Hailey will endorse Trump. Give it time.
What's the benefit to her for doing so?
She knows she's not going in for this election, so she's going to be looking towards 2028 and beyond. She should not be thinking about what will be popular now, but how history will be looking back on her actions in 4 or 8 more years.
When Trump is off the scene, will she be looked at more favourably for supporting Trump or for publically opposing him? That's going to depend mostly on whether or not he wins and what happens between now and then, but there's a pretty decent chance that even if Trump wins he does something catastrophic in the next four years that makes being visibly opposed to him of strategic benefit.
I think that after Trump there's probably going to be a pretty big gap for a reformist Republican candidate to step into. Someone with a more traditional, practical no-nonsense "let's just get stuff done for the sake of the country and stop all the fussing and fighting" message. The old-fashioned honourable McCain style, "I don't agree with my opponents but they're good people trying to serve their country".
It may not happen, the two parties may choose to escalate even further with "celebrity" candidates and choose brand power over experience and ability with governance. But there will be an opportunity, and Hailey may want to position herself now as not Trump affiliated and gamble on the chance that Trump ****s it all up badly enough that even die hards start to want to jump off the Trump train.
For some that's impossible, but I think for most Trump supporters there's still stuff that a president could do that would make them say "nope, that's too much, I'm out".
Once again: the Soviet Union won the Cold War.
It's a glib remark, sure, but ideologically this seed planted 40 years ago has come to fruition.
I think it's more that Russia and China in the post-Cold War era are much, much better at global diplomacy, influence and espionage than the US are. The US has immense military power, but it's been demonstrated how difficult it can be to achieve concrete goals with that.
In an information age where outright war is often considered socially unacceptable for advanced nations, diplomacy and control of information are so much more powerful than a bunch of big guns. Hell, money is a lot more powerful than a bunch of big guns most of the time. Why invade a country when you can just buy control of it?
As a country that idolises wealth over almost everything else, America is uniquely susceptible to adversaries simply buying their way into whatever they want. Especially when wealth seems to make a lot of crimes either trivial or suddenly not crimes at all.