Tag: Trump

The Mother Mirror: How Susie Wiles Became Donald Trump’s Surrogate Matriarch

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

by Daniel Wolfe, J.D., Ph.D.

(The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any employer, organization, or institution with which the author is affiliated. )

“Trust in God and be true to yourself.” — Donald Trump (attributed to his mother)


In a career defined by glitz, volatility, and domination, Donald Trump has rarely ceded power or emotional intimacy to anyone—especially not to women. And yet, two women stand apart from the parade of advisers, media figures, and family members who have passed through his orbit: Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, his late mother; and Susie Wiles, his current White House Chief of Staff and perhaps the most enduring political influence in his life.

From a psychodynamic standpoint, their connection is more than incidental. Wiles’s quiet dominance, maternal distance, and unflappable loyalty appear to mirror key psychological traits that Trump associated with his mother—a woman he revered, idealized, and never fully reached. As Trump now enters what may be the final chapter of his public life, Wiles is not merely a staffer. She is, in many respects, a surrogate matriarch—a stabilizing figure who satisfies his need for emotional containment, maternal loyalty, and internal order.

The Queen from Tong: Mary Anne MacLeod Trump’s Silent Influence

Born in 1912 in the Village of Tong on Scotland’s windswept Isle of Lewis, Mary Anne MacLeod was the tenth of ten children in a Gaelic-speaking, deeply Presbyterian household. The family home had no indoor plumbing, and her childhood was shaped by poverty, discipline, and religious rigor. At 18, she boarded the SS Transylvania and sailed to New York City, alone, with $50 to her name and a stated intention to become a domestic servant.

What followed was a dramatic social ascent. Mary Anne met Fred Trump, a rising real estate developer, at a party. They married in 1936 and had five children. Though she never shed her Scottish accent, she fully embraced American prosperity and Protestant respectability. She became active in the Daughters of the American Revolution, volunteered in hospitals, and dressed with regal precision.

As reported by journalist Mary Pilon in The New Yorker, friends and family members remembered Mary Anne MacLeod Trump as “tight-lipped,” “polished,” “proper,” “unassuming,” “friendly,” and “pleasant”—a reserved woman of dignity and discipline, but not demonstratively affectionate. Trump himself noted her deep reverence for public ceremony, stating, “Her loyalty to Scotland was incredible. She respected and loved the Queen.” He also credited her with influencing his “sense of showmanship.” (Pilon, 2016).

In her memoir Too Much and Never Enough, Mary Trump—herself a clinical psychologist—describes how her grandmother’s illness and retreat from family caregiving duties created emotional voids. Mary and her siblings took on caretaking roles in her absence, leading to feelings of abandonment and shaping Donald Trump’s later emotional defenses. She further details how Fred Trump Sr.’s emotional detachment and controlling behavior created insecurity in the family and contributed to Donald Trump’s narcissistic tendencies.

And yet Donald idolized his mother. “Part of her disinterest was, I believe, interpreted by Donald as exclusivity,” Mary Trump writes. “She was mysterious. The less she said, the more he needed to earn her attention.” From a psychodynamic perspective, this creates a powerful early template: a mother who is emotionally withheld but idealized—instilling in the child a lifelong yearning to gain her approval, or to replicate her presence through proxies.

In object relations theory, such a mother becomes an internalized object—a kind of psychic icon. She represents containment, elegance, structure—but also loss and emotional distance. The boy grows into a man who seeks out women who resemble her not in warmth, but in silence, dignity, and control.

The Strategist in the Shadows: Who Is Susie Wiles?

Susie Wiles is no stranger to male power. The daughter of legendary NFL broadcaster Pat Summerall, she grew up surrounded by high-stakes masculinity. But unlike many women in Trump’s orbit—Hope Hicks, Kellyanne Conway, Kayleigh McEnany, Karoline Leavitt—Wiles is not a media figure. She is a tactician. Her professional life has been spent in the background, managing Republican campaigns with ruthless efficiency, from Jack Kemp to Rick Scott to Ron DeSantis—and finally to Donald Trump.

She first joined the Trump campaign in 2016 to oversee Florida, and her work was credited as critical to his win. She returned in 2020 and again in 2024. In the chaos of Trump’s third presidential campaign, Wiles outlasted and outmaneuvered more combative or flamboyant aides. By 2025, she was named Chief of Staff—the first woman to ever hold the role under Trump. And perhaps the only one who truly commands his respect.

What makes Susie Wiles unique is not charisma or ideological purity but emotional restraint. She doesn’t grovel. She doesn’t scold. She doesn’t leak to the press. According to Politico Magazine and West Wing Playbook, Wiles is a discreet, disciplined strategist. She rarely seeks publicity and is consistently portrayed as a “steady hand” who effectively manages Trump’s impulses and internal chaos.

From a psychological standpoint, this demeanor taps directly into the mother archetype that Trump internalized: a woman who offers structure without intrusion, loyalty without dependence. She doesn’t try to be his friend or surrogate daughter. She is, psychologically, his mother in political form: elegant, efficient, and emotionally self-contained.

Recent reporting in Vanity Fair highlights the candid nature of Wiles’s own reflections on President Trump and members of his Cabinet, revealing an unusually frank assessment of internal dynamics, including comments on Trump’s personality and other senior officials—remarks that drew swift criticism from within the administration as being misrepresented or taken out of context. Vanity Fair journalist Chris Whipple, who conducted months of on-the-record interviews with Wiles, subsequently defended the accuracy of his piece, noting that all conversations were recorded and verified.

The Vanity Fair profile also underscores Wiles’s complex role: though she offered unusually candid characterizations of Trump and others in his orbit—comments that were later disputed as being selectively framed—she remained publicly loyal, reiterating her defense of Trump’s leadership and the administration’s accomplishments. This juxtaposition further illustrates the delicate psychological balance Wiles maintains: revealing enough about internal pressures to demonstrate credibility, yet steadfast in her alignment with Trump’s public persona.

The Vanity Fair interviews portray Wiles as central to both decision-making and narrative control inside the West Wing, a portrayal that has attracted debate not only about the content of her remarks but also about the media framing of her role—revealing once again how Wiles both shapes and buffers Trump’s inner circle.

A Psychodynamic Reading: Maternal Transference in Power Relationships

In classical Freudian terms, Wiles may represent a maternal transference object—a figure onto whom Trump projects unresolved feelings and unmet needs from childhood. Where Mary Anne withheld affection, Wiles withholds emotion. Where Mary Anne offered structured approval, Wiles offers structured control. And unlike Trump’s past advisers, Wiles never threatens his fragile ego. She doesn’t seek glory. She simply stays—a feat few others have achieved.


Psychological profiles consistently depict Donald Trump as a grandiose, high-energy, low-agreeableness figure—a volatile combination described by Dr. Dan McAdams as “sky-high extraversion … rock-bottom agreeableness … and grandiose narcissism” (McAdams, 2016). Indirect diagnostic work (Immelman & Griebie, 2020) places him squarely in narcissistic, dominant, and impulsive personality patterns. Mental health experts in The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump warn of malignant narcissism—a severe form characterized by interpersonal cruelty and paranoia (Lee, 2019). Clinicians like Craig Malkin and theorists such as Kohut and Bosson also point to the deeper emotional void underlying Trump’s persona—one that maternal transference figures may uniquely address. Therapists such as Wendy Behary similarly argue for a behavioral-based understanding of his narcissistic structure.

Nancy McWilliams (2011) describes narcissistic personality organization as marked by internal fragility, frequent use of idealization and devaluation, and a reliance on external validation. She explains that analysts working with this type often become unconscious “containers” for projected emotions, experiencing emotional obliteration, boredom, or invisibility.

As interpreted from McWilliams, transference figures often exert their power not through what they do, but through how they resonate. They become stand-ins for an early internal object—particularly in individuals who, like Trump, display signs of narcissistic personality structure: grandiosity, need for adulation, fear of shame, and an unconscious desire for omnipotent control.

What narcissistic individuals crave, McWilliams notes, is not just admiration—but a “containing other”: someone who does not collapse in the face of their outbursts, and who does not betray them by seeking autonomy. Wiles plays that role impeccably. She withstands Trump’s rage, channels it, and survives it. She offers maternal containment, not romantic or filial rivalry. That is what keeps her in his orbit.

Other advisers have challenged Trump (John Kelly), manipulated him (Steve Bannon), or infantilized him (Rudy Giuliani). Wiles does none of that. Instead, she mirrors back the qualities Trump yearned to see in his mother: discretion, loyalty, restraint, and elegance.

The Politics of Maternal Containment

This is not just a psychological curiosity. It is a political reality. Wiles has arguably had more sustained influence over Trump than any adviser since the beginning of his political career. She shaped the tone of his 2024 campaign—more disciplined, less erratic. She consolidated staffing, minimized legal exposure, and even managed access to the President.

Unlike previous chiefs of staff, Wiles does not appear to negotiate with Trump’s narcissism. She regulates it. That regulation—the ability to soothe without submitting—represents a maternal function in psychodynamic theory. And in Wiles, Trump may have finally found the mother he idealized but never emotionally possessed.

It also explains why he hasn’t turned on her. Trump, infamous for discarding aides with theatrical vengeance, has remained steadfastly loyal to Wiles. Even when others within his inner circle reportedly questioned her influence, he resisted. Just as a child resists separating from a “good enough” mother (in Winnicottian terms), Trump clings to Wiles not just as a strategist, but as a psychic anchor. In effect, Wiles might stabilize Trump not by commanding him, but by quietly containing him, as a good-enough mother does for an emotionally vulnerable child.

A Closing Reflection: The Boy and the Queen

As Donald Trump enters the final act of his storied and polarizing career, it is Susie Wiles—not his children, not his ideological acolytes—who quietly holds the reins. She does so not by reflecting Trump’s aggression, but by embodying his mother’s mystery: a woman whose silence commands, whose order contains, whose loyalty never fully soothes the ache it addresses.

In Wiles, Trump may see a second chance to earn the approval he never quite captured from Mary Anne. And in his loyalty to her, one glimpses the enduring truth of psychodynamic theory: that the past is never past. It is alive, enacted, and dressed in new clothes—this time, in a red blazer, seated quietly in the West Wing, holding the world’s most unmanageable man in the palm of her maternal hand.

References:

Submitting to Authority For the Lord’s Sake Like Peter, Paul, and Jesus Did

Both Peter and Paul defied authority by speaking, but spoke about submitting to authority

kevingdrendel1 Comment
Bas-relief portraying the emperor Nero at the Certosa di Pavia

One of the most discussed texts in early Christian ethics is 1 Peter 2:13–17, because it calls believers to “submit… to every human institution” and to “honor the emperor,” even in times when those institutions were hostile or unjust. Peter, who penned this admonition, ultimately lost his life to an arbitrary, capricious, and unjust Roman Emperor.

“13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.”

1 Peter 2:13–17

Paul, who lost his life to the same Roman Emporer, says similarly,

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

Romans 13:1-2


These two passages speak to the way Christians should honor and submit to earthly authorities. They have posed challenges to Christians from the time there were written. In Peter’s and Paul’s time, Nero was the Roman Emperor. Nero was a brutal, harsh, paranoid ruler who had his own wife and children killed to protect himself and to advance his own ends. Peter and Paul were both martyred by his decree.

The great American story is a far cry from the brutality and caprice of Roman history, but we have lived through our own unjust laws, including laws that protected the institution of slavery and the laws that perpetuated Jim Crow after slavery was finally prohibited. In more recent times, American have laws protected the practice of abortion, and we could find other examples of unjust laws and laws that protect unjust practices if we dig deeper.

I doubt I am exaggerating to say that no nation governed by men has ever been perfectly just, and I doubt no nation of men will ever be perfectly just. How then should Christians in any age govern themselves in light of Peter’s and Paul’s admonitions to honor and submit to governing authorities, including unjust ones?

I previously tried to parse these tensions when I published How Should the Church Act Regarding Authority? the day after January 6th, when supporters of Donald Trump, including many people flying banners of Christian faith, stormed the Capitol building in response to what they thought were unjust election results. At that time, I was critiquing the “insurrection” against the election and inauguration of President Biden. Even if the election results were unjust, shouldn’t Christian have submitted to them?

Now, I find myself critiquing the Trump Administration’s unjust enforcement of immigration laws. Some of the people who defended Trump’s complicity with the January 6th insurrection are now defending the current immigration enforcement practices based on the biblical mandate to honor and submit to authority. It seems to be a tangled mess!

We should obviously be consistent, and not selective, about the law and order we submit to, but how we should live that out in the face of injustice may not seem crystal clear. It’s important, though, that we do the work to rightly divide the Word of God

Continue reading “Submitting to Authority For the Lord’s Sake Like Peter, Paul, and Jesus Did” →

A New Donald Trump?

“I’m going to be watching to see if this was really a life-changing, life-altering moment….”

kevingdrendel45 Comments

This morning I watched two different videos about Donald Trump in the aftermath of the assassination attempt that came within millimeters of ending his life. Such an experience would sober the hardest of self-made men. Trump experienced the proof of the reality of personal mortality and the razor line between alternate fates.

The first video I might have ignored, but for the source. Capturing Christianity is a YouTuber who manages a thoughtful and circumspect apologetic presence online. He interviews good people and engages in civil conversation with people who disagree with him. I am attracted to people like that.

The video purported to be about a prophecy predicting the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. I don’t run after so-called prophecies. I am immediately skeptical when I see anyone claiming to be a prophet or to have some message from God.

With that said, I do not completely dismiss the idea that God could speak to or through anyone. If we believe anything in the Bible, we have to accept that God has spoken to and through people in the past. I also don’t see anything in the Bible that indicates God can no longer do that if He chooses to speak to or through people in the present.

I believe that skepticism is the right posture from which to consider any claimed prophecy, but I believe we also have to acknowledge and respect Paul’s admonition:

“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast to what is good.”

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 (ESV)

The title of the video is, Viral Trump Prophet Now Admits THIS. I don’t like clickbait headlines either, though I admit to being persuaded to click on them sometimes. When I do, my Spidey senses are always tingling, expecting to be disappointed by another bait and switch or overblown story that has little to no factual support, is (likely) full of misinformation and disinformation, and (maybe) even outright misleading information. I have seen it too many times.

I respected the source, however, so I clicked.

The 15-minute video walks through a purported prophecy published by one, Brandon Biggs, four days before the assassination attempt. Mr. Biggs seems very sincere and forthright, but many people can be sincerely and forthrightly wrong. I will let you discern for yourself:

The gist of the Capturing Christianity take is that Biggs got some things wrong, though he accurately predicted the assassination attempt.

Of course, anyone could predict an assassination attempt. I have personally heard people speculate that such an attempt might be made, given the current, polarized and tensely emotional political climate.

The video commentary includes clips of what Mr. Biggs claims he saw in a vision and his interpretation of it. Some of what he saw and reported days before the incident are generally accurate to the events that occurred. In particular, he saw a bullet whiz past Trump’s right ear. He saw blood coming from Trump’s right ear, and he saw Trump down on his knees.

As the commentary points out, anyone might predict an assassination attempt, but the details of this vision are remarkably close to what actually happened. The bullet didn’t whiz past the left ear. It didn’t whiz past the top of the head, or chin, or cheeks, or neck or chest. It whizzed past Trump’s right ear.

Biggs added that Trump’s eardrum was ruptured and that he was “radically born again”. This is where the reality differs. Donald Trump’s eardrum was not ruptured. We also have no way of knowing what happened in Donald Trump’s mind or heart.

The central point of the commentary focused on Mr. Biggs’s “admission” that he added to what he saw in the vision. Biggs says that he didn’t see the bullet pierce Trump’s ear, but he saw the blood coming from the ear. He also mentioned seeing sonic waves behind the bullet, as in the movie, Matrix.

(I am reminded in this comment that prophets are people who perceive things in the context of their culture, experience, and understanding. Food for thought as we read the Old Testament prophets – not that Brandon Biggs should be compared to an Old Testament prophet.)

Briggs admits that he assumed the bullet somehow caused Trump’s eardrum to burst. He added that part, because it seemed like be a logical conclusion to him from what he believed he saw. What he saw, and what he assumed are two different things.

I believe Biggs was sincere and forthright, as I said above, and he was humble in explaining these things. He wasn’t defensive. He didn’t seem intent on defending himself. In fact, he was apologetic and called himself “immature” in not recognizing the difference between what he saw and what he assumed.

So much for these basic facts. They aren’t what I want to focus on here.

As I stated just three days ago, the original prophecy about Trump being President (in 2011) and the miraculous escape from death this week (even if we admit God’s hand in the prophecies and the saving of Trump’s life) do not mean that Trump is God’s man and that Christians should uncritically support him in whatever he says and does.

Paul said we need to “test everything” (1 Thess. 5), so I think that is exactly what we should do. Some people may say that I am vacillating, but I am not. I am keeping an open mind in taking a closer look.

Continue reading “A New Donald Trump?” →

What is Our Christian Response to Immigration?

kevingdrendel2 Comments
(c) Can Stock Photo / tana
(c) Can Stock Photo / tana

Immigration is a hot topic today. It was a major issue in the recent presidential election, and it remains front and center in the public psyche. The surprise election of Donald Trump and his talk about building a wall has heightened the discussion.

The public discourse reveals a country emotionally and philosophically divided over the issue of immigration. The public discourse suggests two polarized sides: one side wanting to wall out the world, and the other side wanting to open the flood gates indiscriminately to the world.

Think about it, though: Does one side really want to wall out the world, shutting off the borders to everyone? Does the other side really want to open the borders wide to anyone and everyone without limits?

Those are rhetorical questions of course. Most people are somewhere to the center of those two positions. As Christians, though, we don’t march to the beat of popular politics. We seek to follow Jesus and aim to usher in the kingdom of God – at least that should be our aim.

So what is the Christian response to immigration?

Continue reading “What is Our Christian Response to Immigration?” →

Immigration: Stepping Back and Looking Forward

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

(c) Can Stock Photo / jgroup
(c) Can Stock Photo / jgroup

Immigration has been front and center in the presidential election. Much of the objection to Donald Trump has focused on his statements about immigration, like the famous wall that he claimed he will make Mexico pay for. Rhetoric makes for a good news buzz and can stir up strong emotions, but now the rhetoric is fading.

A little bit anyway.

Still, the fear of the immigrants and their families and friends in places like Aurora, Illinois,[1] and other places where large immigrant populations exist is palpable. Those fears are fueled by the Trump campaign rhetoric, which the media played up.

Now that the rhetoric of the election is fading (hopefully), the real business of planning the future is begun. Trump’s actual plans are beginning to be learned (or beginning to be determined, if you are of the cynical kind), and it appears to be deviating from the rhetoric. As the dust settles, it makes sense to take a step back to consider the way forward. Continue reading “Immigration: Stepping Back and Looking Forward” →