on the question of obstruction of justice, the special counsel had neither concluded that the president committed a crime nor exonerated him. Barr then added his own determination that the evidence was "not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." This framing allowed Trump to immediately declare "complete and total exoneration," focusing exclusively on the absence of conspiracy charges while ignoring the more nuanced obstruction findings. When the redacted Mueller report was finally released on April 18, 2019, it painted a far more complex picture than Barr's summary had suggested. While confirming the absence of a criminal conspiracy with Russia, the report detailed numerous contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian-linked individuals. More significantly, it outlined ten episodes of potential obstruction of justice by the president, including his efforts to fire Mueller and pressure witnesses. Mueller explicitly stated that if his team had confidence the president clearly did not commit obstruction, they would have said so. The report also noted that Department of Justice policy against indicting a sitting president had influenced their approach, suggesting that Congress, not the criminal justice system, was the appropriate venue for addressing presidential misconduct. The report's release exposed significant divisions within the Democratic Party about how to respond. Some progressive members immediately called for impeachment proceedings, arguing that Mueller had effectively provided a roadmap for Congress to act. House leadership under Nancy Pelosi took a more cautious approach, concerned about the political risks of impeachment without bipartisan support. This tension would persist for months, with Pelosi attempting to balance accountability with pragmatic electoral considerations. The debate reflected broader questions about whether constitutional remedies designed to address presidential misconduct could function effectively in an era of intense partisan polarization. Mueller's own testimony before Congress on July 24, 2019, proved anticlimactic. Appearing reluctant and at times confused, the special counsel largely confined himself to restating the contents of his report without providing the dramatic moments Democrats had hoped for. His performance reinforced the sense that the Russia investigation, once seen as an existential threat to Trump's presidency, had reached an inconclusive end. While other investigations continued in various jurisdictions, the political momentum had shifted, allowing Trump to claim a significant victory in his battle against what he characterized as the "deep state." The Mueller investigation's aftermath revealed how thoroughly Trump had succeeded in reshaping the political landscape. What would once have been considered damning evidence of presidential misconduct was now viewed through partisan lenses, with Republicans and Democrats reaching entirely different conclusions from the same set of facts. Trump's strategy of relentless attacks on the investigation's legitimacy had effectively inoculated him against its findings among his base. Meanwhile, his appointment of William Barr as Attorney General had ensured that the Justice Department would interpret ambiguities in the president's favor. The episode demonstrated Trump's remarkable ability to survive scandals that would have destroyed conventional political careers, as well as the increasing difficulty of establishing shared factual understanding in an era of fragmented media and tribal politics.

Summary

The Trump White House from 2018 through early 2019 revealed a presidency defined by perpetual crisis and remarkable resilience. At its core, this period exposed a fundamental contradiction: an administration simultaneously characterized by chaos and survival. Throughout multiple events that would have destroyed conventional political careers – from the Mueller investigation to the Helsinki summit to the government shutdown – Trump demonstrated an extraordinary ability to weather storms that seemed existential. This resilience stemmed partly from his skill at manipulating media narratives, partly from the unwavering loyalty of his base, and partly from the increasing tribalization of American politics, where objective facts became subject to partisan interpretation. The turbulent dynamics of this period hold profound implications for American democracy. They demonstrated how institutional guardrails, from congressional oversight to media scrutiny, struggled to constrain a president willing to shatter norms and test constitutional boundaries. The unprecedented fusion of family and governmental power through Jared and Ivanka's roles revealed the inadequacy of anti-nepotism protections. The symbiotic relationship between Trump and Fox News transformed both the presidency and media landscape, creating information ecosystems where different Americans experienced entirely different realities. As the country moved toward the 2020 election cycle, these dynamics would only intensify, raising fundamental questions about whether the American political system could withstand the stresses placed upon it or whether the Trump presidency represented not an aberration but a transformation in how power is exercised and contested in the modern era.

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

Related Books by Michael Wolff

Loading...

Fire and Fury

Michael Wolff

Inside the Trump White House

★★★☆☆3.4