Former Aide Alleges Senior Advisers Treated Trump ‘Like a Baby’, Prioritized Funding Over Policy
A former White House aide, Calley Means, has publicly stated that some senior advisers treated President Donald Trump "like a baby" and allegedly prioritized midterm election funding over policy initiatives associated with the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement. These…
Anchorage, AK, November 9, 2026 —
Allegations have emerged from a former White House aide, Calley Means, suggesting that senior advisers within the administration treated President Donald Trump in a manner he described as “like a baby.” According to Means, the prioritization of funding for midterm elections allegedly took precedence over policy initiatives associated with the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement.
These claims have reportedly fueled internal disputes within the administration, leading to significant staff changes. Among these changes was the replacement of Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. The accusations extend to broader issues of subverted policy goals and the presence of undue industry influence on decision-making processes.
The specifics regarding the timing of these alleged actions, the identities of the senior advisers in question beyond their general description, or the exact nature of the policy initiatives within the “Make America Healthy Again” movement were not detailed in the available information. Similarly, the specific midterm election funding efforts that were allegedly prioritized were not provided. The extent of the internal disputes and the precise impact of the staff changes, including the role of Susie Wiles’s replacement, remain subjects requiring further clarification.
Calley Means’s public statements have brought attention to potential internal dynamics and policy redirection within the administration. The nature of industry influence and its alleged impact on policy goals are central to these allegations. The timeline for these events and the specific mechanisms through which policy was allegedly subverted were not made public.
The consequences of these internal disputes and the alleged prioritization of funding over policy continue to be a point of discussion, with the replacement of key personnel indicating potential shifts or responses within the White House structure. The full scope and corroboration of these claims are pending further details.
Story summarized from the original created by Rachel Roubein, The Washington Post on www.adn.com, see more information here.
Media gallery
