The Tyrant in the White House

If enforcing the Constitution is “insurrection,” then refusing to defend it is surrender.

Stephen Miller just called a federal judge’s enforcement of constitutional law “legal insurrection.”

Let that sink in. A Deputy White House Chief of Staff—one of the most powerful people in the executive branch—declared that judicial review of presidential power is rebellion against the United States government.

A Trump-appointed judge carefully reviewed the facts, applied the relevant statutes, cited Supreme Court precedent, and concluded that the President exceeded his constitutional authority by federalizing the Oregon National Guard. She found that Trump’s claims of “war ravaged Portland” were “simply untethered to the facts”—that on the eve of his military deployment, outside the ICE facility, around 8-15 people sat in lawn chairs with “low energy, minimal activity.” Some had flashlights. That was the “relentless terrorist assault” Miller claims justified military deployment.

She wrote: “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”

And Stephen Miller—the architect of family separation, the engineer of using federal power as a weapon against political enemies, the true believer in unlimited executive authority—responded by calling her ruling insurrection.

This is fascism. Not as historical analogy. Not as rhetorical flourish. As present reality.

Miller is declaring that the President’s will supersedes constitutional constraints. That judicial enforcement of statutory limits is rebellion. That checks and balances are acts of war against the Republic itself.

Some constitutional conservatives recognized this threat early. They became Never Trumpers, broke with their party, endured professional exile and personal attacks because they understood that constitutional principle mattered more than partisan loyalty.

But where are the rest? Where are the Federalist Society lawyers still serving this administration? Where are the Republican senators who spent decades lecturing about separation of powers? Where are those who watched their colleagues sacrifice everything for constitutional principle—and chose power instead?

Their silence isn’t caution. It’s confession.

Because for them, it was always a lie. Every lecture about constitutional fidelity. Every sermon about the Framers’ wisdom. Every hand-wringing about executive overreach. All of it was performative bullshit covering for what they actually wanted: power for us, domination of you.

They don’t revere the Constitution. They revere power. And now that they have it, the Constitution has become an obstacle to be dismissed, not a framework to be honored.

When Obama used executive authority, they screamed tyranny. When Trump deploys military forces against civilian populations in defiance of statutory limits, they call judicial review “insurrection.”

When Democrats controlled the executive branch, separation of powers was sacred. When Republicans control it, separation of powers is obstruction that must be overcome.

The hypocrisy isn’t just stunning—it’s diagnostic. It reveals that for those who stayed, “constitutional conservatism” was never a philosophy. It was a weapon. A rhetorical tool to constrain the other side while building the legal and institutional infrastructure for their own unconstrained power.

And Stephen Miller is the logical endpoint of that project.

He’s not an aberration. He’s the fruition. Forty years of “unitary executive theory.” Forty years of capturing courts. Forty years of building legal arguments for why presidential power should be unreviewable. All of it was preparation for this moment—when someone would finally say the quiet part loud: the President is above the law, and anyone who says otherwise is committing insurrection.

Miller claims ICE officers face “relentless terrorist assault.” The judge found sporadic protests involving flashlights. Miller claims “organized terrorist attack on the federal government.” The judge found people sitting in lawn chairs. Miller claims military deployment is necessary to “defend the Republic itself.” The judge found no basis for federalizing troops under any statutory provision.

Miller is lying. Systematically. Deliberately. In service of a vision where executive power faces no constitutional constraint, where dissent is terrorism, where peaceful protest is rebellion, where judicial review is insurrection.

And the “constitutional conservatives” who spent decades building the intellectual scaffolding for this moment but stayed when others left? They’re fine with it. Because it was never about the Constitution. It was always about power.

The judge in Portland did her job. She enforced the law. She applied constitutional limits to executive action. She held the center.

And for that, Stephen Miller—a fascist with enormous power in the White House—called her ruling insurrection and promised to appeal until he finds judges who will let the President do whatever he wants.

This is the test. Will we accommodate the explicit claim that presidential power is unlimited and judicial review is rebellion, or will we name what Stephen Miller is—a fascist who rejects constitutional democracy—and demand he be stopped through every legal, institutional, and democratic means available? This isn’t about Stephen Miller anymore; it’s about whether Americans will accept fascism as governance simply because it wears the flag. The Constitution isn’t self-enforcing; it requires people willing to defend it even when the President and his enablers call that defense insurrection. Some made that choice years ago and paid the price—the rest revealed what they always valued more than principle. Stephen Miller is a fascist. He has enormous power. And he needs to be stopped. Not tomorrow. Today. Before “legal insurrection” becomes the justification for ignoring every judicial ruling that constrains executive power. Call your representatives. Make them take a position on whether judicial review is insurrection or constitutional governance. Demand your senators and congressmembers publicly state whether they support Stephen Miller’s claim that a federal judge enforcing statutory limits committed rebellion. The ground approaches. Hold the center—or watch constitutional democracy collapse into whatever Miller is building in its place. If enforcing the Constitution is “insurrection,” then refusing to defend it is surrender.