If you’re wondering who truly holds the reins of influence in political circles, look no further than the power brokers who control access to leaders. And right now, there’s one name popping up over and over: Susie Wiles. She’s positioned as the gatekeeper to Donald Trump, controlling access to the former president with a grip that keeps even insiders out. But Wiles isn’t just connected to Trump; she’s also deeply tied to Mercury Public Affairs, a lobbying firm with a client list that reads like a who’s-who of multinational corporations, Big Pharma, and global health organizations. The web here is complex, but it’s worth untangling to understand just who’s whispering in the ears of powerful leaders, and why it matters to anyone concerned about political influence.
Who Is Susie Wiles, and Why Does She Matter?
At first glance, Susie Wiles appears as just another political consultant. But Wiles is no ordinary advisor; she’s a central figure in Trump’s campaign apparatus and is reportedly one of his closest confidants. In fact, some insiders claim you can’t get a meeting or even a phone call with Trump unless Wiles approves it. This kind of access control gives her immense power—not just over who speaks to Trump, but over what information reaches him. And yet, she’s not exclusively tied to Trump; Wiles is also a top executive at Mercury Public Affairs, a lobbying powerhouse with ties to both major political parties. Her dual roles raise serious questions about potential conflicts of interest. Is Wiles steering Trump’s campaign solely in his best interest, or is she also working to further Mercury’s agenda?
Mercury Public Affairs: A Lobbying Giant With Cross-Party Ties
Mercury Public Affairs is a consultancy that defies the typical party lines. It represents Democrats and Republicans alike, embodying what some call the “Uniparty”—an establishment that cares less about political ideology and more about maintaining its own influence over policy. Mercury’s client list includes corporate giants like Pfizer and GSK, vaccine stakeholders like Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), and the United Nations Foundation. These aren’t just companies; they’re key players in global health policy, pharmaceutical production, and vaccine distribution. This is significant because if Mercury has a stake in promoting the interests of these entities, it’s likely that their messaging reaches Trump—and others in power—through Wiles.
This connection is critical. People often assume there’s a clear divide between political parties, but Mercury’s operations reveal a different story. If you’re a politician looking to rise in the ranks, aligning with Mercury seems like a smart move, regardless of party affiliation. They don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican; they care about promoting the agendas of their clients, many of whom have interests that align with big government, centralized health policies, and, yes, the World Economic Forum.
Omnicom: The Bigger Fish Behind Mercury
Here’s where things get even more intriguing. Mercury isn’t a standalone entity; it’s owned by Omnicom
, a multinational conglomerate and partner of the World Economic Forum (WEF). With over 1,500 agencies worldwide, Omnicom controls a vast communications network, giving the WEF and other global entities a pipeline to influence the media, politics, and public opinion on a massive scale. Essentially, Omnicom is the mouthpiece of international power players, using agencies like Mercury to ensure their messages—and interests—dominate political narratives across the globe.
So, what does this mean in practical terms? Imagine that you’re a scientist or a doctor who disagrees with the current mainstream narratives around health policies, particularly related to vaccines or pharmaceutical practices. If you’re not aligned with Mercury’s clients or their objectives, your chances of getting an audience with Trump or others in Mercury’s orbit are slim. Meanwhile, those who support the agendas of companies like Pfizer and Gavi are given the green light to meet, discuss, and advise. Mercury and Omnicom ensure that only voices supportive of their clients’ goals reach the highest levels of decision-making.
The “Uniparty” and Controlled Messaging
The influence exerted by Mercury and Omnicom underscores a broader reality: the traditional concept of Democrats vs. Republicans may be outdated. Instead, there’s a “Uniparty,” a bipartisan elite whose members align with big-money interests and corporate-backed policy goals rather than grassroots movements or independent thought. Mercury’s roster of clients and bipartisan connections exemplifies this perfectly. It’s not about left vs. right; it’s about those in power working together to push the same agendas, regardless of who sits in office.
Think about it—if you were trying to promote a controversial public health measure or sway policy on pharmaceutical regulations, how would you do it? You’d need a network that could cross party lines and influence politicians on both sides. That’s exactly what Mercury provides. By positioning itself as a nonpartisan lobbying firm, it offers corporations and global organizations an efficient way to reach any politician willing to cooperate. It’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s strategic networking and influence.
The Implications for Access to Leadership
What’s particularly troubling about this setup is that it creates a gatekeeping effect, controlling not just who gets to influence Trump (or other leaders), but what information they receive. Figures like Dr. Peter McCullough, a prominent critic of certain vaccine policies, reportedly struggle to secure a meeting with Trump. Why? Because the gatekeepers, controlled by the interests of Mercury’s clients, likely see no benefit in allowing dissenting voices into the conversation. The result is a carefully curated narrative, with leaders hearing only what their handlers want them to hear. For all the talk of populism and “draining the swamp,” it appears Trump, like many others, is at the mercy of the same corporate interests he once claimed to oppose.
By controlling access to Trump, Mercury and Wiles effectively shape his perspectives, decisions, and, ultimately, his policies. And they’re doing this not out of loyalty to Trump or his movement, but because it aligns with the interests of their powerful clients. This is a classic case of lobbying firms operating as the puppeteers of politics, pulling the strings behind closed doors.
So, Who’s Really in Charge?
At the end of the day, it’s less about Trump and more about the system that controls the flow of information to people in power. Mercury Public Affairs, with its deep ties to Omnicom and the WEF, represents an elite network that transcends traditional political boundaries, and it’s one of the primary gatekeepers to political influence in Washington. Wiles, by acting as the intermediary between Trump and these global interests, is in a position of immense power—not just over Trump’s campaign, but potentially over national policy.
This setup poses significant questions. Are leaders like Trump, who campaign on platforms of reform and independence, really as free as they appear? Or are they, too, subject to the influence of corporate lobbying firms that play both sides of the aisle? The answer may not be clear-cut, but one thing is: the people who control access to our leaders wield more influence over policy and decision-making than any of us might realize.
Just sharing what’s happening in the news. Curious to hear what you think. Drop a comment and follow the RTD YouTube Channel for more updates.
Read the latest RTD Blog:
Is Central Banking America’s Biggest Problem?
Must watch videos on the RTD Blog!!!
0 Comments