‘She misjudged her own power’: The week that could end Anna Wintour’s career

Despite popular discourse that “nobody reads fashion magazines any more”, Anna Wintour is an editor that everyone has heard of. To her acolytes, she’s not simply an editor, but a pop cultural icon; a woman who has spawned documentaries – The September Issue (2009), The First Monday in May (2016) – as well as bestselling novel The Devil Wears Prada, Lauren Weisberger’s account of being Wintour’s assistant that in 2006 was made into a hit film. Its long-awaited sequel, released in April, placed her front and centre of the news cycle, cementing her reputation as an editor who didn’t merely curate stories, but was one. In May, this reached its apotheosis when she became the cover star of her own magazine, photographed alongside Meryl Streep, who plays her fictional alter ego in the film. Wintour was installed as American Vogue’s editor-in-chief in 1988, and while she stepped down from that role in 2025, the move did nothing to diminish her power. She remains Vogue’s global editorial director, as well as global chief content officer of parent company Conde Nast. In the capricious world of fashion, her survival skills are as legendary as they are singular. Shorts Yet, for the first time in her career, Wintour has found herself at the white hot centre of a controversy that insiders are whispering she might not survive. In addition to her duties at Conde Nast, Wintour also has another weighty role, as a trustee of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a position she’s held since 2011. She’s also the longstanding chair of its Costume Institute Benefit, known as the Met Gala. People love to hate its pomposity, but the Gala is crucial in providing the Costume Institute with the bulk of its funding. Wintour’s influence is pivotal to the fundraising effort – so much so that in 2014, the Met named The Anna Wintour Costume Centre in recognition of her contribution. Under her wing, the Met Gala went from being a little-known society function to one of the most talked-about red carpet events in the world. Last year’s gala raised a record-breaking $31 (£22) million. When it comes to choosing the gala’s theme, what Wintour wants, she tends to get. Even when what she wants is to honour a designer who disgraced himself with antisemetic remarks that got him fired from one of the top jobs in fashion. When it was announced in July that John Galliano would be the subject of 2027’s exhibition, inevitably, opinion was divided. While his stellar talent is not in doubt, Galliano’s career collapsed in 2011 after videos emerged of him making racist and antisemitic remarks, including praising Hitler. He was subsequently fired as Christian Dior’s creative director and convicted in France of public insults based on race, religion and ethnicity. He later apologised, sought treatment for addiction and rebuilt his career, acting with an accountability that many believed was worthy of forgiveness. Just as many, however, found his words and actions unforgivable. On Monday, Galliano released a statement that “after much reflection and discussion with all those involved, I have decided, with great sadness, that it is best for the exhibition not to take place at this time,” adding that “I also recognise and respect that an exhibition honouring my work would be painful for some.” He emphasised that he remained fully accountable and that “meaningful atonement” wouldn’t be best achieved through an exhibition. Equally telling was Wintour’s statement, which was short, sweet and unequivocal in its loyalty to Galliano. “John’s decision that the exhibition devoted to his work should not take place at this time is very courageous and a measure of the man he is. I believe this is the right decision, and both he and the Museum have my full support.” Whichever way you look at it, it’s a spectacular faceplant for Wintour – arguably the biggest of her career. Rather than attributing the volte-face to some belated moral epiphany, however, the truth is more pragmatic. However hard Wintour fought for the exhibition to go ahead, a major donor – or a slew of them – must have fought harder. For any Jewish donors, Galliano’s antisemitism paired with the exhibition being set to open on one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar, Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), must have felt particularly tone deaf. (The Met Ball is always held on the first Monday in May, which will be 3 May 2027, and the exhibition opens to the public on 4 May, Yom HaShoah). It beggars belief that someone as meticulous as Wintour didn’t pre-empt this, or even pre-empt the backlash. In fact, she was so confident that, according to Page Six, she’d agreed to allow a film crew to follow her in the run-up, with a Netflix documentary to follow. While Wintour has always had a soft spot – some would say blind spot – for Galliano, finding him a temporary position at Oscar de la Renta (2013) as well as orchestrating his role as creative director of Margiela (2014 – 2024), she has never supported him to the detriment of her own career. Some believe the 2027 exhibition was to be Wintour’s last, and that Galliano was her chosen swansong. “She misjudged her own power,” says one insider. “She thought she was bulletproof, but she underestimated the anger of the firing squad.” That nobody would dare say anything like this to her face is a large part of the problem. While many Conde Nast staffers allegedly had deep concerns about Wintour’s proposal, no-one wanted to voice them. Like many powerful leaders, Wintour tends to surround herself with yes-men, creating a bubble effect that can be dangerously removed from reality. But the bubble has burst, leaving everyone wondering what the fall-out will be. For those convinced that this is the end of “Nuclear” Wintour’s reign, it’s worth remembering that during her 36 year (and 10 month) tenure at the helm of American Vogue, she has weathered a slew of controversies, including allegations of poor pay, a lack of racial diversity and a toxic work culture within Conde Nast. She’s also been criticised for running an interview with a despot’s wife (Asma al-Assad, wife of Syrian president Bashar Hafez al-Assad, 2011), “dumbing down” Vogue by putting Kim Kardashian and Kanye West on the cover (2014) and allowing Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez to sponsor the Met Gala (2025). None of it has felled her. “She just carries on,” says one insider. “She’s like a cat with nine lives.” But the claws are really out this time. While there are many who believe it’s time for Wintour to step down, there are few with useful suggestions as to who should replace her. For those who claim she’s yet another boomer who refuses to step aside – harsh! – there’s still the very real question of succession. Whether by accident or design (and most would say the latter), so omnipotent has Wintour’s reign been that there has been little room for anyone to blossom in her shadow. Chloe Malle, who took over as editor of US Vogue with Wintour’s blessing, is intelligent, well-liked and deemed a steady pair of hands. But to flourish in the digital age, more than a steady pair of hands is needed. Wintour might be tarnished by association, but it’s Galliano who committed the crime. Wintour’s biggest crime is loving fashion, and unstintingly supporting the designers who uphold its craft. Whoever succeeds her has big Manolos to fill. But they won’t be filling them by dint of her rumoured $1 million clothing allowance. Nor likely be remunerated to the tune of $2 million – $4 million, her estimated (though never publicly confirmed) salary. Those glory days are over. Whether Wintour’s are remains to be seen.