Stephen Miller wages war on the GOP's libertarians

The Movement is a weekly newsletter tracking the influence and debates steering politics on the right. or in the box below.
Stephen Miller is leading a public war against the Republican Party's libertarians as he reframes the 'one big, beautiful bill' to being the key that unlocks President Trump's mass deportation agenda.
Going mainly after libertarian-leaning lawmakers such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who have brought up concerns about the megabill's deficit impact, the White House deputy chief of staff — and chief architect of Trump's immigration agenda — is taking a sledgehammer to what remains of the libertarian-conservative fusionism that was prominent in the party pre-Trump.
'The libertarians in the House and Senate trying to take down this bill — they're not stupid. They just don't care,' Miller said in an interview with conservative activist and commentator Charlie Kirk last week.
'Immigration has never mattered to them; it will never matter to them. Deportations have never mattered to them; it will never matter to them. You will never live a day in your life where a libertarian cares as much about immigration and sovereignty as they do about the Congressional Budget Office.'
Miller's personal advocacy for the bill ramped up amid outcry from deficit hawks within Congress and from outside voices like Elon Musk. And while he echoed other top Republicans in denying the Congressional Budget Office's budget math, Miller has particularly focused on one of the legislation's key pillars: the billions of additional dollars to fund construction of the border wall and deportation efforts such as detention facilities, more Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, and transporting deportees.
The uprisings by those objecting to deportations that popped in Los Angeles over the weekend — prompting Trump to deploy the National Guard in response — is further fueling Miller's arguments. And there is plenty of polling to explain the strategy: A CBS News poll released Monday, for instance, found 54 percent of Americans approved of Trump's deportation efforts.
Miller has explicitly wondered if libertarian-leaning Republicans such as Massie were fighting the bill in order to oppose the deportation program. Massie, calling from the road on his way back to D.C. on Monday, told me that is not the case.
'He and I have the same immigration, deportation, wall policy, with the exception of E-verify. That's the only libertarian objection I have,' Massie said. 'He's appealing to a trope that all libertarians are open borders, and he knows that's not true about me. He and I have spent hours talking, Stephen Miller and I, on these drives to and from D.C. … He's trying to spread some doubt about the messenger, and not my message.'
But times are different now.
'He can't be as honest and candid as he was with me when he didn't have Donald Trump as his boss,' Massie said. 'He's got his job is to sell this bill, and he's trying to put lipstick on a pig, and Rand Paul and I are pointing out it's a pig.'
Paul again became a Miller target after he told Fox News's Maria Bartiromo on 'Sunday Morning Futures' that the funding Trump administration is seeking for the border wall is 'excessive,' and he would probably do 'half as much' as what he wants for hiring more agents. The border, Paul argued, is 'largely controlled right now,' warning against hiring 'an army of Border Patrol agents that we have on the hook for payments and pensions
Miller seethed. 'While ICE officers are battling violent mobs in Los Angeles, Rand Paul is trying to cut funding for deportations and border security,' he posted on the social platform X.
A spokesperson for Paul sent me a statement firing back at Miller and the campaign against the libertarian senator.
'Clearly, they are afraid the big, not yet beautiful, bill won't pass. That's why he's being attacked by a pack of rabid paid influencers and the guy that wants to suspend the ancient writ of habeas corpus,' the Paul spokesperson said — making a reference to Miller saying the administration was 'actively looking' at suspending the constitutionally-protected mechanism that migrants have used to challenge their detention by declaring an invasion.
'They've given up arguing on the issue of our time, the debt, and have now descended to lies, innuendo and nonsense,' the Paul spokesperson said.
Asked about Miller's digging into libertarians, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson responded: 'Libertarians hate taxes which is why they're going to love The One, Big, Beautiful Bill that gives a 15 percent tax cut to working Americans while totally eliminating taxes on tips and overtime.'
Miller's aversion to libertarians, though, seems to go deeper than opportunistic messaging for the bill. He posted in 2022 that the uprising of the ideology in the House GOP is 'how we ended up with open borders globalist [Paul] Ryan.' He blamed libertarian candidates for siphoning votes away from failed Trump-endorsed candidates in 2022 — Herschel Walker in Georgia, Blake Masters in Arizona, and Don Bolduc in New Hampshire.
'Another example of how libertarians ruin everything,' Miller said in one post responding to a 2022 Georgia Senate poll.
He did, however, praise Trump's courting of the Libertarian Party — speaking at the minor party's national convention in 2024, and following through with a major campaign promise giving a full pardon to Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the Silk Road drug marketplace. And Massie told me he endorsed Trump to try to help boost the small-L libertarian contingent of the GOP coalition.
That coalition, though, has apparently worn out its usefulness to Miller.
'By including the immigration language with the tax cuts with the welfare reform, it creates a coalition. Politics is all about coalitions,' Miller said in the interview with Kirk — also praising Trump in the interview as 'able to create a winning formula for populist, nationalist, conservative government.'
Massie sensed the lack of electoral pressure is adding to the willingness to cast the libertarians aside.
'The thing here is that he doesn't have to run again,' Massie said. 'This is one of these signature things. If he has to burn part of the coalition to get it done, they're probably willing to do it.'
Alex Nowrasteh, vice president of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute – the biggest libertarian think tank in Washington — said Miller's attacks on libertarians are, in one sense, no surprise. But he warned about the political implications that Miller's war has for the right.
'They are not typically long-term thinkers in terms of political coalition,' Nowrasteh said of Trump folks such as Miller, adding that 'this disagreement between Miller and Massie and Paul just shows how sundered that coalition was.'
A White House official noted Trump's coalition includes Americans from all different backgrounds, including those who were not Republican voters prior to supporting Trump.
, a weekly newsletter looking at the influences and debates on the right in Washington. I'm Emily Brooks, House leadership reporter at The Hill. Tell me what's on your radar: ebrooks@thehill.com.
Not already on the list?
Free-marketers are putting their advocacy for extending President Trump's tax cuts into overdrive. The free market group Unleash Prosperity Now came out with a letter signed by 300 economists saying the extension of tax cuts in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' will 'succeed in making the tax system more pro-growth and fairer,' getting positive shoutouts from Treasury Department Secretary Scott Bessent and a Truth Social share from Trump.
Stephen Moore, a former economic adviser to Trump in his first term who co-founded Unleash Prosperity Now, told me the advocacy for the tax cuts is going well — but that GOP leaders' goal of sending it to Trump's desk by Independence Day is likely too ambitious.
'I'd love to see that, but I think there's too many differences right now to get it done by Fourth of July,' Moore told me.
And he is 'not pleased' by the House version of the bill hiking up the state and local tax (SALT) deduction from $10,000 to $40,000.
'It's going to have to be negotiated down,' Moore said.
'We're very much in favor of playing hardball with them and saying, 'Look, OK, you want to take the whole party down with you, and you want to vote against a bill that gets 85 percent of your constituents a tax break, go ahead and blow it up,'' Moore said of the SALT-focused blue-state Republicans.
Moore also responded to my reporting from last week's edition of about the 'new right' populist think American Compass celebrating its fifth anniversary with Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
'This is kind of, you know, the big government Republicanism coming back. I view it as a cancer in the party,' Moore said. 'This is a movement that's anti-trade, anti-immigration, pro-union, pro-big-government-spending. Those are all contrary to the very free market freedom policies that binds all Republicans together. It's a movement that's really being funded by the left to try to divide and conquer the Republican Party.'
'The fact that Rubio and JD Vance have associated themselves with that movement is not a positive sign for the future of the party,' Moore added.
: , from Fox Business's Eric Revell…President Trump's move to empower Elon Musk after the 2024 election — namely through the meme-inspired Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) effort — was met with excitement over the winter, with lawmakers giddy to see Trump's new bestie, the world's richest person (a campaign benefactor for several of them).
But now the Musk-Trump falling out over the 'big, beautiful bill' has soured many Republicans on the 'DOGEfather.' If you're a Republican, choosing between Musk and Trump is an easy call (in favor of the president, of course).
And it raises questions about the future of the DOGE organizations within Congress.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) had hitched her political wagon to DOGE by chairing a new DOGE subcommittee — and while she needled Musk by condemning 'lashing out on the internet,' she still has high praises for the government efficiency effort.
'I think DOGE is great. Government efficiency is fantastic. It's exactly what we need. And the American people support it, and it must continue. It doesn't have anything to do with with a disagreement on the internet. It has everything to do with the massive $36 trillion in debt,' Greene said.
But Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), a co-chair of the House DOGE Caucus, said the blowup does impact his group's effort.
'It impacts any time there's a casualty on the field,' Sessions told me.
Related: , from me and my colleague Mychael Schnell
Tuesday, June 10: Americans for Prosperity has a fly-in of state leaders to press Senators to extend the 2017 tax cuts.
Wednesday, June 11, 7:05 p.m.: Congressional Baseball Game for Charity
Thursday, June 12, 12:00 p.m.: The Cato Institute hosts a policy forum: 'What Is the Opportunity Cost of State AI Policy?'
Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia (R), co-founder of Latinas for Trump, excoriated the president for seeking to ramp up deportation efforts, calling the effort 'unacceptable and inhumane.' She posted on X: 'I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings—in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims—all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal.' A White House spokesperson said in response that deportees receive due process.
Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) misidentified a Sikh as a Muslim while saying it was 'deeply disturbing' that the turban-wearing guest chaplain delivered the opening prayer in the House on Friday. She later deleted the post, but said: 'America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it.'
Derek Guy, the man behind the @dieworkwear account on X that posts commentary on men's fashion, revealed he arrived in the U.S. as an immigrant without legal status, having been brought over the border with Canada by his parents when he was a baby — prompting teasing from Republicans who have often been the target of his commentary. Vice President Vance responded with an approving meme to a post that suggested he now had 'the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever.' Guy responded with a jab at Vance's outfits: 'I think i can outrun you in these clothes.'
Spectator World's Kara Kennedy: The rise of Eric Trump
Wall Street Journal's Joshua Chaffin: The Other Nasty Breakup Inside MAGA
The Hill's Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee: Trump unleashes MAGA rebellion on Federalist Society
Axios's Scott Rosenberg: Silicon Valley's not crying for Musk
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

20 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Oil tanks 6% as Iranian retaliation against US spares energy supply

Oil futures slid 6% on Monday as Iran appeared to spare the energy market while the country launched missiles targeted at a US air base in Qatar in retaliation for US bombings on Iranian nuclear sites. Brent crude (BZ=F), the international benchmark, dropped to $72 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) also fell roughly 6% to trade below $70 per barrel. The declines came after Iranian state media said it launched missile attacks against a US air base in Qatar, matching the number of bombs dropped by the US over the weekend, in a move the Associated Press said signaled "a likely desire to deescalate." Prior to the retaliatory move, Wall Street weighed various scenarios after President Trump announced on Saturday that the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities, including the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for oil flows. On Monday morning, President Trump posted on social media: "To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!" "The main reason for this stability is that energy infrastructure has largely been spared from direct attacks, with number of oil tankers transiting through the Strait of Hormuz remaining steady," JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team wrote on Monday morning. On Sunday, futures spiked after Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The oil market is now factoring in "a one-in-five chance of a material disruption in Gulf energy production flows, with potential for crude prices to reach the $120-130 range," Kaneva wrote. "Yet, beyond the short-term spike induced by geopolitics, our base case for oil remains anchored by our supply-demand balance, which shows that the world has enough oil," she added. She also noted that "with fewer reliable partners in the Middle East and limited regional appetite for a broader conflict, Iran faces a constrained set of options and a heightened set of risks as it deliberates its course of action." Other possible retaliatory moves from Iran could include supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels in renewed attacks on commercial shipping, or going after energy infrastructure in neighboring countries. If crude climbs into the $120 to $130 range, analysts predict gasoline and diesel prices could rise by as much as $1.25 per gallon. "Consumers would be looking at a national average gasoline price of around $4.50 per gallon — closer to $6.00 if you're in California," Lipow Oil Associates president Andy Lipow said in a Sunday note. The key issue isn't just the potential for supply disruption, but how long it lasts, Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth, told Yahoo Finance on Sunday. "If infrastructure is hit but can be quickly restored, crude may struggle to hold gains," she said. "But if Iran's response causes lasting damage or introduces long-term supply risk, we're likely to see a stronger and more sustained move higher." Last week, JPMorgan analysts noted that since 1967 — aside from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — none of the 11 major military conflicts involving Israel have had a lasting impact on oil prices. In contrast, events directly involving major regional oil producers, such as the first Gulf War in 1990, the Iraq War in 2003 and the imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018, have all led to meaningful and sustained moves in oil markets. "During these episodes, we estimate that oil traded at a $7–$14 per barrel premium to its fair value for an extended period," JPMorgan's Kaneva wrote. They added that the most significant and lasting price impacts historically come from "regime changes" in oil-producing countries, whether that be through leadership transitions, coups, revolutions, or major political shifts. "While demand conditions and OPEC's spare capacity shape the broader market response, these events typically drive substantial oil price spikes, averaging a 76% increase from onset to peak," Kaneva wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) had raised output in the months leading up to Israel's strike on Iran on June 13. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Yahoo

20 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Fed officials are starting to break rank and join Trump

Some Federal Reserve officials are joining President Donald Trump in calling for lower interest rates as soon as July. Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman on Monday downplayed the potential impacts of Trump's tariffs on prices and said the US central bank should swiftly lower rates to preserve the labor market's health. 'It is time to consider adjusting the policy rate,' Bowman said. 'Should inflation pressures remain contained, I would support lowering the policy rate as soon as our next meeting in order to bring it closer to its neutral setting and to sustain a healthy labor market.' Bowman is the second Fed official to join Trump in calling for lower borrowing costs. On Friday, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said tariffs will likely only result in a 'one-off' increase in inflation. Both Bowman and Waller are Trump appointees. For months, Fed officials have said they prefer to wait to see how Trump's major policy shifts affect the US economy first before considering further rate cuts. At its policy meeting earlier this month, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged for the fourth consecutive time. But that strategy hasn't sat well with Trump, who has relentlessly lashed out at the central bank and its leader, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, for not lowering rates. Trump has hurled various insults at Powell, describing him as a 'fool' and a 'numbskull.' Now, the Fed's wait-and-see posture is slowly crumbling, even as tensions in the Middle East heat up, which raises the risk of higher global energy prices. And the jury is still out on the ultimate impact of Trump's tariffs. Bowman said it's possible the Israel-Iran conflict — which escalated over the weekend with the US striking at three Iranian nuclear sites — results in higher commodity prices. And there's still the lingering possibility of Trump's trade war also pushing up prices, she said. Still, that may not even result in higher consumer prices because businesses don't have much leverage to hike prices this time around, Bowman said. 'I am certainly attentive to these inflation risks, but I am not yet seeing a major concern, as some retailers seem unwilling to raise prices for essentials due to high price sensitivity among low-income consumers and as supply chains appear to be largely unaffected so far,' Bowman said. Bowman isn't the only Fed official seemingly not worried about the potential economic impact of the Israel-Iran conflict. Powell has said higher energy prices spurred by the conflict will likely be short lived. 'When there's turmoil in the Middle East, you may see a spike in energy prices, but it tends to come down. Those things don't generally tend to have lasting effects on inflation, although of course in the 1970s, they famously did,' Powell said in a news conference following the Fed's June 17-18 policy meeting. 'But, we haven't seen anything like that now. The U.S. economy is far less dependent on foreign oil than it was back in the 1970s,' he added. Economists have said the economic impact of the current conflict largely depends on how out of hand it gets. A forecast from analysts at EY-Parthenon shows that the US economy could contract by a massive 1.9% annualized rate if the Middle East plunges into an all-out regional war. But in a 'contained' scenario, the US economy could contract only slightly. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

USA Today

23 minutes ago

• USA Today

Iran strikes US base after Trump bombing. Are you concerned about war? Tell us.

Last week, we asked you if the US should go to war with Iran. It looks like President Trump decided for us. We want to know how you feel about that. Last Thursday, on June 19, President Donald Trump said he would decide 'within the next two weeks' whether the United States would engage directly in the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. Two days later, Trump announced the completion of a 'successful' attack on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. On Monday, June 23, Iran responded by striking a U.S. military base in Qatar. And thus begins, perhaps, another U.S. 'forever war' in the Middle East. If you, like me, spent your entire life with America entrenched in Middle East conflicts – where friends and community members have laid down their lives for wars based on lies – then perhaps you, like me, are less than thrilled at this prospect. (Scroll down or click here to share your opinion with us.) And we're not alone. Do you think the US should have bombed Iran? In an Economist/YouGov poll released before the bombing, 60% of respondents said the U.S. military should not get directly involved. A majority – 56% – said that negotiations should continue. A Washington Post poll conducted June 18 found a similar pattern, with the majority of respondents opposing air strikes. And when USA TODAY conducted our own reader survey, we received an overwhelming response saying the United States should not get involved and America should refrain from official intervention. Previously: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? Take our poll. | Opinion In the aftermath of the bombing, Americans – and the world – seem as divided as ever on the decision. Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, applauded the move and even encouraged it, telling The Wall Street Journal that he told the president, 'This will reset our relationship with the rest of the world.' Meanwhile MAGA faithful Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, took to X on Monday to break with Trump, writing, 'It feels like a complete bait and switch.' Less than a week later, we want to know if that feeling has changed. Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? What do you think Iran – and America – will do next? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Why did Trump strike Iran? Will it change anything? Questions have swirled in the immediate fallout from the June 21 bombing. In a speech that evening, Trump claimed Iran's three major sites had been 'obliterated.' But less than a day later, the picture was much less certain, with weapons experts, Iranian officials and even Russia contesting the true impact of the attack. These new developments beg the question: Was it worth it? And, with countries pledging to arm Iran with nuclear weapons anyway, did it even change anything? We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum US Iran war" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Janessa Hilliard is the director of audience for USA TODAY Opinion and Opinion at Gannett.