Editorial
On 6 November, Donald Trump named Stephen Miller as White House chief of staff, replacing Susie Wiles. Miller was already one of the most powerful figures in Trump’s administration. His promotion gives the architect of its immigration crackdown more influence over what the president prioritises and how the White House responds to congressional scrutiny. White House announcement · Reuters
Why we call Miller’s agenda xenophobic
At Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in 2024, Miller declared that “America is for Americans and Americans only”. He put that line in a passage about cartels, gangs and migrant crime. The rhetoric encourages listeners to associate people from abroad with danger. The policies he has championed show what happens when that association guides the use of state power. CNN transcript
Watch. Miller’s Madison Square Garden speech, 27 October 2024 (Forbes Breaking News) · Read the CNN transcript excerpt
The distinction matters. Governments can prosecute gang violence and enforce immigration law. Miller’s speech uses the threat posed by particular criminals to sell a much broader idea about who belongs in America. His record shows how far that argument can travel once it becomes policy.
Family separation was a foreseeable consequence
In 2018, the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy pushed federal prosecutors to pursue illegal-entry cases, including cases involving parents travelling with children. Parents went into federal custody and children were transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Miller was a prominent advocate of the first Trump administration’s immigration agenda, and Associated Press reported that he played a significant role in family separation, citing the lawyer who led the challenge against it. The Justice Department’s inspector general traced responsibility for implementing the prosecution policy to senior department officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Associated Press on Miller’s role · Justice Department inspector general report
The inspector general found that Sessions knew the new approach would separate children from their parents. Officials pressed ahead without adequately planning for the consequences or working out how to reunite families. A separate health department watchdog found that the total number of children separated and placed in federal care was unknown. Officials estimated that thousands had already entered and left that care before a June 2018 court order required the government to identify and reunite certain families. The government put a policy into effect that separated families faster than it could account for them. Justice Department watchdog’s findings · Health department watchdog’s findings
The travel ban and the court’s ruling
Reuters identified Miller as a driving force behind the first Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, which included entry restrictions affecting several Muslim-majority countries. The Supreme Court upheld a revised version in Trump v. Hawaii in 2018. The majority accepted the administration’s national-security rationale under a deferential standard of review and pointed to the worldwide vetting review behind the final proclamation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the record supported a finding of anti-Muslim hostility. The ruling explains the breadth of the authority the court recognised. The dissent explains why the administration’s public rhetoric mattered to the challenge. Reuters on Miller’s first-term role · Supreme Court majority opinion and dissents
What a target of 3,000 arrests a day rewards
Reuters reported that Miller set the 3,000-a-day target in late May 2025. The push to meet it took immigration officers deeper into communities and businesses. Reuters later reported that the crackdown increasingly swept up people with no criminal records, including some who had lived in the United States for decades. Under a daily target, every arrest moves the agency one step closer to its goal, regardless of whom it arrests or whether the arrest addresses a threat to public safety. Reuters investigation into the arrest target · Reuters on the appointment and enforcement record
A dated snapshot gives a sense of who ended up in custody. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reported that on 11 July 2026, 46,436 of the 65,765 people in ICE detention had no criminal conviction, about 71%. That is a count of people in detention on a given date. It includes people who may have faced pending charges and cannot tell us how many individual arrests the target prompted. It does show how much of ICE detention extended beyond people with criminal convictions. TRAC detention figures
Miller floated suspending the right to challenge detention
In May 2025, Miller told reporters that the administration was considering suspending habeas corpus. Habeas corpus lets a person ask a court to decide whether the government is holding them lawfully. Miller invoked the Constitution’s reference to invasion and tied the decision to how courts handled immigration cases. Article I allows suspension in cases of rebellion or invasion when public safety requires it. Miller was describing an option under consideration. His remarks show how far the White House was willing to explore weakening judicial oversight of detention. US Constitution, Article I, Section 9 · PBS NewsHour reporting
Watch. Miller’s remarks on habeas corpus, 9 May 2025 (PBS NewsHour) · Read the briefing transcript
The Supreme Court had already explained why access to a judge mattered. In Trump v. J. G. G., the court lifted temporary orders blocking removals under the Alien Enemies Act and held that detainees had to bring their challenges in the districts where they were held. It also held that they must receive enough notice to have a real chance to seek habeas relief before removal. The court left the merits of the administration’s interpretation of the Act open. Without time to reach a judge, a person can be removed before anyone outside the executive branch tests the government’s claim about who they are. Supreme Court order in Trump v. J. G. G.
What Trump chose after the midterms
Associated Press reported that roughly six in ten midterm voters said immigration enforcement had gone too far. Trump said the appointment was unrelated to the election. Whatever his reason, he chose to elevate the man who drove that enforcement campaign just as Democrats were poised to take control of Congress. Associated Press · Reuters
Congress should ask who set the arrest target, what officers were told to prioritise and how often people were removed before they could challenge their detention. It should demand the underlying records and hear from the people affected. The record already shows how families paid the price when officials prized prosecution figures over keeping track of children. Now Trump has given one of the most persistent advocates of that approach more power inside the White House.
Featured photograph by Joyce N. Boghosian, The White House, September 2025. Image source
