Oprah Winfrey publicly distanced herself from Dr. Phil McGraw and Dr. Mehmet Oz in a new magazine interview, declaring their post-show paths have "not one thing to do with me", a move critics say exposes her own partisan leanings.
Winfrey addressed the growing backlash in comments published by Emmy Magazine, the Television Academy's flagship publication. She acknowledged that people "criticize me for Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz, because of their politics or their views," then drew a firm line between herself and the two men she helped make famous. Both have moved toward President Donald Trump's orbit in recent years, and Winfrey, who appeared on stage at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, appears eager to shed the association.
The timing matters. McGraw showed up at Trump's Madison Square Garden campaign rally in October 2024. He later accompanied ICE personnel and Trump border czar Tom Homan during immigration raids in Chicago. Oz, meanwhile, ran for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania in 2022 with Trump's endorsement, lost to Sen. John Fetterman, and was then nominated by Trump to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that oversees Medicare and Medicaid. The Senate confirmed him in 2025.
Both men owe their national profiles to Winfrey's platform. And both landed squarely on the political side she now wants nothing to do with.
In the Emmy Magazine interview, Winfrey told the publication that her relationship with McGraw began during a lengthy legal battle in the late 1990s. She described him riding in the car with her every morning on the way to trial over a six-week stretch.
"Dr. Phil, he was so practical, so down-to-earth, so real. And he would ride in the car with me every morning on the way to trial, where I'm literally sitting on trial for six weeks."
She said the experience convinced her McGraw could help a wider audience. "I felt that he was so instrumental in helping me. I thought, 'Oh, you could help a lot of people. You should come on my show,'" Winfrey said.
Oz got the same treatment. Winfrey recalled that he explained medical topics, "practical things like colon cancer and bowel movements", in language she found accessible. She believed that skill would translate to television, and it did. Both men built massive media careers on the launchpad she provided.
But the gratitude, apparently, runs in one direction. Winfrey framed their current political identities as entirely separate from her influence:
"Everybody has their own path in life, and it has not one thing to do with me, and I don't have one thing to do with them."
She added that "the reason and intention behind me giving them their breaks was I thought they had valuable information to share that had been meaningful to me." The implication was clear: she takes credit for the opportunity, not for what they did with it.
Curtis Houck, managing editor of the Media Research Center's NewsBusters, pushed back on Winfrey's framing. He argued that Winfrey has no trouble associating with figures on the left, only with those who have drifted right.
"Oprah certainly doesn't have a problem with being friends with progressives or anyone willing to take on Trump."
Houck pointed to Winfrey's close relationship with CBS journalist Gayle King and her public associations with progressive figures and causes. He also referenced Winfrey's sympathetic treatment of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, saying she "wants us to feel bad for woke Prince Harry and Meghan or the woman in the Coldplay kiss cam." He added that Winfrey is "stuck on Woke 1", borrowing a phrase Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used in an attempt to wave off far-left identity politics as yesterday's problem.
His sharpest point targeted the framing itself. Houck told Fox News Digital that Winfrey and King "can continue promoting whatever causes they want or pal around with the Obamas, but they shouldn't be seen as non-partisan by any stretch." He added: "While I'm sure they're incredibly grateful to her, Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz should be allowed to have their own opinions and not be framed as the exclusive partisans."
That observation cuts to the core of Winfrey's maneuver. She is not simply saying McGraw and Oz have gone their own way. She is publicly distancing herself from them specifically because their paths led toward Trump, while her own path led to the stage of the Democratic National Convention on August 21, 2024.
Whatever Winfrey's feelings, the records of both men speak for themselves. McGraw, who has not endorsed either party and declined to reveal who he voted for in 2024, has nonetheless put himself in uncomfortable places. He stood on stage at a Trump rally. He rode along with ICE agents enforcing immigration law in Chicago. Those are not the actions of a man chasing easy media approval.
Oz took an even more direct route into public service. After losing the 2022 Pennsylvania Senate race, he accepted Trump's nomination to run CMS, a sprawling federal agency that touches the health care of tens of millions of Americans. The Senate confirmed him. He is now a government official, not a talk-show personality.
Winfrey, by contrast, has stayed firmly within the celebrity-media ecosystem. Her DNC appearance placed her squarely in the Democratic camp. Her interview with Emmy Magazine reads less like a neutral reflection on old colleagues and more like a public loyalty test, one in which proximity to Trump is the disqualifying factor. The pattern mirrors a broader tendency in elite media circles, where personal relationships with powerful figures can quietly shape editorial choices. A recent report about Vanity Fair's editor softening coverage of Prince Andrew's daughters because of personal friendships illustrates how common that dynamic has become.
Winfrey's comments also reveal a convenient logic. She takes credit for spotting talent and giving McGraw and Oz their breaks. But the moment that talent leads somewhere politically inconvenient, she insists their choices have "not one thing to do with me." She wants the legacy of the launch without any responsibility for the trajectory.
No one disputes that McGraw and Oz built their own careers after leaving Winfrey's show. No one is asking Winfrey to endorse their politics. But the selective nature of her distancing tells a story she probably did not intend to tell.
Winfrey has not publicly distanced herself from progressive figures she has elevated or embraced. She has not issued disclaimers about her DNC appearance. She has not felt the need to explain her associations with left-leaning media personalities or Democratic politicians. The distancing kicks in only when the association points rightward.
Houck's framing is worth repeating: Winfrey and her allies "shouldn't be seen as non-partisan by any stretch." That is not an insult. It is a description of the record. A person who speaks at the Democratic National Convention and then publicly cuts ties with former colleagues because of their proximity to a Republican president is making a political statement, whether she frames it as personal independence or not.
McGraw and Oz did not ask for Winfrey's permission to think for themselves. They should not need it.
