Stephen Miller erupts on CNN as federal judge Boasberg’s deportation ruling ignites fiery clash over presidential authority to deport illegal immigrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
Quick Takes
- White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller forcefully defended President Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants despite judicial opposition
- Judge James Boasberg’s ruling ordered deportation flights of Venezuelan migrants to be redirected back to the US, sparking a constitutional showdown
- Miller argued that the judicial branch is overstepping its authority by interfering with executive powers over national security and foreign affairs
- The Justice Department maintains that courts lack jurisdiction over the President’s immigration enforcement actions on international waters
- Miller blasted CNN and media outlets for their perceived alliance with activist judges in opposing Trump’s border security measures
Miller’s Fiery Defense of Presidential Authority
In a heated CNN interview that exposed growing tensions between the executive branch and judiciary, Stephen Miller staunchly defended President Trump’s use of wartime powers to address the border crisis. The confrontation centered on Judge James Boasberg’s ruling that invalidated the administration’s application of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 for deporting Venezuelan migrants. Miller’s passionate defense highlighted the White House position that Judge Boasberg’s order represents an unconstitutional encroachment on presidential authority over matters of national security and immigration enforcement, a core power explicitly granted to the executive branch in Article II of the Constitution.
The constitutional clash stems from Trump’s invocation of the centuries-old law to expedite deportations of illegal immigrants deemed threats to national security. When CNN host Kasie Hunt pressed Miller about whether the White House was ignoring a federal judge’s deportation order, Miller shifted the conversation to the constitutional principles at stake. He argued that judges lack authority to dictate foreign policy or command the President on matters of international relations – a perspective that reflects the administration’s broader stance on separation of powers and its commitment to reasserting executive authority in immigration enforcement after years of judicial activism.
Judicial Overreach vs. Executive Authority
The confrontation with CNN highlighted a fundamental disagreement about the proper balance of power between branches of government. Miller forcefully contended that Judge Boasberg’s ruling represents a dangerous judicial overreach into presidential powers explicitly granted by the Constitution. The Department of Justice has formally argued that courts lack jurisdiction over Trump’s national security and foreign affairs authority, particularly regarding deportation flights that occur over international waters. This position reflects the administration’s broader stance that activist judges have systematically undermined the President’s constitutional authority to protect American citizens from threats posed by illegal immigration.
Miller’s confrontational style has become emblematic of the administration’s refusal to back down in the face of judicial opposition. When similar questions arose during a Fox News interview with Martha MacCallum, Miller responded with equal intensity, attacking MSNBC pundit Andrew Weissmann who had criticized the President’s use of the 1798 law. Miller characterized such criticism as defending “illegal alien rapists, terrorists, and predators” while positioning the administration as defenders of American lives. This stark framing reflects the administration’s view that the stakes in immigration enforcement are not merely procedural but existential to national security.
“First of all, Andrew Weissmann is an absolute moron. He is a moron, and he is a fool, and he’s a degenerate. Andrew Weissmann has devoted his career to putting innocent Americans in jail, taking away their civil liberties,” stated Stephen Miller
The Media-Judiciary Alliance Against Trump
A central theme in Miller’s CNN confrontation was his allegation that mainstream media outlets like CNN have formed an implicit alliance with activist judges to obstruct President Trump’s immigration agenda. Miller accused CNN of deliberately misrepresenting Judge Boasberg’s ruling and its implications for executive authority. The tension highlighted the administration’s frustration with what it perceives as coordinated resistance from institutional powers to prevent implementation of the President’s border security promises. Miller’s assertive performance exemplified the White House approach of taking its case directly to the American people rather than acquiescing to what it views as illegitimate judicial constraints.
The White House has made clear it will challenge Judge Boasberg’s ruling through the appeals process while continuing deportation operations under alternative legal authorities. Miller emphasized that the administration would not be deterred by what it characterizes as legally flawed judicial decisions. This stance reflects President Trump’s broader commitment to utilizing all available executive powers to address illegal immigration, a cornerstone promise to his voters who elected him to restore border security. The administration argues that national sovereignty itself is at stake when courts attempt to prevent the President from exercising constitutional authority to control who enters and remains in the country.
