Originally Published in Axios by Marc Caputo and Alex Isenstadt
Stephen Miller is no Susie Wiles: He believes in almost limitless presidential power, considers the Democratic Party an extremist organization, and dreams of ruthless crackdowns on immigration and foreign adversaries.
Why it matters: Miller, the new White House chief of staff, isn’t just unlike anyone who’s had the job under Trump — he’s unlike any to occupy the powerful position in the modern era. He puts the hard in hard-liner and understands how to pull the levers of power to get his way and make the U.S. government a MAGA machine.
Miller’s appointment sets the stage for two years of partisan warfare with the new Democratic-led Congress, which is likely to launch investigations of Trump’s administration, political committees and allies.
“Stephen is Trump’s wartime consigliere,” Roger Stone, one of the president’s oldest friends and advisers, told Axios.
The big picture: Despite his post-midterm comments about finding ways to work with Democrats, Trump’s choice of Miller signals that he’s not looking for truces. He’s prepping for war, and sees Miller as a brass-knuckle general and tactical expert impervious to criticism or traditional restraints.
Trump’s MAGA brain for a decade, the 41-year-old has detailed his Miller Doctrine in speeches, policies and press conferences:
Presidential power is “very substantial and will not be questioned.” Miller said those words about Trump’s Muslim travel ban in 2017 on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” but to him they broadly apply to other areas of the executive’s authority.
Court authority is limited. In May 2025, when courts blocked aspects of Trump’s deportation policies, Miller said the rulings were the work of “radical rogue judges” who were “at war” with the executive and legislative branches.
The political opposition is a threat to America. “The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization,” Miller told Sean Hannity in August 2025. He also warned that if Democrats won Congress, “it’s game over.” They just won it.
Homeland security is the nation’s spine. A key architect of the administration’s hard-line immigration policies, Miller said in a March speech: “Our national security, our homeland security, the safety and well-being of our people begins at home, begins in our neighborhood, begins in our home region.”
America should use “hard power” in the Western Hemisphere. “The cartels that operate in this hemisphere are the ISIS and the al-Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere, and should be treated just as brutally and just as ruthlessly as we treat those organizations,” Miller said in the same speech, to foreign leaders at the Shield of the Americas conference.
Behind the scenes: Miller’s Shield of the Americas speech indicated the depth of his involvement in Trump’s Latin America policy. He has a keen interest in Mexico and was a driving force in the military action leading up to and including the deposing of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro.
Miller has a close working relationship with Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, and he has friendly relations with El Salvador leader Nayib Bukele, a crucial Trump ally in extending U.S. power.
“Stephen makes Marco more aggressive on policy, in a good way. When Stephen isn’t around, Marco defaults back to being more of the politician,” said one White House official who worked with the two.
“If people thought regime change in Cuba was going to fall by the wayside, Stephen Miller should make them think twice,” the source said. “Today is a bad day for the Cuban regime.”
Go deeper: Trump advisers see Miller’s elevation as a way to reenergize the president’s populist base, which failed to turn out in sufficient numbers for the midterms — and in some cases voted for Democrats.
Advisers point to Trump’s handling of the Epstein files and his decision to attack Iran — which in turn escalated fuel prices — as reasons he lost support among those voters.
Without winning them back, Republicans say, they’ll have no chance in the 2028 elections.
Critics also fault the harsh immigration enforcement championed by Miller, as well as voters’ perceptions of corruption in Trump’s administration, as additional drags on Republicans.
Miller’s allies dismiss questions about his management experience, noting that he has overseen the Department of Homeland Security and regularly runs morning meetings with the White House staff focused on immigration policy.
They also point to the size of his White House policy team, one of the administration’s largest.
With Trump’s legislative agenda effectively stalled, Miller’s allies argue he is particularly well suited to a White House that will increasingly rely on executive orders and legal battles — areas in which Miller has extensive experience.
Yes, but: Some critics worry that Miller’s elevation could mean Trump turns Miller’s hard-line immigration agenda into a centerpiece of his final two years in office — something that could continue to alienate independent and moderate voters, as it appeared to do in the midterms.
Trump’s administration and supporters expect the criticism and are unfazed.
“It’s Miller Time,” said another Trump adviser. “Buckle up.”
Trump has a lingering penchant for appointing Globalists, and needed Miller & Co instead. Looking ahead, exercising Presidential power as the Dems always do will be a breath of fresh air as long as it’s not squandered on pipsqueaks like Cuba, which is not Iran, a nuclear & proxy war waging menace to a whole region of the world. Does Cuba have enough freedom loving patriots to run the country post-communism or will it become a quagmire like Iraq?
Oh, and Repubs did show up at midterms en masse, but the massive cheat happened anyway—look at the impossible voting stats!
I wish Miller had been there instead of Susie! The messaging was not very good and with Miller there’s no way anyone can’t understand what’s going on. The Socialist/Muslim Party running the democrats have the campaign wing of the party the media campaigning for them day in and day out. Until someone does something about the media bias it probably won’t matter what we do. The reason that the media got special rights in the constitution was so they could be the balance of the two parties. There’s no balance at all with the media. Can anyone truthfully stand up and say the media is fair and balanced without laughing themselves sick?