Stephen Miller Just Went on Fox News to Discuss Trump’s National Emergency. It Went Poorly.

Long on excuses, short of examples.

Ron Sachs/ZUMA

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

White House senior adviser Stephen Miller went on Fox News Sunday and tried to defend Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall. He did not do a very good job.

In a contentious back and forth with anchor Chris Wallace, Miller tried to make the case that what Trump had done wasn’t all that unusual in the grand scheme of things. But when Wallace offered up a list of facts in the form of 59 other instances of president’s declaring national emergencies for actual emergencies, including 9/11, Miller couldn’t come up with one concrete example to match Trump’s:

“You and I both know that presidents for years have engaged in one military adventure after another, not to mention the fact that we do operations to destroy drug fields in foreign lands in Afghanistan or Colombia, and we can’t even deal with the criminal cartels operating on our border?” Miller argued.

Which, of course, is inadvertently suggesting that what Trump is doing is tantamount to policy-level thrill-seeking. All in all, Miller’s appearance was perhaps his worst since…whatever this was.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend