Susie Wiles: The Next 'Victim'.. Why Is Female Presence Shrinking in the Trump Administration?

Susie Wiles, the first woman to serve as White House Chief of Staff, likely did not expect that her long-standing successful experience with Donald Trump would become a new source of concern for her position.

After surviving nearly two years in the role—longer than any previous chief of staff during Trump's terms—Politico reported that the president has begun asking allies about her performance and is considering names for her successor.

Although Trump strongly denied this, calling the report "complete fake news" and affirming that Wiles enjoys his "full confidence," it is certain that her future has entered a zone of doubt, and the president bypassed her in key decisions in recent weeks, including selecting Katie Zakharia as the new White House spokesperson.

Between Influence and Loyalty
Wiles holds an exceptional standing within Trump's world; she played a central role in the campaign that led him to a second presidential term and managed to impose a degree of discipline on the White House during most of her tenure, compared to the chaos and leaks that characterized the first term.

But the position of Chief of Staff in the Trump administration is not determined by administrative competence alone; it also depends on how close the official is to the president and their ability to manage the competing networks of loyalty around him.

Politico states that Wiles' opponents are pushing for her removal, leveraging reports that some of her advisors and family members benefited from consulting work linked to Trump's circle.

It noted that her daughter, Katie Wiles, worked with a company representing Republika Srpska, a Serbian autonomous region in Bosnia, at a time when two of her mother's allies, James Blair and Chris Lavita, were also working in the same field. However, a White House spokesperson denied that these sources knew the true nature of what was happening.

Prior Attacks and Speculation
Wiles previously faced a similar attack after 11 conversations with writer Chris Whipple revealed she described Trump's personality as having traits of an "alcoholic" and said his pursuit of political opponents was based on "revenge," while admitting there was no evidence Bill Clinton visited Epstein Island.

Wiles described that coverage as a "misframed smear campaign," but she survived the attempt to oust her then, which explains why current reports alone are insufficient to prove her departure is imminent.

Wiles also underwent treatment for early-stage breast cancer during the year, undergoing surgery and chemotherapy at the Mayo Clinic before later announcing that tests were clear of cancer.

Sequential Female Exits
Wiles' crisis comes amidst a broader trend. The New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer reported that four out of eight women who held Cabinet-level positions left the administration within just three months, via resignation or dismissal.

The list includes Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer. Most tellingly, men replaced all four women.

Then came the dismissal of Kimberly Guilfoyle from her post as US Ambassador to Greece, following a report accusing her of seeking help from a political donor to pay off a $100,000 credit card bill before her Senate confirmation hearing. She denies the accusation. According to the New York Times, her firing was the latest chapter in a series of high-profile women leaving the administration.

Loyalty Test or Double Standard in Accountability?
Catherine Dallen Tenpas, a researcher at the Brookings Institution who has tracked diversity in presidential administrations since Ronald Reagan's era, stated she had never seen a situation where "all the first departures from the Cabinet were of one gender, all women."

Democratic women lawmakers believe Trump was quicker to hold women responsible for failure, while men involved in similar crises get a chance to stay or receive what they described as a "political soft landing."

This argument relies on specific examples: National Security Advisor Mike Waltz left his post after mistakenly including a journalist in a secret conversation about military plans, but was later appointed UN Ambassador.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced criticism for leaking military plans via a messaging app but remained in his position, whereas other women's careers ended in dismissal or resignation.

However, Trump supporters reject interpreting the issue as a retreat against women. The White House insists Trump selects officials based on competence and ability to execute his agenda, not gender.

Maya Milman, director at the Independent Women's Law Center and a former official in the Trump administration, said conservative women in the administration do not suffer from "isolation" but possess necessary influence, pointing to Wiles, Erica Schwartz, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Harriet Dillon, head of the Civil Rights Division at the US Department of Justice.

Start of Decline or Reshaping?
Data from The Fulcrum and The 19th sites reveal that women made up about 37% of Cabinet members at the start of the second term, compared to 17% in the first term—a rise Trump used as proof of his administration's openness.

But this percentage lost part of its meaning after four female officials left and were replaced by men. According to the New York Times, only four women remain in Cabinet-level positions.

Therefore, Wiles appears to be more than just an official threatened with dismissal. If she stays, she may prove her ability to pass the new loyalty test. If she leaves, her exit will become additional evidence that female presence in the Trump administration can decline rapidly when independence, crises, or power struggles conflict with the requirements of closeness to the president. In either case, the question remains open: Are women retreating because their performance is worse, or because the cost of error is higher for them?