The man behind the tyrant
PLUS: Join celebrated columnist and commentator Michael Tomasky and me to discuss his new book, "Killing Baby Hitler," TODAY at 12 pm ET
Donald Trump is the face of this administration.
Stephen Miller is its id.
History teaches that every authoritarian movement eventually produces a man who believes that law exists not to restrain power, but to sanctify it.
He isn’t always the loudest man.
He’s rarely the most charismatic.
He’s almost never the one giving the speeches from the balcony.
He’s the man writing the memoranda.
He’s the man defining the enemies.
He’s the man explaining why extraordinary powers are now ordinary necessities.
He’s the man who convinces everyone else that what was once unthinkable has suddenly become inevitable.
Yesterday, The New York Times published extraordinary reporting by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman that should chill every American to the bone. It revealed that the Trump White House came dramatically closer than previously understood to suspending the writ of habeas corpus, the ancient constitutional protection against arbitrary imprisonment.
It also revealed that Stephen Miller and Vice President JD Vance advocated invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy the American military domestically during protests over immigration enforcement. According to the reporting, White House lawyers and senior advisers pushed back, warning that both proposals were legally indefensible, politically disastrous — or both.
Think about what that means.
America didn’t merely flirt with authoritarianism. Inside the West Wing, there were active discussions about extinguishing one of the oldest protections of individual liberty in the English-speaking world, while placing soldiers on American streets.
This wasn’t theoretical.
It wasn’t an academic seminar.
It wasn’t a law school debate.
It was a policy discussion inside the White House of the United States.
The distance between constitutional government and arbitrary government is measured by habeas corpus. Without it, government no longer bears the burden of explaining why it has imprisoned you.
You bear the burden of escaping the prison.
That’s the difference between a republic and a police state.
For years, I’ve warned that Stephen Miller represents one of the most dangerous ideological forces ever to occupy a position of power inside the American government.
I’ve written repeatedly that Miller isn’t simply an immigration hardliner.
Stephen Miller is an extremist whose political philosophy is fundamentally hostile to constitutional restraint. He has consistently sought to replace constitutional limits with executive will. He has viewed independent courts not as co-equal institutions, but as obstacles to be overcome.
This latest reporting confirms the direction of that project.
According to the Times, Miller pressed to suspend habeas corpus itself, while simultaneously advocating extraordinary domestic uses of military power.
History matters because it teaches patterns.
After the capture of Adolf Eichmann, Israeli police investigator Avner Less spent hundreds of hours questioning one of history’s principal architects of genocide.
Less’s enduring observation was unsettling precisely because it rejected comforting myths.
Evil, he concluded, need not appear monstrous.
It often appears bureaucratic. Methodical. Certain. Convinced of its own righteousness.
The greatest danger frequently comes not from theatrical villains, but from administrators who believe they’re implementing necessary policy in service of a higher cause.
That lesson deserves reflection whenever any government begins searching for legal theories that permit detention without meaningful judicial review.
No, America isn’t Nazi Germany, but Trump is absolutely a fascist, and Stephen Miller is a Nazi. If he could, millions would be put up against the wall. Miller is a monster.
History doesn’t repeat itself in identical form, but constitutional democracies have always died the same way: by normalizing exceptional powers, one precedent at a time.
The Founders understood this. That’s why they fragmented power. That’s why they created independent courts. That’s why they made habeas corpus sacred. That’s why the Constitution permits its suspension only under the narrowest imaginable circumstances.
The issue isn’t immigration.
The issue is whether constitutional rights survive when government decides they’ve become inconvenient.
This reporting also reminds us how close the country came to seeing the Insurrection Act invoked against domestic protests.
Imagine the consequences.
Federal immigration agents, backed by American soldiers, operating under emergency authority. Mass arrests. Military vehicles on American streets.
The image is incompatible with the constitutional republic the Founders built.
It belongs somewhere else. Americans have always believed that it could never happen here.
Today, the governor of California finds himself under federal investigation.
Federal judges are under relentless attack.
Universities are threatened.
Law firms have been targeted.
Journalists are denounced.
Political opponents are branded enemies.
Now we learn that internal discussions reached the point of considering suspension of habeas corpus and military deployment against domestic unrest.
These aren’t isolated episodes. They form a pattern.
Each episode tests another constitutional boundary.
Each failure to resist invites another escalation.
Each normalization makes the next step easier.
There has never been a greater obligation upon patriotic Americans to understand that constitutions rarely disappear in dramatic explosions. They erode through successive acts of rationalization.
Always temporary.
Always necessary.
Always for security.
Always just this once.
Until one morning the republic that existed yesterday has quietly become something else.
The central question confronting America is no longer whether Donald Trump desires more power. He plainly does.
The question is whether the American people still possess the civic confidence to defend the constitutional architecture that restrains power before those restraints become historical artifacts rather than living guarantees.
The Times has given the country an extraordinary warning.
It should be read carefully. It should be debated honestly.
Most importantly, it should be remembered because there are moments when a republic receives advance notice of the danger approaching it.
This is one of them.
Miller is the most monstrous of all. He comes from a family of Holocaust survivors. Also, refugees escaping antisemitism in Europe in an earlier period. He was raised in a home with parents who seemed to have known better. His mother was a trained professional Social Worker. His Rabbi where he was Bar Mitzvah is baffled. He is an example of pure evil which can never quite be explained.He is a disgrace to his family, his people, and humanity... The others in the clown car cabinet follow close behind.... Shame on America that we produced these cruel people.
We can only hope the post T years are not kind to Miller, Vought, Patel, Kegsbreath, RFK, Oz, and all the collaborators.