In a riveting segment on Fox News tonight, political commentator Stephen Miller delivered a masterclass on the Oval Office showdown between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. Known for his no-holds-barred commentary, Miller zeroed in on what he described as the “insulting” way Zelenskyy handled himself during the meeting.

Miller praised his own ability to cut through the noise and get to the heart of the matter. “Millions of American hearts swelled with overflowing pride today to watch President Trump put Zelenskyy in his place,” he declared, capturing the attention of viewers across the nation.

According to Miller, the incident served as a stark reminder of the dynamics at play in high-stakes international politics. His incisive analysis highlighted that while Zelenskyy might have once been seen as a potential leader during the early days of conflict, his performance in the Oval Office suggests a different narrative as global pressures mount.

For those who missed the broadcast, you can watch the full segment below and witness Miller’s pointed critique and masterful breakdown of today’s events.

 Brianna Keilar Presses White House Adviser on Elon Musk's Role in DOGE

CNN’s Brianna Keilar challenged White House adviser Stephen Miller on the role of billionaire Elon Musk in the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Keilar pressed Miller on whether Musk, despite not being formally in charge, wields significant influence over the agency.

White House Clarifies Musk’s Position

The White House has stated that Musk is not technically part of the DOGE team but serves as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump. This distinction is critical as the administration faces a legal challenge regarding Musk’s level of authority within the government.

Musk’s role is a key point in an ongoing lawsuit over DOGE’s access to government data. The Trump administration argues that because Musk is an adviser and not the official administrator, he does not hold unchecked power. This classification could play a crucial role in defending against claims that Musk exercises unconstitutional authority.

Legal Battles and Government Pushback

Several Democratic-led states have filed lawsuits aiming to block Musk and DOGE from accessing government systems, alleging that Musk has excessive influence. The administration contends that Musk has no direct decision-making authority and is merely advising the president on efficiency reforms.

Joshua Fisher, director of the White House Office of Administration, emphasized in court documents that Musk is not a DOGE employee and does not control the agency’s operations. However, the administration has not publicly named the official leading DOGE, despite Musk championing its efforts on social media and at public appearances.

Continued Controversy and Musk’s Radical Proposals

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has remained vague about DOGE’s leadership structure but affirmed that Musk is executing the president’s vision for government reform. She also noted that layoffs within agencies are determined by their respective heads rather than Musk himself.

Meanwhile, Musk has fueled the controversy by advocating for the elimination of entire federal agencies as part of the administration’s spending reduction strategy. His outspoken stance has drawn both praise and criticism, intensifying the ongoing legal battles.

During a court hearing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan expressed skepticism about the administration’s claim that Musk lacks formal authority, highlighting the complexity of the case and the significant power he appears to wield.

The debate over Musk’s role in DOGE continues, raising broader questions about government efficiency, executive power, and the limits of advisory roles within the federal government.

 In a fiery exchange between White House advisor Stephen Miller and CNN host Brianna Keilar, the discussion turned into a passionate debate over government spending and waste. Miller, an ardent supporter of the Trump administration's budgetary reforms, expressed his excitement about efforts to cut wasteful spending and save American taxpayers billions of dollars.

Miller Defends Trump’s Fiscal Policies

Miller argued that for the first time in history, the White House was committed to restoring accountability at every level of the federal government. He emphasized the exhaustion of the American people, who he claimed had grown tired of watching their tax dollars being misused, wasted, and stolen.

"The American people are exhausted and tired of watching their tax dollars be corruptly spent, abused, wasted, and in every sense robbed and stolen from them," Miller stated. He challenged Keilar, questioning why she and others were not celebrating budget cuts and reforms aimed at eliminating waste, abuse, and corruption.

Keilar Pushes Back

CNN’s Brianna Keilar attempted to steer the conversation in a more measured direction, urging Miller to calm down. She acknowledged that there were areas in the government where spending could be reduced but resisted the idea that all government expenditures should be slashed indiscriminately.

Miller, however, remained steadfast, insisting that every day without action led to more tax dollars being lost forever. He accused the federal bureaucracy of being "relentlessly weaponized against the American people," reiterating his belief that President Trump's policies were overwhelmingly supported by the public.

A Clash of Perspectives

The discussion highlighted a fundamental divide in perspectives on government spending and fiscal responsibility. While Miller focused on eliminating what he saw as widespread corruption and inefficiency, Keilar sought to temper the conversation by considering the broader implications of budget cuts, including concerns about privacy and essential government services.

The debate underscored the broader national conversation about fiscal responsibility, government accountability, and the role of federal agencies in American life. Whether one agrees with Miller's assertive stance or Keilar's more measured approach, the exchange was a testament to the passionate discourse surrounding these issues in today's political landscape.

Stephen Miller defends President Trump's decision to declare a national emergency on the southern border, , saying the commander-in-chief is on solid constitutional ground because Congress gave presidents the authority to use executive power decades ago.

“They passed a law specifically saying the president could have this authority. It’s in the plain statute,” Miller told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” “That’s the decision that Congress made and if people don’t like that they can address it.”




Stephen Miller tried to yell over Chris Wallace hitting him with some pretty tough questions about the national emergency declaration, and it didn’t quite go over well.



The question comes down to whether Trump is using the national emergency powers of the executive properly or if he’s abusing them. Wallace challenges Miller to name one other national emergency that arose from Congress denying one of the president’s policies. Miller dodges the question and yells a lot, but doesn’t really answer it.

The other issue is whether the effects from illegal immigration are actually a national emergency or not. Miller argues that more people are dying from illegal drugs being imported than any other threat. Wallace argues back that most of those do not come through the border but through ports of entry. But I think the essential detail missing here is that cutting off the supply doesn’t lessen the demand. It’s not as if people will leave happy blessed lives if opioids aren’t available from down south. The free market has a way of supplying horrible drugs to anyone who wants it.

All in all, Miller makes some good points. I think Wallace out-argues him though, even if Miller yells much louder. Which is how we measure rhetorical victory of course.