TOP
Alyssa Farah Griffin
Chapters
The FRONTLINE Interviews
Alyssa Farah Griffin
Former White House Communications Director
Alyssa Farah Griffin is a political commentator for CNN and has recently been named a co-host of The View. She served as press secretary for then Vice President Mike Pence from 2017 to 2019 and as the White House director of strategic communications in 2020.
The following interview was conducted by the Kirk Documentary Group’s Mike Wiser for FRONTLINE on May 20, 2022. It has been edited for clarity and length.
This interview appears in:
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
Rise of Donald Trump
I wanted to start back in 2016, and you're working for the Freedom Caucus at that point, 2015-2016, and Donald Trump is rising inside the Republican Party.What is the feeling towards him?How are people describing him?How do they see him as a candidate?
So going back to, kind of, 2015 when the former president, you know, famously came down the escalator at Trump Tower, it in some ways kind of rocked the political world and the Republican Party.I don't think anyone was quite sure initially how seriously to take it.
The initial congressional endorsements for Donald Trump were not the most conservative members; it was not the Freedom Caucus.And at that time, most of the members of the Freedom Caucus ended up supporting people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul.We even had a few Marco Rubio supporters.I don't believe we had any who were initially supporters of Donald Trump, which was interesting.
But to kind of understand that moment, the Freedom Caucus of that era, which I was the communications director for, was a much more traditionally conservative group, meaning limited government, cutting taxes, you know, social conservative policies, but not really reminiscent of more the MAGA populist Trumpism that we've come to know now.So it wasn't surprising that a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz were a better ideological fit.
But yeah, he came onto the scene.I mean, my opinion was he was going to be a disaster for the party, but I also didn't expect him to go as far as he did.And, you know, I remember going with Mark Meadows, who at the time was the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, to Fox News to go on TV and endorse Ted Cruz, when Ted Cruz and Trump were neck and neck.So it kind of—it shows you at that time, people were in a different place than they are now, and of course now the Freedom Caucus has come to be one of the most kind of die-hard groups that support the former president no matter what.
What would a Mark Meadows see in a Trump at that point, when he's going on to endorse Ted Cruz?
Well, you know, I don't want to speak for Mark, but I would say this.At the time, Ted Cruz made sense.Ted Cruz was almost like the kind of godfather of the Freedom Caucus.He'd shown them the tactics of taking on your own leadership.He was a constitutional conservative—is, you know, what we would have said back then.But it's remarkable how much both Ted Cruz has changed and the members of the Freedom Caucus.
But I do remember that once Trump got the nomination, support for him did line up pretty quickly.That was what was really surprising to me to see, because he was such a different figure in Republican politics.But pretty much once he got the nomination, at least publicly, all the members of the Freedom Caucus were behind him.There were these rumblings of, you know, trying to do something creative at the convention, but nothing materialized.
How were they seeing it once he's securing the nomination inside the Freedom Caucus, which have been an ideological group that had a view of what conservatism was?And he secures the nomination.And how were they viewing him at that point?How were they viewing the calculation that they're making in falling behind him?
Well, to understand the Freedom Caucus ideologically, in relation to Donald Trump early on, you have to know and realize this is a very socially conservative group.We opened all meetings with prayer.We talked a lot about family values, you know, pushing for pro-life kind of policies in the House.So this figure in Donald Trump, who's known for, you know, blasting his affairs on tabloids and multiple divorces, seemed like such an ideological shift from where the group was, and that was something I remember in early Freedom Caucus meetings was raised the most.His character was what people took more issue with than even policy positions.And I think some of that, frankly, is because no one actually knew what Donald Trump's policies were.He, you know, was a chameleon in the sense that I think he looked at the base; he said, "I think I can replicate the Republican Party base," and I think he kind of came up with a lot of his policies as he went.The only ones that were really like long-standing, consistent policies were probably his stance toward China.
But I remember a moment shortly after Trump got the nomination. Folks lined up behind him. That was the most significant for getting the conservatives and the Freedom Caucus on board, was when [future] Vice President Mike Pence came on board.… And he made overtures to the Freedom Caucus, and that helped kind of dispel the fears of the, you know, traditional conservatives.They felt like they had an ally in Pence.I know he and Jim Jordan were close and had a relationship.
But I also recall at one point, some of the wives of Freedom Caucus members, after the <i>Access Hollywood</i> tape came out, decided to do a Women for Trump bus tour.And at the time, they'd asked me to help with it.I declined because I was not a Trump supporter.But—the argument that was made to me of why they needed to stick by him is, you know, first and foremost, it's binary between he and Hillary Clinton at that point, but also, he was going to have the ability to staff the entirety of the federal government.So think of how many conservative champions could get into these positions and advance policies we believe in.A valid argument, but it didn't persuade me.They went on the bus tour, and I stayed home.
But that was the thinking for a lot of folks.There was a lot of rationalizing around, "We know we can trust Mike Pence."And for what it's worth, that was also my viewpoint.I went on to work for Mike Pence.I'm very proud of that, and I will forever be grateful that Mike Pence served in that administration.
Trump and the 2016 Election
… We've gone back and talked to people who are experts in democracy, and they say they saw warning signs.Even the Iowa caucus Trump says was rigged, that Ted Cruz had rigged the Iowa caucus.There's violence at some of the rallies.There's the speech that he gives, about "I alone can fix it."Did you see concerns?Did others you were around have concerns on that aspect, on the aspect of American democracy, respect for the institutions of government?
So now, in 2022, I've been very outspoken about the fact that Donald Trump is an imminent threat to democracy, and not just him, but what he's created in Trumpism.We've seen it play out in other candidates around the country.But I have to admit, I didn't really see that early on. …But in recent years, I read the book <i>How Democracies Die</i>, which was written in 2018, and it basically predicts everything that happened with Jan. 6.And it warns us.So I think I'm where probably the vast majority of Americans are, where, sure, there were warning signs, but they weren't really sure what to make of it.
And I think there's also this element, like even when I resigned from the Trump White House in December of 2020, I couldn't even then have fathomed Jan. 6 taking place.But as we know, I mean, historically, and not just in the U.S., it tends to be—democracies die today by more of a slow burn.You get conditioned to more authoritarian tactics, to the heavy hand of government over time, that when it actually happens and you've lost the freedoms and the way of American democracy, you may not even—you likely won't have even seen it coming.
… Why did things look different back then than they do now?And what were those decisions?People may not even know they were making decisions that would impact what would happen by the end.
Well, actually, one more thing, building off of that, if you don't mind.I think one of the kind of fatal flaws of the Trump presidency, but that has factored into his repeated undermining of American democracy, is simply the fact that he does not fundamentally understand the American republic and the role of the president, the co-equal branches of government.He could rattle off maybe talking points that indicate he gets it, but he just does not.
I was with him countless times in the Oval Office where there was no understanding of, for example, why he couldn't weaponize the DOJ, why the Department of Justice wasn't, you know, merely a hand of government that was supposed to work for him.And there's a lot we could take from this era.I think the fact that we don't seem to have basic civic understanding anymore and that a man was able to be elected president who didn't understand the basic American civics is kind of horrifying.
Pence’s Role in the Trump Administration
… So you enter the administration working for Mike Pence.Why do you decide to go and work for him at that point, in 2017?
So I had been offered an opportunity on the Trump campaign in 2016 to work on the communications team.I declined to do so.I actually have admitted I didn't vote for Trump in 2016; I wrote in Paul Ryan and Mike Pence.I just was not comfortable.… It wasn't even in my mind about the threat he would pose to democracy, honestly.It was criticizing Gold Star parents; it was, you know, dangerous bigoted rhetoric around immigrants and immigration.I just didn't feel like he had the character to be president.
But there—once someone is the commander in chief of the U.S. military, the leader of the free world—and he's there for four years, unless he gets impeached, which by the way he did, and still is there for four years—I think that people of good faith who are public-service-minded absolutely needed to consider going in.And I'm grateful that many people stepped up who maybe didn't support him, but thought, you know, I could maybe help in a small way.
So for me, working for Mike Pence, I mean, he was an ideological kind of ally of mine.I'm a traditional conservative.He's someone I'd admired since he was the Republican Study Committee chairman in the House of Representatives.And he was someone I trusted.I have always known him to be a man of character and somebody will never in history, other than maybe for Jan. 6, get the credit for how much he kept the wheels on the American presidency for those four years.
So I was asked to go into his administration after the previous—Vice President Pence's previous press secretary stepped down.I actually met the vice president very briefly during the health care battle in 2017, when I was with the Freedom Caucus.And they reached out to me, and it was an easy decision.
At the same time, I'd also been approached by the Trump communications team in the White House about working with them, and I declined in favor of working for Vice President Pence.
Do you know why he chose to be on the ticket?
So I think—I mean, there's a number of reasons.I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any politician of any party at any time who wouldn't say yes to being on a presidential ticket.And I mean, simply to even get into politics, you have to have a certain level of ambition, but also the belief that you could do things better than others.
But Pence is also a very public-service-minded person.He'd been in the House for a number of years.He'd obviously served as governor.And I think—I mean, I don't want to speak for him, but I think he would have probably preferred to be a running mate to more of a Ted Cruz or someone else, or seen his name at the top of the ticket.But he got the call from Donald Trump.He tells the story in a very funny manner.But—I think he thought he could be helpful in that administration.And he was.
What was funny about the story?
Vice President—former Vice President Pence loves to tell the story of when he actually got the phone call to join the ticket.And he had gone out somewhere golfing with Trump days prior.And Mike Pence is at best a very amateur golfer, whereas Donald Trump is known for being a very, very good golfer.So Pence leaves thinking, I have no way—no idea which way this is going to go.But he gets the phone call late one night, the familiar voice of Donald Trump saying, "Mike, it's going to be great; it's going to be amazing."And Pence says, "I don't know if there's a question in there, but if there is, the answer is yes."And they laugh, and he goes on to join the ticket.
Can you describe his role inside the administration and how he sees it and the idea of the audience of one and the need to show loyalty when he's in public, and how seriously he took that.
So Vice President Pence, there's two things you really have to understand about him to understand his four years in office.The first and foremost, he's a man of faith; he talks very openly about his Christian faith, which guides him toward public service.He believes he was called to be there in that time.So that's one side of him that you really need to know to understand him.
But the other is, he's an extremely shrewd and disciplined person who understood from day one that, in order to survive four years of the mercurial President Donald Trump, he had to publicly be aligned with him, not be seen as criticizing him.So he, you know, it's something I would joke about with him, but he would take as seriously a <i>Fox & Friends</i> news interview as he would a meeting with a head of state, knowing that what gets back to that audience of one is so important, because no one was safe in that White House.At any minute, the wrong step in those four years, Pence could have been kicked to the curb and replaced on the ticket.
But, I want to say one thing about Mike Pence, because I think he's a historically misunderstood figure.I'm proud to know him and to have served with him.He was someone who believed in large parts of the Trump agenda; there's no question. He was very up front about that.But he was probably the most significant force behind the scenes in helping keep the presidency on track.
And, you know, people always kind of say that without giving examples, but on everything from, you know, firing very senior Cabinet officials to using the Department of Justice in ways that he shouldn't have, toward even just reckless policy proposals, Pence did have this relationship with Trump that was so positive for most of the presidency that he was able to be that voice in his ear that kept things on the rails, and I think he was the most significant force probably for good in those four years.
… It's almost like there's an implicit or an explicit deal between the two of them that there's going to be no public criticism of the president—in fact, there's going to be public praise of the president—and then in exchange for that, you get a level of access.Do you think that's how he saw it?
I think that Pence had observed and spent enough time with President Trump to know—he saw so many staff go in and out the door.He saw so many Cabinet officials go in and out the door, and senior advisers.He knew what not to do, and he internalized that.And he also—what was so starkly different between the Mike Pence office and the Donald Trump office within the White House is Pence surrounded himself by a highly professional, highly loyal team people who'd served in very senior roles before and were very, very loyal to the principal, Mike Pence.
So he was able to operate, understanding that like—you know, our kind of mantra in his office was basically "Do no harm."We were there to be a support system to the president, but certainly to never make bigger headlines than him or outshine him, and definitely to never be disloyal, whereas the White House, I mean, one of the most—the starkest things to this day from the Trump era is just how bad he was at hiring.The people around him—which is an indictment of the principal before anyone else—were constantly infighting.They were constantly focusing more on backstabbing one another than even serving the presidency or the American public.So that was another very distinct dynamic between the two offices.
How hard was it for him?I think back now to, say, Charlottesville.I know you come on after that.And he recently went to the memorial for Heather Heyer.But at that time, he had to be—while he did condemn the white supremacists, he was not critical of the president.Would a situation like that be a difficult one for him?
It's interesting, because even as close as I considered myself for many years with Mike Pence, there are so few people he shows what he's truly thinking to.He was honest with me; he was direct with me.But the one kind of sacred thing that I don't think he revealed to anyone other than maybe his wife and his two chiefs of staff was how he truly felt in moments when the former president did something just reprehensible.
And that was, by the way, part of what protected him for four years, is he wouldn't even privately—man, he must have let out the biggest sigh of relief when the presidency was over because he finally didn't have to be hiding what he thought and what he felt for such a long period of time.
… You think about Jeff Flake, who, when you're there, is under assault.And the two of them were reportedly best friends for all of those years, and now he's in a job where he has to watch that happen.
Yeah.The Jeff Flake relationship I knew was hard on him.There—but I will say, Pence's humanity and his ability to maintain good relationships was an advantage that he frankly had over Donald Trump.I'll never forget the night that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in the Senate.It was Jeff Flake and Susan Collins who were holding out from voting last minute, and purely because of this longstanding relationship between Mike Pence and Jeff Flake, after hours of talking, he was able to sway him to come on board, and ultimately Susan Collins did as well.
But, I mean, it's funny because something that Donald Trump would tout as his biggest achievement was actually in fact, you know—only went across the finish line because Mike Pence and Jeff Flake were longstanding friends, and he convinced him to get on board.
Wow.I mean, and that was that point after the president had been attacking Flake.
Yeah, exactly, yeah.
Trump and the Evolving Republican Party
So let me take you through up to when you joined into the White House.What's the state of play when they ask you to come in, and how are you evaluating that moment?
… So in mid-2017 is when the Republicans were trying to push their version of Obamacare repeal and kind of do a replacement package.And ultimately, the bill that was taken up in the House, which the Trump White House was supporting, the Freedom Caucus was not supporting.Our position was it wasn't going to do enough to lower premiums and it wasn't actually doing enough to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is what they had all campaigned on.
So in the final hours before the vote, which ultimately failed in the House, Vice President Pence, Reince Priebus, the then-chief of staff, come to the Capitol Hill Club, where the Freedom Caucus is meeting, and try to convince them to get on board because the Trump White House was behind this, and it was going to be a win for Republicans.
It ultimately ended up failing.A different version was taken up, which, you know, John McCain famously voted against in the Senate.And the Freedom Caucus members were actually on Trump's bad list for a bit after that.He tweeted out against Mick Mulvaney, Mark Meadows and Raúl Labrador.And it was a moment that I think the Freedom Caucus members started feeling very isolated, thinking, you know, he's more aligned with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell than us.
And during this period, Meadows encouraged me to reach out to the White House to try to smooth over some relationships with the communications team.So I did.I ended up meeting with Hope Hicks and Sarah Sanders, which ended up materializing into being offered a job in the communications shop for the president.But at the same time, I had received a request from the vice president's office to interview and ultimately got an offer to be his press secretary.
To me, it was no question between the two roles.I wanted to work for Mike Pence.He was—again, I voted for Mike Pence; I didn't vote for Donald Trump at this point.So I joined his team in September of 2017.
And the relationship with the former members of Congress was beginning to smooth over.Jim Jordan had a great relationship with Mike Pence.He went on to have a very good relationship with Trump, as did Mark Meadows.
But I think that moment in time—of the Freedom Caucus kind of, you know, blocking the Obamacare replacement bill—was a moment that a lot of those guys in the Freedom Caucus, instead of staying with the idea of "We want to take on leadership, even if it's our own," ended up pivoting to "How do we get in Donald Trump's good graces?"
You date that change for somebody like Mark Meadows to, what, the summer of 2017?What do they see that makes them decide that the center of the party and the center of the caucus is Donald Trump?
So I think it was the first time—if you think about it, in the Tea Party era, you know, 2010 onward to the Trump era to, you know, 2016, the Freedom Caucus guys had the benefit of always being the most aligned faction with the base.So when they took on their own leadership, they got the reward of talk radio praising them, Twitter conservatives singing their praises, being stars on late-night on Fox News.So they were very empowered through that kind of conservative base ecosystem.
But that began to kind of shift on its head once Donald Trump came into power.Suddenly Donald Trump was the leader of the base.If you were out of step with Donald Trump, you were out of step with the base.And for those guys, they're out of step with the establishment and the base in that brief moment.And I think they kind of made the calculation: We probably are better hitching our wagon to Donald Trump's than, you know, just continuing to fight in this much smaller element of the party, which, I hate to say, but I think is a dying part of the Republican Party, which is the traditionally conservative base.
I'd point to, you know, Mark Sanford or Justin Amash, former Freedom Caucus members, both who left Congress.That's not where the Republican Party is, and it's certainly not where the base is right now, the limited-government, small-government conservatives.
It's interesting, because by the time you're going to join as the communications director for the White House, Mark Meadows is by that point inside the White House.How does he end up inside the White House?
I think that, you know, throughout the four years, Mark Meadows thought about, had aspirations to be in the White House.But I don't know that he ever, you know, had his finger on what the right role would be.Chief of staff, obviously, kind of probably would have been anyone's top choice.
I knew as soon as he announced that he wasn't running for reelection that something was underway, that he was either going to join a senior role in the campaign or go into the White House.What I was most surprised by was that he was replacing Mick Mulvaney, his longtime friend and another former boss of mine, because Mick is somebody who could have told him what a thankless job it is and that despite, you know, the security detail and the fancy West Wing office, it is basically a no-win role, which is why, you know, a former four-star general wasn't able to, you know, survive it, Mick Mulvaney wasn't and others.
But yeah, I think Mark Meadows had been angling for that for some time, and for what it's worth, he made a lot of sense for it in a campaign cycle.He fancies himself as kind of an expert strategist to the base of the Republican Party.And he is; he's got a lot of credibility with the base at this time.He had been, you know, kind of a staple of right-wing media and somebody who had a lot of cachet with the outside conservative groups that have a lot of influence.
So if this had been a traditional 2020 presidential election cycle, Mark Meadows would have made a lot of sense to be White House chief of staff, kind of the chief strategist.Throw in a global pandemic and social justice protests over the summer, and I think he was, in retrospect, not the right figure to meet this pivotal moment in American history that ended up being just completely overshadowed by unforeseen events that required leadership and not partisan leadership, which I think he ended up being uniquely ill-equipped for.
Inside the Trump White House
So what makes you come into the White House, working for the president at that point, after you had not taken that job before?
So I, after working for Vice President Pence for two years, I accepted a role as the Department of Defense press secretary and deputy assistant to the secretary of Defense.That was my dream role.I was the youngest Pentagon press secretary in history.I, for the first time in my career, got to serve in a truly nonpartisan or apolitical environment.And it was wonderful—I mean, just working with the military, the civilian population within the Pentagon and under Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman Mark Milley, who I have tremendous respect for.And it challenged me, it grew me, and I got to travel all over the world with my role at the Department of Defense.
So that is where I planned to hang my hat through the end of the administration and even stay on after the election, had we won.But COVID hits.And I remember I gave a press briefing at the Pentagon the day that it was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization.And we were, you know, reading all open source but also getting the classified briefings of how bad this just might be.And it was a really scary time in American history.I don't have to tell you that.
And the Pentagon suddenly, instead of dealing with, you know, working on peace negotiations or troop movements or, you know, Afghanistan policy, the entirety of DOD's focus was to combatting this virus.And we suddenly, you know, the Pentagon was on rotational shifts, so I was one week physically in the office, you know, wearing gloves, wearing a mask, and one week out of the office.
And there was one moment that really made the decision for me before the White House job was even offered to me.The Pentagon's a very bureaucratic place, and that's a good thing.It should be, because you make life-and-death decisions there.But I'd found out that basically a DOD stockpile had not released a bunch of protective gear to Health and Human Services because of a bureaucratic holdup, and I found out through a CNN inquiry that had come in from a reporter.So I tried for days to get an audience with the secretary of Defense to say, "Hey, this is merely signing a piece of paper, and we could get millions of pieces of PPE to front-line workers," and I couldn't get an audience with him.
So that night, Mark Meadows, my old friend who's now chief of staff, calls me on an unrelated matter, and I raise this to him, and within minutes he's on the phone with Secretary Azar, deals with it through DOD, and then millions of pieces of PPE are released.
So then, within a couple days, Meadows asks me over to the White House and first offers me the press secretary job, which I declined. I wasn’t—I wouldn't have been successful at being the face defending Trump's policies.But I said, "I'd like to be the communications director. I think I could operationalize and professionalize a comm strategy like I do at the Pentagon, where I had 50 desk officers who reported to me."He said, you know, "Take some time to think about it." …
He offered me the communications director job, and I thought back to that moment where I was able to deal with the stockpile issue so quickly.It made me miss the speed in which things can move in the White House.And at a time of a global pandemic where I felt—the whole world felt so helpless, I thought that I might be able to be more helpful to the response effort being at the White House.
And I could spend the rest of my life, you know, questioning that decision, but that was my decision at that point.
What do you find when you got there?We know from the outside what we have seen from the president's press conferences and from—what seems sort of crazy.What was it like inside?
I mean, I can't think of a crazier juxtaposition than coming from the highly regimented if not bureaucratic Department of Defense, where everything had a protocol and a chain of command, to going into the Trump West Wing.It was chaos.It was the flattest organization I've ever been in, which is to say a press assistant could walk into the Oval Office and get an audience with the president, because there were no procedures; there was no chain of command; there was no structure in really any of the West Wing.
And, you know, Meadows had just come into this role in March of 2020.I came over in April of 2020.But this—I didn't get the sense that this was, like, the growing pains from a new chief of staff. …This was clearly a West Wing that did not function in any traditional sense and with any protocols and, you know, procedures in place.And this—it was stark to me, at a time when COVID is the focus of the entire universe, that it just kind of felt like people were running around with their hair on fire.And I get it.This was a crisis, so it's natural that there's going to be growing pains, but the lack of structure was truly shocking to me.
And of course, the public knows all about the infighting.If I took one thing away from, kind of, the staffing side of the Trump West Wing, it was that he was surrounded—it was the first time I'd seen this in my political life—many of the staff around him, I should say, cared more about their own personal grievances with one another or ambition than they did about serving him well.And it was one of the few things that actually made me feel bad for Donald Trump.I was constantly struck by that: The, like, hashing out small disagreements and the vendettas were always more important than actually doing the job and the mission of serving the American people.
The claims about COVID that the president especially makes—the flu is no worse than COVID—the statements, the famous ones he makes in the press conferences, does he believe those things?Is he spreading misinformation?How are you viewing what is going on?
Well, so what you have to understand about the COVID response within the West Wing is the president wasn't heavily involved in most of it.So Vice President Pence's team and the Coronavirus Task Force would host a daily interagency meeting in the Situation Room where they would be making decisions on everything from, you know, supply chain issues to, you know, surging remdesivir to key places, to, you know, what we're doing on testing, and then the president would get like a debrief afterward.So he was not even as briefed or engaged as many of the senior staff who were involved in the COVID response effort were.
But an infamous moment that I had a role in would have been the injecting-bleach press conference.1So I'd been in the Coronavirus Task Force meeting prior to that, and some officials from Fort Detrick and DHS basically presented this study that found that heat and humidity had a strong effect in killing the virus.It was very interesting.Vice President Pence said, "You should brief this to the president."
And I was actually in the overflow Situation Room, ran in and said, "I don't think we should bring this to the president before he goes to the podium.He's not going to have time to digest it.He's not going to know what his recommendation to the public should be."And this was one of those rare moments that I don't think Mike Pence was right.And he said, "No, I think we should move forward with it."
So I then run to the West Wing to try to get Chief of Staff Meadows on board because, again, they were going to walk-in, do a 15-minute briefing with him, and then put him in front of every network camera in the country, and I just knew he was going to say something silly or dangerous or unhelpful.And I advocated that it not be briefed to him.[Acting] Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf actually agreed with me.But I was overruled.And that moment happened, where he, you know, he made reference to injecting yourself with bleach.And it was dangerous, and it had real-life consequences.
And by the way, I have to say, for the record, in my time dealing with the coronavirus, Dr. Deborah Birx was the most important player behind the scenes, did the most work, was the most honest and blunt and tough with the former president.And that one moment in time that she didn't even know how to react in that moment has damaged her in such a—what I see as an unfair—way, because there is no one I knew to stand up to Donald Trump more than Dr. Deborah Birx, and I regret that she was put in that position.
Trump’s Response to the Black Lives Matter Movement
… And that same time is when George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement is happening.How does the president see that inside the White House?Because now we hear all of this talk about using the military and shooting protesters.How did he view it?
So the first time I thought about resigning from the Trump White House would have been June 2020, after George Floyd's murder, during the social justice protests of that summer.The entire country was on edge, and absolutely rightfully so.And I have to say, Donald Trump originally had the natural human reaction that I think most Americans had when they saw the George Floyd video.He was on Air Force One.It was played for him, and he was shocked; he was truly sickened by it.And his first reaction was the right one.
And a day later he gave remarks down at a NASA launch, and he did say the right words then.2It was condemning it; it was calling it murder, because that's what it was.It was a message of solidarity.But as quickly as the, you know, right-wing fever swamp of media started taking a different tone on George Floyd's murder and on the social justice protests, Donald Trump's position on it changed.And it went so quickly from what was the unifying message that was needed to "When the looting starts, the shooting starts."3
2
White House Archives: Remarks by President Trump at Kennedy Space Center
I spent an entire day of my life trying to get him to walk back that tweet.He ultimately did, but the walkback wasn't even much of a walkback.
His—it was a uniquely bad moment for a man who was, like, physically incapable of seeing things around him that are happening as more important than himself and more—and things that required, you know, compassion and presidential leadership.And he just was so wholly unfit in that moment.
A lot of what we've now learned about things he was talking about doing during that, I wasn't aware of at the time.The first time that I became aware of potentially using the military … was a few days before a well-documented meeting in the Oval Office.The staff secretary, who kind of oversees, you know, executive orders and paper that goes to the president—he's kind of the clearinghouse for all of that—came in to brief me and the press secretary, and pulls out the Insurrection Act.And my jaw hit the floor.
And I was actually kind of surprised, because he's a very smart individual, who was the person who drafted it, that he didn't seem to think that this was shocking, hadn't been used in about 30 years, since the early '90s.
It didn't end up getting briefed to the president that day, but several days later, it came up in an Oval Office meeting that I was in with Chairman Milley, Secretary of Defense Esper, AG Bill Barr, the vice president and senior staff.And he asked about using it.And I remember him saying, "I like that word, 'insurrection,' the Insurrection Act; it sounds tough."
And I give a lot of credit to Bill Barr and Chairman Milley.They kind of played off of each other.I have to wonder if they rehearsed it before.But Chairman Milley puts his hand on the desk and says, "I can do what you need to to secure the streets without using active-duty military.That is a step too far."And then AG Barr comes in and says, you know, "I was around for the Rodney King riots, and I'm telling you, you do not want to use this.Give me a chance to use federal law enforcement, and we can accomplish the job of securing the city."
So they were able to ward it off.But then, you know, we saw what happened with Lafayette Square and the former president just wanting to use a heavy hand.And what I regret is, you know—and I wasn't the right messenger.I know that I had colleagues who really tried.Ja'Ron Smith was a colleague of mine at the White House who worked on a lot of policy issues related to equity, to policing reform.He was significant on getting the criminal justice reform bill passed and signed into law.
But I know he had reached out to the former president and tried to communicate: People are hurting.You may not understand, but, like, what you're seeing in the streets is a result of people feel pain in this moment, and they want to see change; trying to communicate, like, you've got to have compassion here, or you are going to miss where the vast majority of the country is.
And it just never resonated with Trump.
That must have been just an amazing period of time to be in there.It's interesting, too.You said that you felt like he had one reaction, and then he got a sense of where the base was, because we always think of Trump leading the base, that he gives the message of where it's going to be.Did you perceive something different in that time period?
So I think the biggest misunderstanding of the Trump era is that he leads the base, and the base goes where he does.I actually think that he's created a monster that he doesn't even control, and he is actually very much driven by the base, not the other way around.And I want to be clear: I am a conservative who's worked in conservative politics for over a decade.There's a part of the base that are good, honorable American patriots, but there is part that has really like come to life in this era of Trumpism that is out of step with American democracy, what it means to be a patriot in this country.It's, you know, we saw that on Jan. 6.
I point to some of the races we're seeing in 2022.You know, people are trying to out-Trump Trump, because there are people who are now so worked up that that's what they want to see, whether it was Kathy Barnette, a candidate for Pennsylvania Senate, was even further out there than Trump.I think J.D. Vance, in Ohio, in some ways is trying to go further than President Trump has.
So I think he's created something that's bigger than himself, and I—a moment that it really, it really stood out to me was when he finally came around, took some credit for getting the vaccines and said, you know, "I got one; you should get one."And he got booed.And then he got criticized in some of his favorite right-wing media.That was a really instructive moment: that what he created could also consume him, because he no longer controlled it.
Trump and Misinformation
… There's also a sense of existential threat that was going on over that summer, that the president was talking about: the radical left, antifa, the election is going to be stolen.That talk begins even before the election.What was going on?Was he afraid he was going to lose?Why was it ramping up the tension so much?
Well, something you have to understand about Donald Trump is, he, in addition to being a purveyor of disinformation himself, he's also somebody who actively consumes misinformation and disinformation, and often lacks the judgment to understand it.
So, I mean, I think the question we all wonder, and we could forever ask ourselves, is, does he actually think the election was stolen, or is this, you know, just sort of a messaging mechanism?I think he believes a lot of the lies that he puts out there and the conspiracy theories that he puts out there.
I remember mid-summer of 2020, when he started railing against mail-in voting.He had, you know, concocted in his mind and through whatever accounts he was following on Twitter this notion that the election was going to be stolen from him because of mail-in ballots.He started going off about it so much that his own campaign had to say, "Sir, we are going to rely on mail-in ballots to win in certain states.You've got to scale back this messaging."
And so I think he wanted to kind of set up an excuse if he did in fact lose.I also noticed, you know, this was an unprecedented time with the coronavirus going on, and I can't tell you the number of times that he said in my presence, "I can't believe this happened to me," about coronavirus, as though it wasn't a global pandemic that's now killed a million Americans and tens of millions around the globe.He felt like it was personally victimizing him because of the impact it would have on his reelect.
And that, to me, was so indicative of his character or lack thereof.But it gives you a sense of how he sees things, which is, you know, this is against me; this is an attack on me; and then, you know, this is going to be stolen from me.And you know, four years into being the commander in chief and winning the first time, he still was blaming the Obama administration for this perception that they tried to, you know, rig the game against him.
So he's a man that's very governed by grievance, and he also is incapable of admitting fault and loss.So I think that whole summer he was kind of teeing up his own narrative for if he did eventually lose.
… Did you feel alone?Were you wondering why senior Republicans weren't standing up, or why a Mark Meadows wasn't pushing harder or people who had more influence with the president?
So in my time in the West Wing, the eight months I worked directly for the president, I think I personally was basically just treading water to stay afloat, dealing with everything that we were dealing with on any given day, whether it was what was happening in the world around us or the tweet he might send that drives news cycles that we'd have to spend forever walking back.
And I regret that at that time I wasn't more kind of outspoken about things that concerned me.You know, one thing I regret, which is—it seems minor, but it's not—was where he was on masking.We—I told him behind the scenes, and others did, "Just say it looks cool; it's tough to wear a mask; wear one that says 'Trump' or says 'MAGA.'"He wore it once and then never did again.And that's a small thing, but there were more things that certainly required leadership that I don't feel like was there.
It was hard for me to understand his role with regard to Congress.But I think everyone lived in fear of what he could do to them.So understanding this, like, Kevin McCarthy's whole future hinges on staying in Trump's good graces.Mitch McConnell I think was probably the most independent from him, but Mitch McConnell, you know, I think saw things as: Why even play in the mud if I don't have to?I'm going to focus on what I oversee and what I control in the Senate.
And there were many times I saw Mark Meadows, you know, push back on certain things and steer things.And people did do that; it's not that they didn't.But the moment where it most came to a head and it required leadership, unfortunately, there was no one there that was stepping up to do the right thing, which was the, you know, the weeks leading up to Jan. 6, or the months leading up to it, when he was surrounded by people who were willing to share his lies about the election being stolen, going on cable news and lying about it and not telling him the truth.
And just on that, it's neither honorable—it's not in line with public service—but it's also a disservice to the man of Donald Trump to have stoked those lies in that period.That's what I didn't understand, is those people he may see as more loyal, and they may see themselves as loyal—there's nothing loyal about letting him set what he did have as a legacy on fire by lying to the American public that the election was stolen and then allowing an insurrection to take place.
The 2020 Election and Initial Claims of Fraud
Let's talk about that moment, when he comes out after the election and he says, "Frankly, I did win this election."And you were watching it and presumably had thoughts on how things were going to play out, and they may have changed.What happened?
Well, going back a little bit, I'd say by, like, October of 2020, I didn't know which direction the election would go.All I knew is I would not plan to be working there any longer if he won.I was just very disillusioned by the poor character and putting himself ahead of the country at many moments.
But election night rolls around, and I was in the East Wing, which most of the senior staff was.I actually left shortly after the Arizona call and went home to watch the rest.It was clear to me that there was not going to be a call that night, and he had campaign staff around him and family who were advising him on what his remarks were going to be.
But when I heard him say, you know, "Frankly, we did win," that was kind of stunning to me.And I, after the fact, learned about some of the counsel he was getting from people like Rudy Giuliani: You know, "Just say you won it."And that was when it started, which was the worst advice from unprincipled staff that led to, you know, just the most shameless undermining of our democracy that I could imagine.
You know, in the weeks after, you know, once it was called for Biden—I've said this before.I think he knew he lost, but I think he started to buy what he was selling over time.And I think, you know, some of the senior staff around him allowed him to hear from wholly, you know, disqualified people, like Sidney Powell and [MyPillow CEO] Mike Lindell, Gen. Flynn and others, who put nonsense ideas before him, and I think he really started to believe them.
But what was stunning to me is, you know, he must have the worst lawyers in the world, if he really believes this, because they kept losing state after state.Like there was this first era of "the election was stolen," where people were actually challenging things in court, but then it went on to the messaging era.Like, they had lost everywhere.There was no path for recourse here other than, you know, trying to steal it in Congress.And he just seemed to actually be more emboldened and believe it more, the more that he lost.
What makes you say you think that he knew that he lost at some point?
… You know, losing after a first term in office is a really unique thing that, you know, doesn't happen that often.It was odd for—it was just an odd experience, because it wasn't called for Biden till, you know, nearly a week later, and staff is all in different places.We're not, you know, together with the principal, kind of having the conversation that you traditionally would about, OK, now here's—let's do a concession speech; let's call, you know, President Biden.
So it was this sort of eerie period.And I was home when it was called for Biden.I went into the office whatever—whatever the next day was.I was going into work, and the West Wing was a ghost town.No one was even coming in.I think it was partially like no one was sure what to do or say.
And the president didn't come down from the residence for several days after it was called for Biden.And only thereafter, a few days after he finally came down, I kind of just, you know, passed into the Oval Office just to kind of see how he was doing, and there were a few other staffers in there.And he seemed just kind of resigned to it.And there was one moment where in this period he was watching Joe Biden on TV and says, "Can you believe I lost to this 'blank' guy?"
So there was an acknowledgement, and there was also a press conference he gave—because he eventually went back out, starting doing coronavirus press conferences—where he slipped and kind of admitted that he had lost.4
But then it went completely a different direction, and the campaign started strategizing, and they were, you know, deploying people to the RNC to do press conferences and putting them on TV.And this very dark, quiet effort started happening around, OK, what can we do to steal it, basically.
While you're there, are you getting directions from the campaign about what you're allowed to say about the election or allegations about the election?How was that playing out, the messages that are coming out about election fraud?
The morning after the election, I was supposed to be on Fox News, and I was planning to basically say, "Look, it hasn't been called yet.It looks like it may be going the other direction.But Republicans have a lot to be proud of.We picked up a historic number of seats for women in the House, got record turnout for Hispanics and African American voters."
And as I'm going to do this TV hit, I get a call from someone at the campaign saying, "Hey, stand down on any public-facing messaging.The campaign has a whole plan.We're going to be putting people out there.Just stand down."
So on the White House side, the official side, I was—and this was the right thing; you know, I was a taxpayer-paid employee—was told to stand down on everything.And at that point, I kind of willfully disconnected from the campaign.I honestly didn't really want to be read into their efforts and what they were doing.
And I remember one day just coming into the office, and my staff who worked under me were all just kind of staring at the TV, confused, because the press secretary was at the campaign headquarters, doing a TV interview, as a campaign adviser talked about the election being stolen.And so we're all confused.We're like, is the Hatch Act a thing?5Like, what's going on?What are we supposed to be saying?
5
U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Hatch Act Overview
And at that period, I basically talked to the chief of staff, and I said, "Hey, staff under me are very confused, you know.Is there kind of a holding line we can be giving?," because reporters walk up even though—they can walk through upper press and lower press, where all of the comms and press team work.I said, you know, "It'd be good just to have a holding line."And I wasn't given anything.
A few weeks later—and again, a lot of people aren't even coming into the office at this point.I saw it as my duty to go in, so I'd still attend coronavirus meetings and, you know, be working with Cabinet communicators.But there was a report that the head of the office of Presidential Personnel had put out a memo to agencies and White House staff saying that if any staffers were caught passing along their résumés, looking for new jobs, they'd be fired immediately, because it was buying into this notion that we're going to stay in office, but it was also trying to intimidate people who were acknowledging the reality that he lost and trying to paint them as disloyal.
So I sat my entire communications team down, which was about 25 people, and I said, "Guys, we lost.We need to accept that.All of you need to look for jobs.I will support you; I'll make sure you all land somewhere good.And if anyone tries to intimidate you in doing that, tell me, because this is ridiculous." …
But it was—that was the environment.It was an environment of intimidation and of trying to convince, you know, some of these are 25-year-olds, 23-year-olds, that they're going to have another four years in office.
We talked about the president.Did the others around him who were pushing the election fraud allegations, did they believe it?
No one I talked to believed it.And that goes—that's everyone from the chief of staff on down.But many of them publicly said something very differently than they privately did.And that was what was frustrating to me, is that I felt like a lot of people knew better, and they were misleading the public.
Something I've been very open about is, you know, I have a lot of family who are die-hard Trump supporters, and it was frustrating to me to talk to my family who would be like, "Listen, no, I think it was stolen; he's going to have another four years."And I'd be like, "Guys, that's not true.It was not stolen.He is not going to have another four years."But then you flip on the news, and some other senior White House official is lying to the public, knowing better. …
That doesn't mean that there weren't people who were willing, eager and able to try to use the heavy hand of government and try to hang on to power.That's a very different thing.
Was that what they were trying to do?That's what my next question was going to be: Why would they be doing that if they didn't believe it?
I think that, you know, power corrupts people.I think that Donald Trump scares people.And what I saw was, you know—and a lot of it I also learned about after the fact, after I left—but was senior officials trying to, you know, push the Department of Justice to put their finger on the scale of the election in a way that would have been wholly unprecedented and unfit for what their role is.But also, you know, at one point the former president called in some Michigan state representatives to try to kind of bully and intimidate them into rejecting the results of Michigan.And then of course you know, famously, a senior White House staffer went down to Georgia to try to do the same there.
This was pure intimidation tactics and trying to turn the results on their head through no actual, like, legal or constitutional way of doing it.And the ultimate theory, by the way, that ended up being what they pursued on Jan. 6 was written in a way that was so absurd, it was rejected by White House counsel, by the president's own attorneys, and would have set up a precedent that just makes absolutely no sense.
But people wanted to hang on to power.There's not really any other way to put it, is people liked running the country, and they were going to fight as long as they could to keep doing it.
We've heard that, in that period when you're still there, in that first month, that people are saying, "He just needs time to grieve."But you're saying that there's at least some people in there who believe, and we've now seen some of this, with text messages that have come out, that there was a chance to really change the election.
I think that there's kind of two periods of the election being lost that you have to understand.The first was basically leading up to Thanksgiving, the sense among people close to the president was, he's going to go home to Mar-a-Lago, and he may just not even come back.There was still this sense—and I remember Mick Mulvaney famously said, you know, "Of course there'll be a peaceful transition of power."I thought the same thing, honestly.And at that period there was this, like, give him a chance, he's going—it's a grieving process; he's going to accept the results.
And at this time, too, keep in mind that first era of challenging the results, it was, you know, people like Pam Bondi and Ric Grenell and Matt Schlapp that were deployed around the country to kind of challenge these efforts.And the RNC was behind that original effort.But those quickly got knocked down one after the other in court.
And that's where the kind of second scary period of the election being lost comes into play.And that's where, post-Thanksgiving is basically when I would attribute to, that he doesn't end up going to Mar-a-Lago for Thanksgiving; he stays in town.And there's this internal debate among senior staff, some who are arguing—I made this case; I know Hope Hicks and others did to him, which was, "You should kind of make this a victory lap.Go around the country, talk about what you accomplished, try to get vaccines in the arms of as many Americans as you can, and you're going to be in a great place in 2024 to win the presidency back."I know Jared Kushner was pushing that as well.
And then there was the others who gave him an audience with Sidney Powell and Mike Flynn and Mike Lindell, and others that helped him believe that he actually may be able to steal the election.And that's the kind of dark period.I resigned Dec. 4. I started hearing internally much less about, you know, "He's going to come around and accept it," and started seeing very fringe figures walking into the West Wing.
At that point I knew I didn't have really any sway over him.I wasn't going to be able to impact outcomes, so I thought that was my time to leave.
Who were the others who would be making that argument to bring in the fringe figures?These were people who actually worked for the White House or worked in the White House?
Yeah, so my understanding at this time is Mark Meadows was bringing some of these folks in and sharing some of these different theories.And as text messages have now shown after the fact, … a lot of Republican members of Congress were pushing far-out theories about how the president could cling to power.
One that stood out to me, by the way, was Sen. Mike Lee, who’s somebody I admired for a long time, again, as a constitutional conservative.That was always his reputation, how he was seen in Congress.And he, to give him credit, ultimately, you know, voted to certify the election results, but he even espoused in text messages that have come out this notion, this theory that was so far-fetched, about how the president could potentially stay in office.
So it shows you this was much more deeply rooted within the Republican Party of this moment than simply, you know, a free White House staff brought in some bad actors.You know, Peter Navarro was always up to different ideas.He, you know, released some kind of a report about how, you know, mathematically Trump couldn't have lost, which was interesting.6
But I think it was a collective effort, and I do know, you know, certain Republican members of Congress were instrumental in getting in his ear, that he needed to fight this and that it was stolen.
How did you feel watching Mark Meadows handle the situation, somebody who you'd known for so long and who’d mentored you, in a way, along the way and watching how he handled the situation?What do you make of his role?
It's tough for me because I, for many years, was very close with Mark Meadows.He's somebody I, you know, have genuine affection for and who did mentor me through so much of my career and was very important to me at many junctures of my life.
… I'll say this.The moments that call for leadership are not the easy moments.It's not when, you know, the stock market's rising, the economy's booming.It's the darkest, most challenging moments that require people to rise to leadership.And both he and the president failed in those moments.
And I, I just—what's striking to me is, it's hard for me to understand how myself, as a 32-year-old woman, could have more political courage than these, you know, men who've had these long careers in Washington.Like, how hard would it have been to just tell the truth on Jan. 6?
And for people who were still in the White House, who had large platforms themselves, whether on social media or could have gone to, you know, on any cable news channel and say, "It was not stolen; please leave; this is wrong," didn't do it.That's where I—that's, you know—the hate, the pain, the lost relationships I got for saying that, I would never do anything differently because it was the right thing to do.But I'm still just stunned by people who weren't, even in that moment, willing to do the right thing.
Why?Why wouldn't they?
I've unfortunately seen a lot of grown men put their political ambitions ahead of their integrity in recent years.And, you know, for me going forward, I've made my own kind of personal commitment that, as important to me as any politician's policy viewpoints, is going to be their character and their integrity.I'm going to consider it my, you know—the character primary, because Donald Trump is wholly unfit for office based on his character alone but also his actions, undermining of our democracy.But also people around him, I think, are unworthy of serving in senior roles in the future.
Pressure on Pence
Let's talk about somebody who makes a different decision, which is Mike Pence.And what you’re seeing—it’s really that period right after you've left, but the pressure is ramping up towards the end of December especially.Let me ask you this question first.Do the people around the president view Mike Pence as a way to overturn the election?
My understanding in the final, you know, weeks leading up to Jan. 6 was there was an intense pressure campaign around Mike Pence.I had already resigned, and I was actually down in Florida living with my in-laws at this period, but I still talked to a lot of the Pence team in that period.And they don't show their hand, in the tradition of Mike Pence's very insular office, but I never doubted he was going to do the right thing.Once this theory materialized that, you know, he as the vice president could reject the electors and send them back to the states, there was no way that an actual constitutional conservative, Mike Pence, was going to do that.
But I knew they were going to make it painful for him, and I knew that that day on Capitol Hill was going to be, you know, uniquely challenging for him, because the showboats of the party—the Ted Cruzes, the others—were going to do the thing that would get them accolades on social media and on, you know, right-wing news, by rejecting the electors.And he was going to be in the position of both, you know, breaking his loyalty to the president but also being seen as the bad guy after so many years of just trying to serve with integrity and with dignity.
But I never imagined it was going to get violent and be what it was that day.
How hard do you think it was for Pence?He must have sensed at that point it was his integrity on one hand and then it's his entire political career, perhaps, that's on the line.
I imagine this was tremendously difficult for Pence.He knew, yeah, he was putting his entire political future on the line to do what was right for the country.But isn't that what we want from our public servants?I mean, to me that was Mike Pence's finest moment, was saying, "My future matters so much less than the future of American democracy.And, you know, I, as a conservative Republican who supports Donald Trump and did not vote for Joe Biden, care more about the American presidency than I do about Donald Trump."
The whole topic around this is somewhat emotional to me just because I respect Mike Pence so much.And to see, you know, a vicious, violent mob animated by this president he served so loyally coming after him was such a disgraceful and just un-American thing to witness.
But I will always be grateful that Mike Pence was there, because I can tell you, there are so many people who could have been vice president that would not have done the right thing on Jan. 6.And as somebody who's worked in the White House, in the Department of Defense, in the United States Congress, I can tell you another vice president could have sent it back to the states.
And what would that have looked like?We could have had, you know, violent unrest in our streets.We could have had a lame-duck Donald Trump presidency trying to militarize U.S. streets, trying to exploit the Department of Defense.I mean, it could have truly been the end of American democracy.
… How important was the response of the Republican Party, of Kevin McCarthy, of other senior Republicans during this period?
So during the period leading up to Jan. 6, my understanding is Republican leadership on Capitol Hill were—you know, being Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell—were trying to push the former president to do the right thing.And they were, you know, having conversations about what the transition of power was going to look like.And I think they both, McConnell and McCarthy, were definitely nervous by what was coming out of the White House, but I think—and I don't want to speak for them—but I think there was still a sense that, of course he's going to, you know, step down when he needs to; of course he's going to attend the inauguration.And then Jan. 6 happens and turns all of that on its head.
The thing with Trump that, like, over the four years of his time in office that none of us seemed to have learned is, like, actually believe what he says.We always want to, like, oh, don't take him literally.But it's—the smartest thing to do is, like, believe what he says.
… How important was the role of a Ted Cruz or others inside the party in that happening?
… Ted Cruz is a very intelligent person, but he does this kind of delicate dance of trying to give the base what they want while also just barely staying in line with being a constitutional conservative.And his argument was basically, I'm going to object to the electors because my constituents don't believe the outcome, and we need to litigate it to its fullest extent, and then, you know, have the results land where they do.
But he knew darn well that the election was not stolen, that the votes were legitimate and that there was such a large margin of victory in some of these key states that there was just no path for recourse.
What it again goes back to is so many politicians in power today—and this goes for the right and the left—are more motivated by getting, you know, the cheers and the retweets and the applause and the praise on cable news and on social media than they are motivated by doing the right thing.It's plain and simple.There are many people I would put in that category.But rather than just kind of sit back and do the almost, you know, pro forma role of Congress, which is to, you know, certify the election results, they wanted that moment of victory and of, you know, standing up for the base.
Jan. 6 and the Aftermath
On Jan. 6, when you know the president has mentioned and then is tweeting about the vice president and is naming him and you're watching what is happening, how afraid are you?What are you seeing?
I mean, I was sick to my stomach that whole day, first the remarks on the Ellipse and, you know, when he name-checked Mike Pence, then knowing that Pence was at the Capitol.He'd released a statement about what he was going to do.I tweeted something out, you know, reminding folks, sharing the Mike Pence explanation for why he would certify the results, to say, you know, we're a nation of laws and not men.
But when the violence was actually taking place, and during that he once again tweeted out against Mike Pence—was such a shameful, just, betrayal of both the relationship they had, but just the presidency itself.And keep in mind that we all saw the "Hang Mike Pence," the horrible signs that people had, but it wasn't just an attack on—an attempted attack on Mike Pence; it was also on the line of succession.You know, you have the speaker, the Senate, the president of the Senate, the speaker pro tem, the leader of the Senate.I mean, this is some of the most senior-ranking officials in American government coming under attack in this moment.
And what struck me—I had many friends in the Capitol that day, members of Congress that I'm close with, also journalists because I worked on Capitol Hill for many, many years.One of my best friends was in the building pleading with me, saying, like, "You've got to get the president to say something."
A wife of a member of Congress who I'm close with said, you know, "Alyssa, get him to say something.People are going to die," at which point I texted almost verbatim to Mark Meadows, "You have to say something, even if the president won't.If you don't, people will die."
He never responded to it.I called him a number of times that day.I also called the White House switchboard in this, you know, hoping maybe I'd even reach the president, which I didn't.
But it was just one of the most horrific days in our history, and it cannot be understated.There's kind of this effort now to say, you know, "Oh, it was just a protest that got out of hand."No, this was a violent mob trying to overthrow American democracy.There's no other way to put it.
But I don't hold—you know, the people I hold more accountable than those who stormed the Capitol is the politicians and the people in a position of public trust that lied to that mob, that incited them to storm the Capitol.Like, I think about the fact that Ashli Babbitt, who lost her life that day, was a veteran; she served our country in the Air Force.But she believed people that she thought she was supposed to trust, who she thought were supposed to tell her the truth, telling her that this country you fought for is now being stolen because somebody stole an election and your vote doesn't count.
I mean, that's horrible.She would still be alive today if people did not lie to her and inspire her to be there at the Capitol.
When you're texting to Mark Meadows and you're trying to get in touch with the White House, what is that like?And you're waiting for a response, either on your phone or on television.
Yeah, so I was watching from—on TV down in Florida.I'm crying at this point.I think a lot of Americans were, seeing places that to me, as somebody who worked on Capitol Hill for many years and spent a lot of time there with Vice President Pence, were sacred.When I saw that the protesters and the rioters were actually on the Senate floor, I was stunned.Like even as a senior staffer to the vice president, who's also the president of the Senate, I never actually once got to step foot on the Senate floor, because it was seen as like hallowed American ground.
So that was a moment that I was, like, this is worse than any of the many protests I'd seen around D.C. over the years. …
I was, in those hours, trying to reach anyone who I thought could have influence on the president.So, you know, Mark Meadows I reached out to many times; his senior adviser Ben Williamson, who shared my viewpoint and, by the way, you know, went into Outer Oval and tried to sway—tried to get to the president, tried to get to Meadows.
But I also, well, you know, just on my social media account now as a private citizen, tweeted out, you know, "Donald Trump, condemn this now.You're the only person they will listen to."I then tweeted a lengthy thread—because I have a significant enough Twitter following; I was like, if I could do anything to convince people—and basically said, "Dear MAGA, I'm one of you," list off my conservative credentials, and then say, "You need to hear me; the election was not stolen."
And you know, it got shared.I don't know if it had an impact on anyone actually in the Capitol that day, but I put that out there because I thought to myself, why are the people in the White House not themselves going on their social media, or going to the cameras and saying, "You need to stand down, violent mob; the election wasn't stolen."Their voices would have been so powerful then.
And I, as somebody who has been in the position with Donald Trump of trying to get him to walk back a statement, that can go on for hours.At this point, what stopped any of the senior individuals left from themselves coming out and condemning it and saying, "Stand down"?And you know what?A few did. But resigning that day,they're sacrificing, what, three weeks of pay?Like, it wouldn't even be that bold of a thing to do, but again, people putting their ambitions ahead of what's right for the country.They knew staying in the Trump fold was going to have benefits for them in the future.And I just think about—it's just disappointing to me that more people didn't speak up.
So what did they do?How long did it take them to do anything?And when they did, what did you see come from the White House?
My understanding—so I was, you know, texting with staff who were in the White House.Mid-level staff who felt very helpless in this period.And my understanding was ultimately they got the president to record his video.There were multiple takes of it, and it didn't meet the mark in any way.You know, he called them patriots; he said they were very special.
What was interesting is some of the rioters are on video saying, "He says we can stand down; we can leave.You know, we won," kind of thing, which shows, it proves that they were waiting for their cue from Donald Trump.So if at any point in those hours he had said, "Stand down; leave the Capitol," they probably would have done it.
There was one man they were listening to, and he decided to remain silent while, you know, people lost their lives, police officers were beaten, more than 60 were hospitalized, and he just—he just didn't say anything.
Did you think things would change afterwards, when you're communicating with people you know, Republicans on the Hill or in the White House?Did it feel like things were going to really change after Jan. 6?
After I spoke out, following Jan. 6, most of the Republican Party was about where I was.He'd been—the former president had been roundly condemned by McConnell, McCarthy.There was a brief period—you know, Nikki Haley famously went to the RNC and denounced him.And there was a brief moment where it seemed like we finally were shifting.You know, we're going through this, his now second impeachment, which I know wouldn't advance through the Senate, but it really seemed like a moment that the party was going to put this dangerous man behind them.
But, I mean, I have whiplash over how quickly it went back to him being the leader of the party—you know, Rick Scott, the leader of the NRSC [National Republican Senatorial Committee], you know, presenting him an award down at Mar-a-Lago.
I actually, once, you know, in a conversation with Congresswoman Liz Cheney, said to her, you know, "I spoke out, and I kind of assumed more people would follow."And she laughs and she says, "Yeah, think how I feel, Alyssa."
But I was the norm.I was where the whole party was after Jan. 6.It's the party that swiftly pivoted back to this man, and it's going to end up hurting them in the long run.
A Transformed Republican Party
When did that happen, and how did you see it happen?I mean, what happened?Because that's the big question.Because as important as Jan. 6 is, what happens afterwards is almost as important.And that finding yourself alone, why do you find yourself alone?
I mean, I'm shocked, but I'm not shocked by how on an island I am as a former Trump supporter, someone who worked for him but who condemned him after Jan. 6, because, yeah, the entire cable news apparatus, right-wing media, elected Republican officials were against him after Jan. 6.But it only lasted, honestly, a matter of weeks before he sort of started being normalized again.
And I think it's kind of a mixture of things.You know, on the political side, Donald Trump has a massive war chest.He has an unprecedented fundraising capability.And so for the, you know, the party apparatus, they want access to that money; that's simply a fact.
On the kind of right-wing media side of things, he was such a boon for ratings and for viewership, and their audience was still with him in many ways.And, you know, there was a period where the Fox Newses, the Newsmaxes, it even seemed like were maybe pivoting to a different era of what Republican politics would look like, but it jumped back pretty quickly.I think by the time he spoke at CPAC after Jan. 6, was about when it solidified his place back as the leader of the Republican Party, and everyone lined right up behind him.
It's an amazing transformation.What were the consequences for you personally for ending up where you did?
I mean, when I spoke out after Jan. 6, on Jan. 7, I immediately felt kind of a chilling effect from those around me.I knew that that would burn bridges for me.I'd lose friendships in the Trump orbit, people I'd worked with for many years.
I lost relationships that I cared about.I had, you know, family and people close to me who denounced me for speaking out, who themselves had fallen victim to the big lie and, you know, listened to these elected officials and thought surely they couldn't be lying to them.
It was hard, and it was isolating.But I mean, I'm someone who—when you go into public service, someone told me once, like especially in the White House, you should kind of have a resignation letter in your desk, because the second that you're asked to speak about something that you don't believe in, do something that isn't right for the American public, and certainly undermine democracy, you need to be ready to just walk away and bear with the consequences.You don't get to be in a role as senior as I was in the White House and not be expected to speak out in moments that require your voice.
So my loss is much smaller than, I think, the loss for our country, because this is not behind us.We are, I would predict, in more of a place to have something like a Jan. 6 happen again than less of a place.And that's because we have continued to allow lies to be amplified.Disinformation is rampant and frankly accepted in parts of the Republican Party.
And again, going back to listen to what Donald Trump says and believe it, because he is weighing in on secretaries of state races and governors' races, because he wants to, in the future, be able to challenge election results to his own ends.And he's inspired a generation of candidates who are going to spout the same lies that he is.
Another dangerous legacy of Donald Trump that ties into all of this, you know, truly undermining American democracy is the way in which he's changed our political rhetoric that we look at Democrats and the other party as enemies.He talks about them like they are worse than America's adversaries.That is so dangerous to the future of American democracy.It has national security repercussions.And that's been normalized in the Republican Party where people are—they literally talk about the other side of the aisle, who may just simply disagree with them on things like tax policy or, you know, being pro-choice rather than pro-life, as scum, as talking about them as pedophiles, as things that are dehumanizing.
This has become normalized.The left is guilty of it, to some degree, but what America's adversaries want to see is the U.S., you know, eat itself from within.When we are pitted against each other, when we are not united, when we're divided on political lines, that helps our adversaries.And Donald Trump played such a significant role in undermining what it meant to be an American, which is we all have a place in the democratic process.You have to let the other side win sometimes, and sometimes you get to win, and that is all part of being a democratic republic.He undermined that in unprecedented ways.
And what does it mean that the Republican Party now makes the 2020 election fraud and Jan. 6 as "legitimate political discourse"—and censuring Liz Cheney?What does it mean for American democracy, that this is where the party is?
The Republican Party is in a very grave place.To say it's having an identity crisis is probably giving too much credit to where it is.I think the Republican Party is the party of Trump, and what comes with that is that you are the party of the big lie; you are the party of undermining American democracy.
That said, I'm still a registered Republican, and I plan to stay one and fight within.And there are leaders who are with me.I mean, Liz Cheney has, of course, taken many, many arrows to stand up for the truth of what happened on Jan. 6 and against the big lie.There's also governors, I think, who are stepping up; you know, [Maryland's] Larry Hogan, someone who's been outspoken about the direction our politics have gone.There are people trying to change the party from within.
But where we are now is embracing a figure that is so destructive to the country as a whole.But by the way, he's also bad for the party.This man, he's not winning the popular vote, and he couldn't win the Electoral College.So, you know, my message to Republicans would be: Clearly there is something off-putting about what we are doing.Perhaps it's bigoted language.Perhaps it's undemocratic values.Perhaps it's spreading lies and disinformation.Why don't we put that behind us and embrace, you know, a big-picture, big-umbrella, big-tent party that could bring more people into the fold?You're not ever going to get that with Donald Trump.
… I think you've warned about what would happen if Trump were reelected, which seems to be what he's trying to do.What are you afraid of?
… If Donald Trump is reelected, it will be—it could be the undoing of American democracy.And I don't say that lightly.One very specific thing that he proposed doing at the end of his administration and didn't do would basically change all federal government employees to being political appointees, who are fire-at-will.
And so what that would mean is he could literally undo the entire federal government, tens of thousands of people, subject-matter experts, people who have spent decades understanding how our government works, working through multiple administrations, and stack it with loyalists who will do anything for him.That will have horrifying effects on everything, on every aspect of the American government.
I think you can expect that he is going to go after political adversaries.I think he'll go after members of the media.I think that he will see—he will use every lever of power that he has and will feel emboldened because he will not be having to stay within certain lanes, because he won't be running for reelection.
That man cannot be in office again if we care about the future of American democracy.
Thank you—let me see if Michael [Kirk] has a follow-up.
[Director Michael Kirk speaking] … I have one question.I don't think you said what it is you said the day after Jan. 6.Was there a statement that you made, a thing you said?And if you can say it, we could at least have it on tape.
… So on Jan. 6, in real time, as this was unfolding on Capitol Hill, the insurrection's taking place, my first statement was just to affirm the statement that Vice President Pence had put out, saying he would certify the results, and that was shared widely because I was the former president's former communications director.
And then I put out a statement in the midst of the violence, tagging Donald Trump—because again, Twitter and cable news are usually the best way to reach him—saying, "Donald Trump, condemn this now for our country.You're the only one they will listen to."
And then finally—and in between this, I'm calling people in the White House and trying to reach the president.I then put out a fairly lengthy—bear with me—Twitter thread, but where I say: "Dear MAGA—MAGA being 'Make America Great Again'—I am one of you.Before I worked for @realDonaldTrump, I worked for Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan and the Freedom Caucus.I marched in the 2010 Tea Party rallies.I campaigned with Trump, and I voted for him.But I need you to hear me: The election was not stolen.We lost.There were cases of fraud that should be investigated, but the legitimate margins of victory for Biden are far too wide to change the outcome.You need to know that.I'm proud of many of the policy accomplishments of the Trump administration, but we have to accept these results.It's time to regroup, organize and campaign for political leaders we believe in, and let our democracy work.It's not and never will be a time for violence.If you believe in America First, if you believe in the Constitution, the rule of law and our first principles, stand up for it now."
And, you know, it was widely shared on the right and, you know, Fox News aired it the next day; right-wing media did.And it reflected, I think, the position of where a lot of Republicans were for a brief period after Jan. 6.But then, as quickly as their position changed on Trump, they went right back into the fold.
And on Jan. 7, I went on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, and kind of elaborated on my remarks.And the point I made was this, is, you know: I've spent time in democracies much more fragile than our own.What we saw on Jan. 6 was un-American.It will have repercussions for decades to come if we do not have a real conversation about what the democratic process means.
And I called for him to resign, and if not to resign, for the 25th Amendment to be invoked.I think then and I think now he is a danger to our country.And, you know, that certainly alienated me with some folks, but privately it's also where a lot of Republican leaders were.
Alyssa, were you ever—are you ever, especially then, afraid, physically, personally?
So after I spoke out on Jan. 7, I started receiving death threats on a variety of social media channels.It was the first time in my life that I had, and I never had expected to.I was—I was afraid.And actually, it was interesting in that moment.Jake Tapper from CNN, who's been a friend of mine for years, had to, like, walk me through reporting death threats and, you know, connected me with the right people.And it was just so strange.That usually that would have probably been a conversation I would have gone to some of my friends at the White House to deal with, but they weren't picking up my calls anymore.
I think there is a heightened environment right now, where the rhetoric is so dangerous.I fear less for myself personally, but I do think our country is at a friction point that could become more dangerous, and things like political unrest and violence could become more common.There's just—everything is trending the wrong direction on the right, and we need more leaders to speak up, because we're going to regret it if we don't.
We've heard from lots of congresspeople and others that a lot of the people who are leaving their jobs in Washington as members of Congress are doing it because they're afraid for their families.They're afraid to take a stance the other way.Does that ring true to you?
Oh, I think that's absolutely true.I've heard from members of Congress about feeling scared for their safety.Congressman Adam Kinzinger is a friend of mine.He's been a very outspoken opponent of the president's.And he gets death threats.He knows.He worries.He's got a young wife and new baby.And that's not how American politics should be.
You know, I, personally—we put up cameras and enhanced security around my house.That is what comes with the territory of speaking out in this environment.And it's exacerbated by many of these kind of dark web forums and these places like 4chan and 8chan.But even Parler and Gettr, where you can spread not only disinformation and misinformation, but targeted harassment at public officials, and do it with impunity.
You know, the big social media sites are actually—they cooperate, and they try to be helpful to public figures who get harassment.But those are very dark places that are used to stir up violent rhetoric.They were used on Jan. 6, and they continue to be used to target people who, you know, step out of the party line with Donald Trump.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
Koo and Patricia Yuen
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
