Stephen Miller May Now Be the De Facto President

Trump’s response to a crushing midterm defeat? Putting Stephen Miller in charge of the White House. Bill Kristol and former Trump aide Sarah Matthews discuss why Miller could become the de facto president, how his appointment could reshape the balance of power inside the administration, and whether Pete Hegseth’s desperate displays of loyalty can save his job as the Iran war drags on.

2026. 11. 7.27:39

요약

에피소드 요약

Bill Kristol and former Trump administration official Sarah Matthews analyze the appointment of Stephen Miller as White House chief of staff. They discuss his long-term loyalty to Donald Trump, his hardline stance on immigration, and how he and Russ Vought may effectively run federal policy as the president focuses on legacy and personal projects.

핵심 요점 1Stephen Miller is viewed as the primary architect of mass deportation policies and remains singularly focused on immigration enforcement.

핵심 요점 2The appointment signals a preference for a fighter who will aggressively defend the administration on television, a contrast to previous leadership.

핵심 요점 3The duo of Miller as chief of staff and Russ Vought at OMB creates a powerful, ideologically aligned faction capable of driving the Project 2025 agenda.

핵심 요점 4Miller has a reputation for bypassing standard hierarchy to directly intervene in agency matters and discipline lower-level staff.

핵심 요점 5The choice indicates that the administration may move away from bipartisan cooperation, relying instead on governing via executive orders.

에피소드 챕터

에피소드 읽기

Transcribed from “Stephen Miller May Now Be the De Facto President” by The Bulwark, who holds all rights to the original and has not licensed or reviewed this page. Rights holders can request removal.

This transcript was generated by speech recognition and the summary and chapters by AI, so they can contain errors. BestPodcast is not affiliated with the creator.

Hi, Bill Crystal here. Saturday afternoon for a Bulwark Take with my friend and colleague Sarah Matthews. We're going to discuss Stephen Miller, you know, Donald Trump. You know, he was he had a very bad Tuesday night, but he's pretty good at getting season control of the news, I guess, if you want to think of it that way and changing the topic and he changed chief of staff on on Friday, which is pretty fast action, I suppose, and has appointed Stephen Miller to be chief of staff.

And Sarah served with him for that last year of the first Trump term and then of course you quit on January 6th, but you you worked with Miller, you know, him, you're still in touch with so many people at the White House. I thought it'd be great to get your thoughts on him, but and also does it strengthen one faction or another within the White House? Does it point in a certain direction in terms of foreign policy, domestic policy, and so forth? I think it's my experience from so long ago is the people underestimate how important a chief of staff is, but maybe that's also not true anymore, not with Trump.

I don't know. Anyway, Sarah, thanks for joining me and tell me about Stephen Miller. Yeah, thanks so much for having me. Um yeah, Stephen Miller is about as extreme as they get. And I I if people aren't familiar with him, then I I envy you. But uh but for those of us that are familiar with him, he is most known for being the chief architect of Trump's cruel and inhumane mass deportation policy. That's kind of his baby. So right now he's the deputy chief of staff and he touches on a lot of areas and he covers a lot of domestic policy, but immigration is the issue that he cares most about.

And I think of him as someone who is, you know, having spoken with him, he is racist, bigoted, just I mean as vile as they get. And this is someone though that Trump thought after the midterm elections when Republicans had a just humiliating defeat and this blue tsunami, what does Trump do? He's doubling down on the extremism with a pick like Stephen Miller. And so it shows you that he learned absolutely nothing because the voters were rejected the the types of policies that Stephen Miller was pushing.

I mean, you take immigration. This was an issue that the GOP actually was really strong on and polled very well with people and people were really supportive and wanted more border security and immigration enforcement. But then with Stephen Miller leading the charge, he went about it in such a bad way and fumbled it with obviously the aggressive ICE tactics and sending ICE into communities to terrorize them with these mass agents, which ultimately led to the murders of Rene Gut and Alex Prety and I'll note that Stephen Miller also in the wake of the death of Alex Prety tweeted that he was a domestic terrorist.

So that tells you everything you need to know about Stephen Miller. But that completely blew up the coalition that Trump built with Latino voters. So it's not even just that Stephen Miller is also a horrible person. I just think he has bad political instincts too. So it says a lot about what these next two years are going to look like. Yeah, no, I think that's important. And I mean, let me I'm not push back, but just give a slightly different take or not an alter take, but a kind of orthogonal take, which is that Trump isn't on isn't probably going to run again.

He's not on the ballot. He may not care much about the Republican political fortunes in 2008. And what's happened has happened in 2000 in 2028 2026. So what does he care about? I think what he cares about I mean, what does the Miller appointment say in that respect? Partly it's doubling down, partly it's somebody he's comfortable with, I'm sure. You can talk more about that and how, you know, they've been together from the beginning, right? But partly it's got to be he wants someone totally loyal running the mechanics inside the White House.

He wants someone who's not going to who's going to, you know, make sure that that everything that has to get covered up gets covered up, the enemies that have to be gotten gone after get gone after, that others in the administration get disciplined. I feel like it's what you do. It's not it's not exactly crazy from Trump's point of view if you think of him not as wanting to benefit the Republican Party or benefit the MAGA movement or that he cares about different issues. I mean, think about him as a kind of mob boss.

You've taken a big hit. You can't really undo that, but you really want to tighten the the cordon around you. And I and I guess Miller is pretty competent, it seems to me, at intimidating other people in the administration, just, you know, knowing what's going on elsewhere, getting people to to do things, right? That he seems like one of the more competent extremists in that in that group in Trump world. Is that right or not? No, I think that that's a fair acknowledgment. And I think that like you said, that Trump picked him because he is loyal.

This is someone who has been with Trump since 2015 and has survived and outlasted all these other figures in MAGA world and has managed to stay in Trump's good graces. And so Trump totally trusts him and that's what he wants most is loyalty. And Stephen Miller is certainly going to give that to him. And I think too that like you said, Trump doesn't care about the future of the Republican Party and what, you know, happens in 2028. Maybe he wants to play kingmaker and everything, but like he doesn't really care too much.

I think all he is singularly focused on is legacy building. So he wants to focus on his vanity projects, which is a very terrifying prospect then because that makes Stephen Miller essentially the de facto president. He's going to have so much power, so much influence, and he already has had an enormous enormous power and influence in this second term. And that's why these cabinet officials, I think, understand that they need to be they need to have good relationships with Stephen Miller. And so a lot of them do and and Stephen is someone who is, you know, competent and I think that the president also picked him because he is willing to go on TV and go to bat for him.

And that's not something that Susie Wiles necessarily did. She had a lot of things that I think that were her strengths, like I think that, you know, the when you look at this second term that there hasn't been as much leaking and infighting and that she was kind of able to keep everyone you know, happy and on the same team. And it was a little bit more chaos in the first administration and I I remember it well. But I think with Stephen Miller, because Trump knows that he's going to be facing so much incoming from Democrats and investigations, he probably wanted someone who would be a fighter for him on TV as well.

I mean, it's just it's in line with all of his cabinet selections too. And that wasn't something that Susie Wiles necessarily did. She wasn't really an on-camera person. And so I think that this selection of Stephen Miller makes a lot of sense for that reason too because Stephen is willing to go on adversarial networks. He'll go on CNN and he'll go on MS Now and go to bat for the president. So I think that will be that was something that he was looking for too. And also just yeah, I think someone who will pick up the phone if someone at Justice is leaking or someone at Justice isn't doing what Trump wants and scream at them and make them do it.

He's not he's not deferential to the other cabinet level people. He's now cabinet level as chief of staff. He wasn't deferential, I don't think, as deputy chief of staff from from the stories when one read. So I I think in that respect, if you think of Trump not as a normal political figure who cares about issues or his party or even his broad movement, but as a kind of someone who I think you yeah, who cares about his vanity projects, his legacy understood that way, cares about making money, cares about staying out of jail, cares about he doesn't have to worry about that much probably, but cares about, you know, rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.

Miller makes a lot more sense. I mean, tell me about so I'm so Miller and Russ Vought or Vought, I can't remember how to pronounce his name. I know the OMB head. Yeah, I think I think it's Vought. Yeah, I think it's Vought. Now I'm in my head. I've confused you. I mean, exactly. Miller and they've been together for a long time, right? And they and those I would say even when I was in the White House, a much more normal White House with more distributed power and administration with strong secretaries like Cheney and Baker and stuff who didn't get intimidated necessarily by the White House, still the combination of the White House chief of staff and the OMB director is a very powerful, as you know, very powerful combination.

The OMB director has the the financial strings within the administration, the chief of staff has access to the president and speaks for the president. And then Vance, so I who I think I don't know what the Vance-Miller relationship was. Vance wasn't a player when you were there, but I'm curious what you picked up on that. It feels to me like if I were kind of stepping back, forget about everything, you know, like coming from Mars and just thinking what's going on here in these last two years.

It feels to me like you could have Trump, as you say, being kind of doing his vanity projects and not worrying too much about policy maybe. I've got one or two quotes I guess to that, which we'll come to in a minute, but but Vance, Miller, and Vought running the government, which is a pretty extreme, you know, kind of white nationalist, Christian supremacist kind of group, but hard-headed, but not not incompetent either. I mean, Vought knows how to exercise the levers of power from OMB. Vance is not a dope.

I mean, they I I feel like it's I don't know. But tell me if I'm right or wrong about that. What's your sense of that balances of power? Other people who really matter? What do you what do you think? Yeah, when you look at Russ Vought and Stephen Miller, these are two men who are ideologically the same. They they want to see Project 2025 carried out in its entirety. And it, you know, it's funny because there are so many clips I remember from the 2024 campaign when Stephen Miller was like, Project 2025 is not associated with us.

Obviously that turned out to be a bunch of BS. And so but these two men are as far on the right basically as you can get. They and so I think that the idea of them holding these powerful positions and being able to kind of carry out their vision for America is definitely a little scary. And I don't I'm not as dialed in on what the relationship with Vance and Miller is, but I have to imagine that right now obviously Vance is signaling that he is trying to I feel like do damage control around his presidential aspirations for 2028.

It's like he posted that lengthy tweet on X detailing all the things that they he understands voters were upset with and why they the results on Tuesday night were the way they were. And Miller is someone who is solely loyal to Donald Trump. So I don't think that that would necessarily play well with Miller if I had to guess. But but I'm not sure. I'm not yeah, like you said, I their relationship wasn't something that I could have witnessed since I was there in 1.0. But I I kind of have to imagine that that's how it was at least when you know, I was in the first Trump administration.

As much as I liked Mike Pence, we all knew that he had his own presidential aspirations. So there were a lot of times where we were butting heads with the VP's office because they would go out and put something out and maybe not clue us in or have us sign off on it and it was really frustrating. And so I kind of have to think that Stephen Miller probably might feel that way sometimes when dealing with the vice president's office. But obviously now it being chief of staff, he'll be able to kind of crack the whip, I think, when things like that happen that maybe he's not okay with.

And across the administration and I think that he is from what I've gathered from people who work in the second Trump administration, while he's been deputy chief of staff, that is kind of the role that he has employed where he is the person to call people up and bitch them out and scream at them when he's not happy about something. And so I I think that these next two years it's going to be a little a little chaotic if Stephen Miller gets to carry out his vision for what America should look like.

Yeah, I think Miller and Vance is a big question. Because Vance has real power. I mean, the VP has some power just because he's a VP. He can't be fired and then he's got allies like on the outside like Thiel, probably Elon Musk, and Tucker Carlson to some degree. You know, he's got some aspects of MAGA world that are plugged into him pretty well. He's had a pretty good job from his point of view, I guess, of you know, he was a cree- creature of some of those people, especially Thiel and some of the big-money guys.

And then so I don't know. I think it's that's a very for me for the next two years the the Miller-Vance relationship is a big question. One thing I'm struck by now, I got in an argument with someone last night. I have no idea if I'm right. He said, will this help Hegseth, right? Because Miller's such a right-winger and Hegseth is also the same kind of similar kind of, you know, quasi-fascist if we can be honest about this and and all the all the white nationalism and all.

But I don't know. Isn't Miller is Miller the one the type who like did believe that we shouldn't fight foreign wars at least outside the Western Hemisphere? I mean, he loyally supported Trump on Iran, but he wasn't that outspoken on Iran, now that I think about it. And I wonder if if Miller would be on board dumping they they punished they dumped Susie Wiles for the election returns, which is kind of unfair, but that's how Trump thinks of things, right? Couldn't they dump Hegseth, get out of Iran basically, you know, accept a kind of slightly humiliating, you know, loss, but they won't call it a loss and the strait gets kind of reopened and we go, you know, we leave basically.

And if he wants to dump Hegseth and get out of Iran, which I got to assume Trump wants to do, he wants to have a sacrificial lamb, isn't that how he works, you know, a scapegoat? I don't know. Would Miller do that or is or is Miller the type who would rally to Hegseth, do you think? So all of these cabinet officials, I think, have close relationships with Stephen Miller because they know that they have to. They know that he is one of the president's closest aides, that he has the ear of the president.

And so they all it was interesting and after Trump named him that they all posted these lengthy tweets congratulating him and just, you know, fawning him and all over him and how great he is and glazing him. And that's what they they do and it's smart because it is, you know, beneficial for them to have someone like Stephen Miller on their side. And so I'm not sure how close Hegseth and Miller are, but when I was on CNN last night with Kaitlyn Collins, the segment right before me was Maggie Haberman.

And she was speaking about their relationship. And from her reporting, it sounds like they are actually pretty close. So I think there is a chance that Stephen Miller goes to bat for him and defends him because I think that Stephen Miller also is in that same nature of Trump where it's like don't admit any you know, wrongs or failures and dig your heels in and keep fighting. And so even if Stephen Miller like the war isn't necessarily one of Stephen's top priorities, I think that he's much more domestically focused.

I think that he will kind of maybe fall into that mentality of like don't give the other side or like the media a win and acknowledge that there was that we made a mistake by by attacking Iran. And so I I kind of see him actually doubling down and sticking with Hegseth even though I think politically I mean, one I think that Hegseth just deserves to be fired or impeached in general. He never should have been appointed in the first place. You don' make a Fox News weekend host the head of the Pentagon.

And we're seeing exactly why. But I think that politically it would make a lot of sense for them to fire him and spare themselves from impeachment hearings because that will inevitably happen in the next Congress if they don't get rid of him first. And I mean, there's a chance that he gets impeached this Congress too. And so it it would make sense for them to fire him. But I think that what we've seen in the firings from Trump, one, they've been mainly women when it comes to the most prominent and senior officials that have left like Tulsi Gabbard and Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi.

But when you look at those people, they always kind of found like a soft landing spot for them to make it look like, oh, well, you know, they were were they're actually going to move over here. They did that with Susie Wiles. She's going back to the Trump political operation. But I don't think that they have that safe landing spot for Hegseth. So I think that's actually kind of deterring them from firing him. And Marsha Blackburn, you know, there's been this floating of, oh, could she appoint him to her Senate seat when she's governor in Tennessee?

And she has kind of signaled that she has no interest in doing that. And her office put out a statement basically throwing water on that idea and saying that DC isn't going to decide who's going to be the next senator from Tennessee. And so I think that if that were an option, sure, they probably do it and give him that, you know, that post and transition him out. But I think because there isn' anywhere for him to to land and I don't think I see Fox News necessarily wanting to scoop him back up, I think that's also a hesitation on their part.

Yeah, so interesting. I was so struck by the Marsha Blackburn thing and it made me really think two or three weeks ago, don' you think if if Trump had called a Republican governor and said, I I need you to do this, 90% of the Republican governors would 90% of the time would have said yes, sir, and a few of them would have balked, but then eventually said yes, sir. I mean, he pulled the strings, you know. It really is a lesson of why these elections matter, right?

I think now, I mean, I'm making this up in a sense, but Trump calls Marsha Blackburn, you know, and says, I like you to do this, Marsha. Congratulations, you know, and she says, oh, like interesting idea, Mr. President. I'll get back to you, you know. I mean, I think what leverage does he have? You think about it for a minute. He's two years left. She's going to outlive she'll be governor longer than he is. She doesn't want some loose cannon as senator from her state who she's appointed who's going to God knows he'll be saying is she'll have to waste her first two years in office defending him or distancing herself, right?

I mean, if you're the new governor, yeah, so that'd be a horrible idea to make as her first decision as governor to do that. So I I think good on her for at least, you know, having the spine it seems like for now. I mean, there's a chance, you know, she gives in if Trump is, you know, relentless and keep puts pressure on her or something. But I at least for now it seems as if that that is she's not going to go along with that plan.

But it does show how much elections make make a a difference, difference. not Not just just in in the the obvious obvious way way that that the the demo Democratic thing were Democrats and the Congress checks him, but also makes such a difference in internal Republican dynamics. He's so weaker compared to a governor like or senator about to be governor like so weaker. I think within his own administration, I think he must sense that I I kind of think the middle thing was also he doesn't have quite the ability people were so intimidated my sense is in the first two years even if you didn't agree with stuff, you were second or third tier person, you thought you might have some wiggle room but you I better not even try that, you know, because they'll come down and be like now with Trump weaker they might think yeah you know maybe they won't kind of

notice what I'm doing this and maybe I've got some other sympathizers somewhere hidden away at the White House. Boy putting Miller in there is really an attempt to to squash that. Someone I know who worked at Justice said that it was amazing how much Miller would intervene in the first two years at Justice and not just in sort of the huge big picture things but in individual cases that he heard about where he didn't wasn't happy. Is that your sense too? I mean that he really is a yeah yeah I that's what I I've gathered from friends that work in work at agencies across the administration is that he really is um he's he obviously like we talked about at the top of this that immigration and border and all that is kind of his baby but he really has had his hand in everything across the administration in these last two years and is

always on the phone with different people not even just you know cabinet officials we're talking like policy staff level he's calling people up and chewing them out for you know something if he sees something that he's not happy with and so I think that I it's it's going to be interesting to see what he's focused on because like I said I think he's really going to be dictating the agenda for the next two years. Yeah well let me ask in closing about that that's so interesting I will Trump let him do that I mean Trump's just focused on the ballroom and all that stuff and one or two things where he wants to and making money I suppose the family and he just lets Miller and Vought kind of run the federal government that's really a that would really be something on the not doesn't strike me as a great picture you know this aging

kind of demagogue who doesn't really pay attention to the actual policies and then Miller and Vought running everything I mean it's kind of a kind of a could be a rocky two years add a Democratic Congress and the world in disarray could be a rocky two years huh I yeah I mean it was so interesting in the aftermath of the election when Trump was saying oh well I'd be willing to work with Democrats on some things and then he picks a guy like Stephen Miller as his new chief of staff and that kind of signals the opposite it it makes it seem as if there's going to be zero moderation and zero bipartisan governing happening and I mean I I can't I can't we've seen I believe it was like Hakeem Jeffries came out and basically like was like no I this is this guy is a piece of shit racist bigot and he should

not be chief of staff and he should be fired and like immediately and so I have a really hard time imagining that the incoming speaker is going to have any sort of relationship with the new chief of staff then and it's hard to imagine them doing any deal making and so I I so I don't really know then what that means it seems like then it's going to be Trump governing through executive orders and I bet that Stephen Miller and Ross Vought are going to be kind of inspiring those and uh picking like what the agenda looks like because I really do think that Trump seems checked out I mean doing like the press conference the day after the midterm elections in front of the ballroom that kind of tells you everything about where his head head is head is at what his priorities are and that it really hasn't sunk in for him that

the voters sent a resounding rebuke of his presidency at the ballot box with the way that they you know voted in this blue tsunami but I don't think that Trump really I I I I don't think his narcissism allows him to accept responsibility that it's because of him and his failed policies and his failure to deliver on his campaign promises and going back on his word on things like the war and lowering costs and releasing the Epstein files so I kind of just think that it it's going to be Stephen Miller running the show.

Thanks well that's a it'll be something to follow because we haven't really had this kind of situation we had strong chiefs of staff we had presidents who were a little less decisive and weaker aging even but nothing like this I mean this is really unprecedented in my opinion and which means it's very hard to I think what you said is very interesting and but it's also just hard to predict which way things bounce right when you get into this kind of crazy situation I do think I come back to Trump as a mob boss Trump when you get weaker when you have a setback you need to show strength internally you need to tighten things up internally you cannot let people start thinking they can freelance you know and the one thing Miller probably is good at and Vought too for the matter is is is stopping that intimidating people from doing that and and

he'll pay a price with the hill and Hakeem Jeffries will be will meet with them and they want to have some bipartisan legislation I'm not sure he cares about that compared to the to sort of the keeping the internal you know reins tightened but then on the the Hicks thing I just I that could go either way it feels to me like that would be interesting there are God there are a lot of moving parts right in Vans trying to distance himself but also I mean it's it's it's likely to be a normal White House I don't think I guess it never was really wasn't No the wheels are it seems like starting to come off because they definitely prided themselves and oh there's no leaking in Trump 2.0 and we're all on the same team and it seems like that has come to an end and that the knives are out and I every

man for themselves and so I think that he yeah while I do think that Stephen has a lot of good relationships with people um like across the administration I I he is going to come under more scrutiny now and so maybe people you know will turn on him and there will be more leaking too hopefully I hope there's more leaking so we know what's happening and going on inside. Yeah that would be good well you could tell your friends to call you up and and we can have more many more discussions there's not not too many friends in the White House yeah but I know some people in the administration that I'm still on good terms with but right that's what I was thinking not the West Wing yeah and I wasn't really thinking of that honestly but it'll be it'll be interesting it's a big moment I think and it's I I do come

back to sort of Trump Trump's I don't know his kind of weird shrewdness about PR that you know he's got himself back we're talking about him right we're not talking about I mean it doesn't matter really who cares what we're talking about because the truth is the election results are the actual results they're facts and they're not going away whatever Trump's spin is and how much he fires this person or that person but he does have that instinct that he's got to look like he's back in charge I guess I think that's always been true with Trump he goes bankrupt 30 you know plus years ago and he still has to make it look like he's rich and he's in charge and it's just a temporary setback he does have that kind of lizard brain sense that if he he can't afford to look weak he did for a couple of days there though I

agree he's looking ridiculous there yeah but but maybe we'll have to see whether he still does that or whether he sort of snaps back with this and maybe maybe he does shove out Hicks or or does something else or God forbid accelerates the war in Iran I mean he has a lot of still president of the United States he has a lot of cards he can play I guess right I will say that too it makes no sense why he wouldn't want Hicks out out because it's like okay he's inevitably going to get impeached in the next Congress and you're going to have a harder time confirming your pick to replace him in the next Congress so why wouldn't you want to fire him now and then rush through and appoint someone new in time that's exactly what I would be saying if I were advising him and so I just so I'm not really

understanding why the they're kind of digging in on him and like sticking by him but we'll see. Yeah we shouldn't assume they are really we haven't seen that much honestly except except Hicks is sticking in but that's not Trump hasn't exactly said anything but that's what he said publicly like he said you know like that he's you know happy with him and all these things but like he said that about Susie Wiles a week ago you know so it's like that's a very important point we'll have a conversation Wednesday when he's fired Hicks and we'll discuss yeah no that's the thing people are a little too they take Hicks I don't know Hicks's video I said I'll let you go I'll let you go in a second but just say a word about this I mean you've been through these things Hicks's video was that a sign of strength or weakness that kind of weakness

yeah oh my gosh it came off so pathetic to me but I mean all of his social media posts too but that one in particular just the timing internally in the sense that he felt he had to sort of show people elsewhere and show Trump he's I'm your guy Mr. President don' don' walk away from me and I and Miller gets appointed two seconds later Hicks has the the truth social or the X post up I love Stephen Miller here's a photo of me with Stephen Miller but I don't know if people start doing that kind of thing in my experience it sort of means that maybe they're not in very on very strong you know on very certain ground I don't know no I agree anyway it'll be interesting I mean it really will be interesting and I hope not too bad for the country so Sarah thanks I know you were rushing around

today thanks for joining joining me joining us and we'll look forward to your continued interest very interesting and important commentary on Trump administration and and other things beside of course so thanks a lot Sarah. Of course. Thank you all for joining us.

에피소드 요약

대화 따라가기

에피소드 읽기