Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and homeland security adviser, has emerged as the central figure behind the Trump administration’s controversial military strikes on Venezuelan boats, according to multiple sources and recent reporting from The Guardian. The strikes, which have resulted in at least 17 deaths in recent weeks, have drawn heated scrutiny—not only for their legality and justification, but also for the outsized role played by Miller, whose influence at times has even surpassed that of Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio.
Miller’s leadership of the Homeland Security Council (HSC) has transformed the body into a more autonomous entity within the Trump administration. Traditionally, the HSC operated under the umbrella of the National Security Council and reported to the national security adviser—a position now also held by Rubio. Under Miller, however, the HSC has become a direct tool for executing the administration’s most aggressive immigration and security policies.
The rationale for the strikes, as reported by The Guardian and echoed by Common Dreams, rests on the Trump administration’s assertion that the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a foreign terrorist organization. This designation, pushed by Miller, has been used not only to justify the military attacks but also to underpin the administration’s approach to deporting Venezuelan immigrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Miller has argued that TdA is “running Venezuela,” and has even portrayed President Nicolás Maduro as the gang’s leader, claiming, “it is not a government, it is a drug cartel, a narco-trafficking organization that is running Venezuela.”
Yet, as Common Dreams highlighted, U.S. intelligence agencies have rejected the claim that Tren de Aragua works in concert with Maduro. The administration has also failed to provide concrete evidence that those killed in the strikes were drug smugglers. In fact, a former senior law enforcement official with extensive experience fighting cartels told The New York Times that the first boat struck in September—which resulted in 11 deaths—was more likely carrying migrants, not drugs. The official noted it was unusual for a drug smuggling operation to involve so many people on board.
Despite these doubts, the Trump administration has pressed ahead, using Article II of the U.S. Constitution as the legal foundation for the attacks. Critics, however, contend that this justification is dubious at best. Many legal scholars and commentators have described the strikes as patently illegal, given the lack of evidence and the extrajudicial nature of the operations. Some have gone further, warning that the administration’s consideration of additional strikes inside Venezuelan territory against alleged drug trafficking groups and laboratories could constitute an act of war—a move that could be seen as a prelude to a larger regime change operation.
Miller’s aggressive stance on immigration and national security is not new. Reports from The Guardian and Common Dreams recall that, as early as 2018, Miller allegedly advocated for using Predator drones to strike boats carrying unarmed migrants. This claim, detailed in the book Blowback by former Department of Homeland Security official Miles Taylor, describes a conversation in which Miller asked the Coast Guard commandant why the administration couldn’t “use a Predator drone to obliterate” boats “full of migrants” in international waters. According to Taylor, when the commandant responded that such an action would violate international law, Miller pressed further, asking not about the moral implications but “whether anyone could stop America from doing it.” Miller reportedly told the commandant, “I don’t think you understand the limitations of international law.” Miller has since denied making these comments, but the allegations have fueled concerns about his approach to policy and the extent of his power.
The strikes on Venezuelan boats are only one part of a broader, hardline agenda. In June 2025, following a directive from Miller to reach a “quota” of 3,000 immigration arrests per day, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began targeting undocumented immigrants—many of whom had no criminal convictions. This effort, according to Common Dreams, overwhelmingly affected individuals with no ties to criminal activity, raising further questions about the administration’s priorities and the human cost of its policies.
Miller has also led efforts to label left-wing organizations in the U.S. as terrorist groups. This push intensified following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which the administration has cited as part of its broader campaign to “dismantle” opposition to the president. Critics argue that such moves threaten civil liberties and set a dangerous precedent for the use of government power against political adversaries.
The consolidation of power by Miller has not gone unnoticed. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, remarked, “For all intents and purposes, the most powerful person in the federal government is Stephen Miller, not Trump.” He added, “He is dictating military strikes, overriding cabinet secretaries, running mass deportation, and more, all while Trump golfs and occasionally signs executive orders he hasn’t read.”
The legal and ethical questions surrounding the strikes remain unresolved. The administration’s reliance on Article II powers and the terrorist designation of Tren de Aragua have been widely criticized as inadequate and unsupported by evidence. Observers warn that the precedent set by these actions could have far-reaching consequences for U.S. foreign policy and the rule of law.
Meanwhile, the human toll continues to mount. With at least 17 people killed in the strikes—and credible concerns that many of the victims were migrants rather than drug traffickers—the administration faces growing pressure from human rights advocates, legal experts, and members of Congress to halt the operations and provide transparency about the decision-making process.
As Miller’s influence grows within the Trump administration, so too does the debate over the direction of U.S. policy—both at home and abroad. The strikes on Venezuelan boats have become a flashpoint, symbolizing a broader struggle over the balance of power, the limits of executive authority, and the nation’s commitment to international law and human rights.
With the world watching, the coming months will test not only the resolve of the administration but also the resilience of the institutions meant to provide checks and balances. As the story continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the decisions made now will echo far beyond the waters off Venezuela.
