In the collective perception, Stephen Miller embodies the shadowy core of the Trump administration—a driving force of anti-immigrant sentiment fueling its most draconian policies.
Yet could there be another narrative—where Miller’s zeal for mass deportations doesn’t strengthen Donald Trump’s grip on power but weakens it?
Consider Trump’s transformation of Washington, DC, into a militarized zone. The strategy is paradoxical—authoritarian in theory but inept in practice. While intended to amplify control over citizens, deploying armed forces has failed to quell dissent. Instead, these actions are clearly sparking greater public defiance than curbing it.
Related
- The real reason Trump’s DC takeover is scary
What explains this disconnect? A recent analysis by Dara Lind, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council (and former Vox contributor), offers clues. Lind’s detailed examination of DC operations revealed a disproportionate focus on immigration crackdowns—pressuring local police to aid ICE and establishing checkpoints targeting perceived migrants.
“Each day since federal forces occupied DC, residents have documented agents—displaying inconsistent uniforms or no identification—patrolling neighborhoods or pursuing individuals. Their targets? Mostly people assumed to be immigrants,” Lind notes. (Her observations align with recent Wall Street Journal field reports.)
This approach is undeniably inhumane (as well as fiscally irresponsible). Yet it’s also strategically counterproductive for consolidating authoritarian rule. While undocumented individuals can’t vote, relentless deportation campaigns are inflaming public protests and eroding Republican support among Latino communities.
Miller’s imprint on policy is unmistakable: Fixated on removals, he’s reshaped federal agencies into deportation apparatuses. Ironically, this undermines Trump’s broader political objectives.
Stephen Miller’s flawed authoritarian playbook
My research into democratic decline reveals a critical lesson for aspiring autocrats: Preserving democratic facades is crucial. Overt power grabs before securing sufficient control often provoke fierce public backlash.
A prime contemporary example is South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s abrupt authoritarian play in December. By abruptly imposing martial law and targeting opposition figures, Yoon triggered instant mass protests and legislative reversal of his decree. He now faces impeachment and potential life imprisonment for rebellion.
Contrast this with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s strategy. After taking office in 2010, Orbán’s Fidesz party enacted a barrage of complex legal reforms to skew elections and subdue judicial independence. Through years of incremental power expansion via financial coercion and media control, they’ve created an electoral framework favoring Fidesz so heavily that even popular opposition figures struggle to compete.
Related
- It happened there: how democracy died in Hungary
Yoon and Orbán exemplify opposing poles for assessing Trump’s authoritarian efficacy. Trump’s overt police-state tactics—like Yoon’s—risk mobilizing opposition. Orbán-style stealth erosion through legal manipulation poses graver long-term threats.
By this framework, Trump’s most perilous moves include assaults on academic institutions, coercive media takeovers, aggressive pre-midterm gerrymandering pushes, and judicial endorsement of mass federal workforce purges.
These actions corrode democracy’s pillars—civil society, independent press, electoral fairness, and executive constraints—gradually nudging America toward Orbán-style governance (though still distant from Hungary’s current state).
Miller’s immigration crackdown, however, lacks comparable strategic value. It pairs authoritarian aesthetics—masked, unmarked agents in U.S. cities—with negligible repressive impact.
Related
- The Architect: Stephen Miller’s dark agenda for a second Trump term
Consider recent footage showing D.C. residents (from my former neighborhood) confronting federal agents. Though armed and masked, agents retreated amid unarmed protesters’ boldness. Why? Unlike dictatorships sanctioning lethal force, Trump’s forces lack license for indiscriminate violence. Their intimidation tactics ring hollow—a reality protesters nationwide increasingly recognize.
Miller’s initiative excels at two things: expelling undocumented individuals and instilling fear in immigrant communities. Morally bankrupt and nationally destructive, these outcomes harm countless lives. Yet their brutality also renders them politically self-defeating.
In a November 2019 meeting, Miller reportedly stated immigration enforcement was his sole purpose. “This is my life,” he insisted, per the New Yorker. That same month, he proposed to his now-wife Katie—an irony underscoring his singular fixation on removals.
This fixation now defines his governance: Redirecting ICE from combating crime to apprehending random laborers epitomizes his priorities. Miller’s indifference to broader political consequences is evident—he pursues removals regardless of fallout.
While his actions inflict immense suffering, one unintended effect emerges: They’re revealing this administration’s true character to countless Americans—a rare (if grim) silver lining.
Source: vox.com
