When Donald Trump announced that Stephen Miller would become his new chief of staff—just minutes before The New York Times was set to report it—I had a prediction: we’d soon see a wave of critical stories about Miller.
I was off by a little. The stories started coming within hours.
MS NOW anchor Katy Tur described Trump’s immigration agenda as largely Miller’s work, saying Miller’s approach had long been uncompromising: do whatever it takes, and make the consequences harsh enough to deter others from coming to the United States.
CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins, reporting from the White House, noted that Miller was among the officials who called Alex Pretti a domestic terrorist after Pretti was killed in Minneapolis. Kristi Noem was the other, Collins said.
The Times portrayed Miller as a deeply ideological Trump loyalist who helped shape some of the most divisive domestic policies of the president’s second term. The conservative publication The Federalist, meanwhile, recalled Miller’s argument that undocumented immigrants had historically received better treatment than Americans.
Democrats also weighed in quickly. Rep. Robert Garcia, who is expected to lead the House Oversight Committee, accused Miller of designing ICE raids that he said had terrorized communities and harmed American citizens and immigrant families. Garcia urged Miller to get a lawyer. Incoming Speaker Hakeem Jeffries called him a dangerous xenophobe.
This is plainly a major appointment, and Miller’s record deserves scrutiny. The criticism is fair material for coverage, even when it comes wrapped in sharp language. I’m not trying to defend him or condemn him here. He has been one of Trump’s most influential aides since the president’s first term, and he is unquestionably a hardliner.
Still, I can’t recall another top White House appointment drawing such an intense barrage almost immediately. Maybe there’s a comparable example, but none comes readily to mind. Social media has helped criticism travel at remarkable speed and across borders.
The first wave arrived the night Trump said Miller would replace Susie Wiles, who has been battling breast cancer. By the next morning, the response had grown considerably.
The Wall Street Journal described Miller as a supporter of an aggressive governing style that thrilled Trump’s most committed supporters but was rejected by many voters on Election Day. Axios wrote that Trump was preparing for conflict and viewed Miller as a tough, tactically skilled aide who would not be deterred by criticism or conventional limits on presidential power.
The New York Post played on the phrase “It’s Miller Time,” arguing that choosing the combative official offered little reason to expect partisan conflict to ease after the elections. The paper suggested Trump was bringing a pit bull into the administration’s top ranks.
The Times also revisited Miller’s record, citing his role in separating migrant families at the border, the 2017 travel ban affecting people from several Muslim-majority countries, efforts to restrict criticism of Trump, the end of most U.S. refugee programs, pressure on universities, strikes on boats that have killed hundreds, and the removal of officials considered insufficiently loyal to the president.
Miller has also supported deploying the military, while masked and heavily armed immigration agents have faced residents in cities including Minneapolis and Chicago. That part of the record is difficult to dispute.
Columnist Maureen Dowd offered a broader indictment of Trump’s rule, describing it as corrupt, cruel and self-indulgent, and casting the country under his leadership as something close to an American nightmare.
Miller, for his part, has praised Trump as one of the most consequential political leaders in U.S. history and credited him with saving the country. The day after the election, Miller reportedly led a discussion about continuing mass deportations without addressing the scale of the Democrats’ election gains, which were partly seen as a reaction to those policies.
Trump has said he enjoys watching Miller argue on television, an apparent asset for someone working in the president’s inner circle. Miller is also expected to support Trump’s attacks on mainstream media outlets, including public denunciations and lawsuits, as well as questions about whether members of the press should remain in the White House.
Before the election, Miller wrote on X that Democratic candidates were extremists and people who hated America. He urged voters to send a message to what he called corrupt media and Democratic politicians seeking to take away their future. It’s not hard to see why he has become a target.
But it’s worth asking whether Trump would have pursued the same policies if Miller had never joined his administration. Mass deportation was a central Trump proposal, and the president—not an aide—makes the final decisions. Miller has also reportedly urged Trump to bring the war with Iran to an end.
Other senior officials have faced harsh criticism. Karl Rove, often called “Bush’s brain,” was investigated in connection with the CIA leak case but was never charged. Some officials have been accused of being too close to the industries they oversee. Ronald Reagan’s Interior secretary, James Watt, provoked a major backlash with his remarks about environmentalists, and the Sierra Club gathered more than a million signatures calling for his removal.
Even so, the intensity of the response to Miller has felt different.
As for possible investigations, Todd Blanche said the chief of staff already had a lawyer: the attorney general and the Justice Department. The remark was another reminder of how closely the department has aligned itself with Trump and his allies.
Miller is a fighter, and the opposition is plainly ready for a confrontation. There will be no shortage of political combat for the press and public to follow. He may be Trump’s most important aide during the final two years of the president’s term, but he remains an aide. The decisions ultimately belong to Trump.
