#2578 - Calley Means

Calley Means describes a uniquely centralized structure within the Trump White House, with Susie Wiles, the Chief of Staff, wielding unprecedented influence over policy decisions. This environment prioritizes the interests of corporate donors and lobbyists over voter mandates, contributing to the delay or blockage of popular reforms, especially in health and anti-corruption policy.

Susie Wiles, Chief of Staff, Controls Policy With Lobbyists Favoring Special Interests Over Voter Mandates

Susie Wiles, Dominant Chief of Staff, Controls Policy By Requiring Office Approval For Cabinet Initiatives

Susie Wiles, described by Means as the most powerful Chief of Staff in modern history, maintains a stranglehold on White House decision-making. No policy initiative in the administration proceeds without her office's explicit approval. Means reports that cabinet secretaries and staff spend substantial time and energy seeking to remain on Wiles’ good side, as her deputies hold the keys to substantive policy advancement. Wiles’ network includes close allies such as James Blair, head of political operations; Tony Fabrizio, Trump’s chief pollster; Walker Barrett, powerful congressional staffer; Richard Walters, key fundraiser; and Chris Lesavita, campaign manager.

Wiles' Lobbying For Netanyahu's Administration, Pharmaceutical and Pesticide Industries Demonstrates Her Pattern Of Accepting Money From Industries Opposed To Health Reform and Anti-Corruption Efforts

Before joining the Trump White House, Wiles was a top lobbyist with a record of accepting contracts from powerful interests, including consultation for Benjamin Netanyahu's administration and deep involvement with pharmaceutical and pesticide companies. According to Means, Wiles has spent her career taking money from industries and foreign governments paying the highest fees—often those directly opposed to health reform and anti-corruption initiatives.

Operatives: James Blair, Tony Fabrizio, Walker Barrett, Richard Walters, and Chris Lesavita Manage Political Strategy, Polling, and Policy For Wiles, Accepting Payments From Aligned Corporations

This inner circle not only directs political and policy strategy but also benefits materially from their roles. Fabrizio, for instance, simultaneously advises the administration and receives payments from corporations like Pepsi, pharmaceutical manufacturers, tobacco, and pesticide companies. These connections are open, with his clients listed publicly, including Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Philip Morris, and more. The team's combined influence ensures that every major policy issue is filtered through their interests, often aligning with those of their corporate clients.

Families Profiting From White House Access: Wiles' Daughter and Lesavita's Firms See Revenue Surge Under Trump

Influence extends to the families of these operatives. Wiles' daughter joined the lobbying firm Continental Strategies, whose revenue soared from almost nothing to about $30 million a year after the Trump administration began—a surge linked to companies hiring her for fast-track policy outcomes. It became an open secret in the White House that paying Wiles’ daughter’s firm virtually guaranteed policy consideration. Similarly, Chris Lesavita’s family profited through newly created firms that saw explosive revenue growth concurrent with their access to the administration.

Ballard Partners, Where Wiles Worked, now Generates the Highest Revenue in Lobbying History, With Companies Hiring Them For Access to Wiles and Favorable Policies, Creating a System Where Corporate Interests Can Buy Government Influence

Wiles’ former firm, Ballard Partners, has become the most lucrative lobbying firm in U.S. history, drawing in nearly $100 million in reported revenue—which Means notes is likely a fraction of the total via dark-money arrangements. The firm’s rise is closely linked to insider expectations that hiring Ballard secures direct influence over White House policy, particularly with Wiles at the helm. Means explains that, in D.C., "you have to pay Ballard to get something done," and their growth mirrors their deep ties and access to White House decision makers. Lobbyists for major food companies explicitly mention being able to call Wiles and White House contacts directly to block or delay actions like the ultra-processed food definition.

Operatives Surround Wiles to Delay or Block Popular Health and Anti-Corruption Policies, Focusing On Midterms to Avoid Offending Corporate Donors and Maintain Electoral Success

Blair and Fabrizio's Midterm Strategy Focused On Gerrymandering, Causing six Months of Policy Paralysis in Trump's Administration

From "almost day one," Wiles and her core team aligned the White House’s policy approach with midterm election strategy, frequently arguing that policies threatening special interest configurations should be shelved to protect fundraising for the midterms. Blair and Fabrizio spearheaded strategies like nationwide gerrymandering to protect Republican prospects, resulting in substantial policy paralysis, with reforms stalled for months.

Tony Fabrizio, Trump's Pollster, Was Paid by Pepsi, Pharmaceuticals, and Industries Opposing Maha, Used His Polling to Argue Against Politically Viable Issues With Over 90% Public Support

Tony Fabrizio, while operating as Trump's chief pollster, was paid by a range of corporate clients, many actively opposing the Maha (health-focused) agenda. Despite broad public support for policies like school lunch reform, processed food labeling, and new pesticide regulations, Fabrizio employed polling to claim these issues were not politically viable, using his influence to block or delay their consideration. For example, he imposed a complete halt on vaccine inquiry or research—a move later reversed only by Trump’s direct intervention.

The White House Operatives Claimed They Needed to Delay Popular Policies Like School Lunch Reform, Ultra-Processed Food Definitions, and Glyphosate Regulation Because Special Interest Money Was Essential for Midterm Victory, a Rationalization That Proved False When the Administration Suffered Historic Losses In the Elections Anyway

Policies with broad internal and external support—including defining ultra-processed foods, advancing healthy school lunch initiatives, and regulating harmful chemicals like glyphosate—were delayed or blocked after corporate lobbying. The rationale, repeated by Wiles and her deputies, was that securing industry donations was critical for winning the midterms. However, this approach resulted in historic electoral losses, demonstrating that prioritizing donor interests over voter mandates failed even a ...

Glyphosate Case: Trump Administration Betrayed Anti-Corruption Mandate By Granting Bayer Liability Protection Despite Ghostwriting Research, Bribing EPA Officials, Public Opposition, and Health Crisis

Calley Means explains that the United States, with just 4% of the world’s population, uses 20% of global glyphosate, resulting in record levels of exposure. American children are now the sickest in the developed world, with the highest rates of pediatric cancers, autoimmune disorders, metabolic and hormonal issues, driven significantly by diet and environmental toxins like glyphosate. This was a top voter concern, reflected in polling showing 92% of Republicans supporting pesticide regulation, and a repeated campaign pledge by Trump to address pesticide misuse.

Yet, Means recounts a fierce fight even to mention “glyphosate” in internal reports, highlighting the resistance from industry lobbyists and operatives close to the White House, particularly Susie Wiles and Courtney Knupp. Knupp, who later became CEO of the soybean board (a major glyphosate advocate), pushed hard to frame glyphosate as a national security issue, overriding military leaders who did not support this framing. This effort led to an executive order labeling glyphosate as a national security need—a rationale the farming states’ own generals dismissed.

EPA's 30-year Glyphosate Review Invalidated: Bayer's Interference & DOJ's Supreme Court Intervention

The regulatory process was heavily compromised. The EPA had not formally reviewed glyphosate in nearly 30 years; its last review was thrown out in court because Bayer ghostwrote the research and bribed EPA officials. Despite clear links between glyphosate and cancer—especially in epicenter states like Iowa and Kentucky, which have the world’s highest cancer rates—the administration moved to grant Bayer legal immunity from lawsuits.

The pivotal moment came as the Supreme Court considered taking a case on glyphosate liability. Means says the Trump DOJ’s intervention was decisive: the Supreme Court was unlikely to take the case without a formal brief from the administration urging them to do so. Heidi Overton, an FDA nominee connected to Susie Wiles, worked with DOJ lawyers—particularly Sarah Harris, who had previously worked for Bayer’s main law firm—on an argument in favor of liability protection. None of this involved Bobby Kennedy, the health official meant to oversee such policy. Unlike the Biden administration, which avoided intervention, Trump’s DOJ’s brief triggered the Court’s liability protection for Bayer, shielding the company from legal recourse by families harmed by glyphosate.

Glyphosate Epicenters Iowa & Kentucky: Record Cancer Rates, Undrinkable Water, Liability Protections Egregious

Iowa's cancer rates are now the highest globally, with Kentucky close behind. These farm-heavy states, where glyphosate use is concentrated, now struggle with undrinkable tap water and surging cancer clusters. Local farmers are increasingly concerned with rising health crises—disputing the narrative that all farmers support pesticide immunity.

Administration and Corporate Coordination

Means details conflicts of interest: Overton’s White House- and DOJ-coordinated Supreme Court push, Harris’s brief from Bayer’s law firm, and Wiles’s direct pressure to block dissent, excluding Kennedy from proceedings. The process gave corporate lobbyists immense power over a policy almost universally opposed by the public, all without open presidential oversight.

Vaping Industry Lobbies Trump to Relax [restricted term] Standards, Enabling Sale of Addictive Substances at Gas Stations, Harming Opioid-Affected Communities

Means and Grusch describe the rapid expansion of [restricted term], derived from leaves with opioid properties (primarily the compound 7-Oh), into a multi-billion-dollar “gas station heroin” industry. Its legal gray area allowed high-potency [restricted term] products to proliferate, destroyed by deaths and addiction, especially in opioid-devastated blue-collar states.

While health agencies originally limited 7-Oh to 0.05%, requiring someone to consume 20-40 bottles for a high, relentless lobbying—spearheaded by Susie Wiles’ network and vaping industry allies—increased the legal limit by 20 times. This made [restricted term] beverages easily addictive, targeting communities already hit by opioids. Despite Trump’s anti-opioid campaign promises, policy was reversed under lobbying pressure, and the resulting addiction crisis saw rising deaths and no meaningful public health debate.

Trump Administration Seeks Approval For Fruit-Flavored Vaping For Youth Despite Law Requiring Harm Studies

The vaping industry, flush with tobacco money, funneled funds to Ballard Partners and related operatives to gain regulatory approval for fruit-flavored vape products, which drive youth nicotine initiation. James Blair made fruit-flavored vaping a priority “midterm issue,” arguing it was key for young male Trump voters—despite polling and the skepticism of other health staffers.

FDA official Marty Azar (McCarey) resisted and refused to approve these products without legally required harm studies. After being fired for his stance, Heidi Overton—seen as loyal to Wiles—authorized the policy change. This reversal triggered lawsuits from major health organizations like the American Heart Association, which noted the lack of youth safety studies. Flavored vaping is popular: about half of high school students report vaping, and 70% of youth say they would avoid vaping without flavors, showing that industry lobbying produced policies fueling widespread youth addiction.

Trump Administration, Via Susie Wiles' Network and Heidi Overton, Blocked Marty Azar's Push For Moderna mRNA Flu Vaccine Safety Studies; Removed Him After Refusing to Approve It Despite Trial Deaths

Marty Azar was at the center of FDA efforts to assess safety of the Moderna mRNA flu vaccine. He rejected the initial application, citing two major issues: the study compared the vaccine against an outdated standard of care and showed only a negligible 0.8% risk reduction with a significant side effect burden—including deaths in the clinical trial group. Despite urging for a proper study, Azar faced “unrelenting” corporate pressure via Ballard and Susie Wiles’ network. Heidi Overton, Azar’s mentee, admitted to Means that she was abandoning her scientific integrity due to the pressure. After Azar’s dismissal, Overton led the advisory committee—stacked with industry insiders ...

Washington, DC suffers from systemic corruption largely driven by the revolving door between government service and corporate lobbying, the dominance of corporate money in politics, and the near impossibility of enacting structural reform through Congress. Calley Means and others describe how entrenched interests, especially in sectors such as health, agriculture, defense, and finance, influence and often subvert public policy, leaving institutional reform as the only viable solution.

Revolving Door: Government To Lobbying, Enriching Officials' Families Through Corporate Ties

Nearly all high-ranking officials in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and elsewhere in federal government transition to lucrative private sector roles immediately after leaving office. Calley Means highlights that 19 out of 20 people he worked with at HHS become lobbyists for the very industries they were supposed to regulate, particularly the pharmaceutical and food sectors. Similarly, almost every health policy official working with figures like Bobby Kennedy leaves to work for special interest industries after government service.

The phenomenon extends to national security and defense, where about 90 percent of retiring generals become contractors immediately after their military careers, creating deep conflicts of interest when future policy is crafted with personal gain in mind. In agriculture, former National Security Council staffers like Courtney Knupp now serve as CEOs for lobbying groups such as the soybean board, which advocates for products like glyphosate.

Corporate CEOs, including Dave Ricks of Eli Lilly, nurture relationships with government officials, regularly hosting dinners with mid-level White House staffers and agency employees to build connections. These interactions are less about serving the public and more about evaluating future employees who can later lobby for their companies. Such relationships extend deep into federal agencies like the FDA, where executives from industries like pharma maintain regular contact and exercise influence—often hiring staff who previously worked as regulators or policymakers.

In Congress, the situation is just as dire. Senators are consumed by the need to raise campaign funds, reportedly spending up to 90 percent of their time fundraising from corporate donors. This leaves little time for engaging with constituents or thoughtful legislating. The shift from state legislature-appointed senators to direct election through the 17th Amendment did not lessen corporate influence; instead, it appears to have increased it, as senators now must constantly seek money from special interests rather than state legislatures.

The cumulative effect is a system where legislative and regulatory priorities are set not by public good or expert consensus but by profit motives. Policy debates and legislative processes become games orchestrated by corporate money, making Americans' hopes for fair governance or meaningful policy change all but futile.

Corruption by Corporate Money Means Institutional Reform Is the Only Path

The overwhelming influence of corporate money means that even widely supported initiatives rarely become law if they threaten special interests. Congress has not passed a major bill confronting special interests in at least two decades, underscoring the reality of bipartisan regulatory capture. Policies such as Obamacare, often championed as major reforms, are cited as being written primarily by—and for—the insurance industry, resulting in rising healthcare costs and soaring profits for insurers rather than relief for the public.

This monopoly of special interests is so pervasive that both Democratic and Republican leaders campaign against corporate influence but consistently side with donors once in office. After leaving government, many politicians become lobbyists themselves, perpetuating this cycle.

However, public pressure can achieve incremental progress. Examples include Maha’s successful campaigns to demand more transparent dietary guidelines, scrutiny of food dyes, and advancements in psychedelics. Yet, such gains are limited. Calley Means argues that if Americans are inspired by promises of bold policy under the current system, they are being lied to—without institutional, structural reform, major change is i ...

Trump Administration's Health and Anti-Corruption Policies Stalled by Special Interests

Donald Trump ran on a platform of anti-corruption, promising to “drain the swamp” and deliver major health reforms. Calley Means describes how, during Trump’s campaign and early days in office, there was genuine optimism: the administration projected a willingness to take on both partisan battles and special interests. He notes that this message resonated with Americans who were spiritually and materially exhausted by systemic corruption and broken institutions. The administration seemed poised to deliver significant policy shifts—particularly in areas like healthcare, food safety, and drug policy—by leveraging public truth-telling, shame tactics, and media pressure to shift culture and force institutional change.

Despite bold talk, however, these reforms met fierce resistance inside the administration, largely due to entrenched operatives and outside special interests. Means recounts how efforts to use public shame and coalition-building, often led by Bobby Kennedy and others, achieved progress on issues like dietary guidelines, food dye removal, and psychedelic research only through intense struggle. Major corporate interests, powerful lobbies, and key figures—namely Susie Wiles and Tony Fabrizio—slowed or blocked policy momentum, using Trump’s busy schedule and insulation from direct debate as tools to stall critical health and anti-corruption initiatives.

Efforts to advance vaccine research and psychedelic reform, both aligned with Trump’s campaign promises and with the Maha agenda on health, faced direct obstruction. Means cites directives from top staff to delay or stop these reforms altogether, while personal interventions with Trump—who remained supportive of aggressive health action when directly briefed—were crucial in breaking through bureaucratic resistance. Trump’s own insistence on fast-tracking research on psychedelics and other health reforms was vital to whatever progress was made; still, many inside the White House worked in opposition, often motivated by alternative priorities or personal enrichment.

Trump’s inner circle, particularly Susie Wiles, wielded substantial control, treating Trump as a figurehead and preventing major policy decisions from reaching him. Means notes the culture of decision-making shifted to operatives whose main expertise was campaign analytics, fundraising, or maintaining insider relationships. Cabinet secretaries and reform-oriented staff found their efforts constrained, forced to operate under a system that prized corporate influence and used institutional inertia to resist meaningful reform.

Midterm Loss Due to Ignoring Voter Mandates for Corporate Money, Proving Immoral Strategy Ineffective

The reliance on traditional strategies—gerrymandering, redistricting, and maximized corporate fundraising—helped the administration win certain tactical battles but ultimately led to major midterm losses. Means argues these losses resulted from a disconnect between the administration’s campaign promises and its actions in office, particularly its failure to deliver on anti-corruption and populist health reforms. The administration’s strategy misunderstood voter priorities, ignoring mandates for driving out corporate money and restoring integrity to government.

Trump’s most effective political moments, particularly in his 2024 resurgence, stemmed not from analytics or big-dollar donors but from direct voter contact, populist appeals, and outspoken anti-establishment stances. However, operatives around Trump continued to run a conventional playbook that de-emphasized these themes. This disconnect left the party vulnerable and the base disillusioned.

In agricultural states, frustration over water quality, cancer rates, and corporate control of food safety became major political issues—matters that closely aligned with the Maha coalition’s health and anti-corruption agenda. Large agricultural companies, eager to maintain use of pesticides like glyphosate, lobbied heavily for regulatory protections, buying off senators from farm states. However, even in Iowa—where water quality and cancer rates dominated the election—both Republican and Democratic candidates opposed liability protections for these companies. Means cites this as proof that voters, including agricultural producers, opposed the status quo and favored reforms focused on health, clean water, and accountability. The White House’s failure to respond to this clear voter mandate reinforced the perception of an out-of-touch administration.

Trump Administration Can Correct Course By Removing Operatives Blocking Policy and Returning To Anti-Corruption and Health Agenda, but This Requires Confronting Staff and Accepting Poor Advice

Means argues that the administration’s legacy—cur ...