SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
drone strikes
Stephen Miller, Who Once Reportedly Called to Drone-Strike Migrants, Is Leading Trump's Attacks on Venezuelan Boats
"For all intents and purposes, the most powerful person in the federal government is Stephen Miller," said one legal scholar.
Sep 29, 2025
The deputy chief of staff to President Donald Trump, Stephen Miller—who once reportedly advocated for the US to launch drone strikes against unarmed migrants—has played a leading role in the US’s campaign of extrajudicial airstrikes on Venezuelan boats in recent weeks.
As The Guardian reported Monday, Miller has been heavily involved in directing the strikes, at times superseding the role of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. These strikes have been orchestrated by the Homeland Security Council (HSC), which Miller leads as the president's homeland security adviser.
In a notable departure from previous administrations, Miller has turned HSC into an autonomous entity within the second Trump administration. During previous administrations, the HSC operated under the national security council umbrella and reported to the US national security adviser, who is also currently Rubio.
In recent weeks, Trump has carried out attacks on three boats in the Caribbean that the administration has alleged were carrying drugs. Legal experts from across the spectrum have contended that even if this were the case, such strikes—which have killed at least 17 people in total—are patently illegal.
The administration has provided no evidence to indicate that the people on these boats were smuggling drugs to the US. Meanwhile, one former senior law enforcement official with years of experience fighting cartels told the New York Times that the first boat struck in September—which killed 11 people—was more likely carrying migrants, since it is unusual for a drug smuggling operation to require so many people on board.
On Friday, it was reported that the US military was considering launching more strikes inside Venezuelan territory against alleged members and leaders of drug trafficking groups, as well as drug laboratories. Many commentators have said that such strikes would be an act of war and a potential prelude to a regime change operation.
That Miller is a driving force behind the boat attacks squares with previous reporting that, in 2018, while serving as one of Trump's top immigration advisers, Miller had allegedly advocated for the president to launch predator drones to blow up boats carrying unarmed migrants.
Those comments appeared in a book written by former Trump Department of Homeland Security official Miles Taylor, who said that Miller argued for the mass killing of civilians by suggesting that they were not protected under the US Constitution because they were in international waters. After it was initially reported by Rolling Stone in 2023, Miller denied having made the comment.
As The Guardian notes, "Miller’s role also opens a window into the dubious legal justification that has been advanced for the strikes." This rationale is centered around the Trump administration's designation of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a "terrorist" organization, which Miller has also used to justify the unlawful deportation of Venezuelans under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
Miller has portrayed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as the leader of the organization, suggesting—again with little evidence—that “it is not a government, it is a drug cartel, a narco-trafficking organization that is running Venezuela.”
As Common Dreams reported in May, a declassified memo showed that US intelligence agencies have rejected the Trump administration's claim that Tren de Aragua works with Maduro.
Miller's central role in the strikes carried out this past month is another sign of an outsized and growing role in the second Trump White House.
He has been a primary architect of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade, which has also involved carrying out extrajudicial deportations of Venezuelan nationals accused of membership in Tren de Aragua, often with little to no evidence.
In June, following a directive from Miller to reach a "quota" of 3,000 immigration arrests per day, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has overwhelmingly targeted undocumented immigrants without criminal convictions.
Miller is also leading the White House's efforts to label left-wing organizations in the US as "terrorist organizations" in the aftermath of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as part of efforts to "dismantle" the president's opposition.
Following the news of Miller's intimate involvement in the Venezuelan boat strikes, American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick commented that, "For all intents and purposes, the most powerful person in the federal government is Stephen Miller, not Trump."
"He is dictating military strikes, overriding cabinet secretaries, running mass deportation, and more," he said, "all while Trump golfs and occasionally signs executive orders he hasn’t read.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘No War Crimes Are Off Limits' as Trump Reportedly Mulling Bombing Targets in Venezuela
NBC reported Friday that the US military is considering options including drone strikes against drug cartel members within the South American country, prompting fears of escalation.
Sep 27, 2025
The Trump administration may strike alleged drug targets inside Venezuela's borders within weeks, sources familiar with the situation told NBC News on Friday.
Two US officials and two other sources with knowledge of the conversations that had taken place said that the US military was considering plans that could include drone strikes against members and leaders of drug trafficking groups as well as drug laboratories. If approved, the strikes would be a further escalation following three Trump administration attacks on alleged drug-carrying boats in the Caribbean that have killed at least 17 people, even though the administration has provided no evidence that those killed were actually smuggling drugs.
"More mass murder on the cards?" the news outlet Venezeulanaysis wrote in response. “NBC reports that the Trump administration is weighing strikes against 'drug targets' (emphasis on the air quotes) inside Venezuelan territory. Lots of speculation and anonymous sources, but it shows that no war crimes are off limits."
US President Donald Trump has already come under heavy criticism for authorizing boat strikes that many decry as illegal. Democratic lawmakers have moved to bar the president from authorizing further attacks, and Colombian President Gustavo Petro called for the United Nations to take criminal proceedings against the US president in a speech on Tuesday.
"This is the most egregious instance of disinformation against our nation, intended to justify an escalation to armed conflict that would inflict catastrophic damage across the entire continent."
Now, observers are responding with alarm to the news that the administration might go even further.
El Pais correspondent Juan Diego Quesada wrote on social media that strikes within Venezuelan territory "would escalate the conflict to a level whose consequences I dare not measure."
"How would this not be considered an act of war?" asked poster Cindy Gossett. "Trump can't just claim Venezuelan citizens are drug lords therefore he's going to fly a drone over and destroy them. If Venezuela did the same in our country it wouldn't be accepted."
Speaking at the UN General Assembly on Friday, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil Pinto said that the US had an “illegal and completely immoral military threat hanging over our heads."
Pinto also cast doubt on the notion that the Trump administration's true aim was to combat the drug trade.
He accused the US of trying to permit “external powers to rob Venezuela’s immeasurable oil and gas wealth" and said that the administration was using “vulgar and perverse lies” to “justify an atrocious, extravagant, and immoral multibillion-dollar military threat."
Trump has yet to authorize any particular plan, according to NBC. The Pentagon declined to comment on their report, and the White House referred the outlet to a previous statement from Trump: "We’ll see what happens. Venezuela is sending us their gang members, their drug dealers, and drugs. It’s not acceptable.”
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has denied that his administration has not done enough to prevent drug trafficking through the South American country, as Trump has accused.
Maduro sent a letter to the White House on September 6 calling for peace and dialogue and defending his record, noting that, according to a UN report, only 5% of the drugs that leave Colombia do so via Venezuela.
He wrote of the trafficking claims, "This is the most egregious instance of disinformation against our nation, intended to justify an escalation to armed conflict that would inflict catastrophic damage across the entire continent."
Toward the end of the letter, he appealed to Trump to work with him to reduce tensions.
"President, I hope that together we can defeat the falsehoods that have sullied our relationship, which must be historic and peaceful," Maduro wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Rule by Fiat Is a Grotesque Continuation, Not an Aberration
The playbook he uses was written by both parties over decades of eroding democratic norms, consolidating executive power, and circumventing meaningful checks on authority.
Mar 25, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest defiance of the courts—this time refusing to follow an appellate judge’s order to halt migrant deportations—has triggered another round of liberal outrage. Critics are calling it an authoritarian move, a blatant assault on the rule of law, and a warning sign that American democracy is on its last legs.
But if this is the end of democracy, it’s been ending for a long time. And not just at Trump’s hands.
The central truth we keep missing—especially on the left—is that Trump is not an aberration. He’s a grotesque continuation. The playbook he uses was written by both parties over decades of eroding democratic norms, consolidating executive power, and circumventing meaningful checks on authority. Trump didn’t invent the impulse to rule by fiat; he just brings it out into the open.
If we want to stop the next Trump, or the next expansion of executive lawlessness, we can’t keep pretending he came out of nowhere.
Consider the legal justification Trump has floated for ignoring the courts: The United States is “at war.” Therefore, he claims, wartime powers apply—even domestically, even over immigration courts. To many, this sounds like a dystopian twist. But it’s eerily familiar. Because the same logic has been used, repeatedly, by both Republican and Democratic administrations since 9/11.
After the attacks on the Twin Towers, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which gave the executive branch sweeping powers to pursue terrorism around the world. That one document has served as the legal scaffolding for 20-plus years of undeclared wars and covert operations in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
No further congressional approval was needed. The public never had a say. The war powers clause of the Constitution became symbolic—if not obsolete.
Former President Barack Obama inherited that framework and expanded it. His administration developed the now-infamous drone kill list, justified targeted assassinations (including of U.S. citizens), and defended the government’s right to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects without trial. Obama didn’t officially suspend habeas corpus, but in practice, he upheld a system that made the writ meaningless for hundreds of detainees held at Bagram and Guantánamo. The position of his Department of Justice was clear: The executive has the authority to detain and kill, beyond judicial oversight, because we are at war.
This is the true bipartisan legacy that paved the way for Trump. The removal of checks and balances didn’t happen overnight. It was built incrementally, piece by piece, under the banner of national security—with the cooperation and silence of the same liberal establishment that now acts scandalized by Trump’s every defiance.
It’s worth asking: Why wasn’t there more pearl clutching when the executive branch was unilaterally deciding who lived or died abroad, without congressional debate or judicial process? Why didn’t more alarm bells ring when Democrats joined Republicans in handing over war-making powers and then refused to take them back? Why was it acceptable to rule by emergency decree when the emergency was foreign—but suddenly unacceptable when the same logic is turned inward?
Trump is now openly talking about “eradicating” the Houthis in Yemen—an aggressive military escalation that directly contradicts the MAGA-era promise of no new foreign wars. So much for populist anti-interventionism. In lockstep with Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel, Trump appears eager to resume the forever war posture. And once again, no one’s talking about congressional approval.
This is the cycle we’re caught in. Trump exposes the tools others helped create. He strips them of their moral veneer, revealing the ugly core. And rather than confront the system itself, liberals point at Trump as a singular villain—as if everything was working just fine before he came along.
The truth is harder to face: If we want to stop the next Trump, or the next expansion of executive lawlessness, we can’t keep pretending he came out of nowhere. We need to reckon with the fact that our democracy has been undermined from within—by both parties, for years. We need to challenge not just the man, but the machine.
And that’s something the Democratic Party, in its current corporate and security-state-aligned form, seems unwilling—or unable—to do. It would require renouncing its own legacy, from the Clinton-era crime bill to Obama-era surveillance and drone wars. It would require fundamentally rethinking how power is distributed in this country, and how easily it can be abused.
Until that happens, we shouldn’t be surprised when the next Trump defies the next court order. We shouldn’t act shocked when the language of war is used to suspend due process. We shouldn’t cling to the fantasy that our institutions will save us, when those institutions have been hollowed out by decades of bipartisan compromise.
Trump didn’t break democracy. He just took the mask off.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular