Trump Picks Stephen Miller as Chief of Staff
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
Following significant Republican losses in the recent midterm elections, President Donald Trump chose Stephen Miller to serve as his chief of staff. Around the same time, Trump gave an interview to Ross Douthat on "60 Minutes" in which he said he was willing to work with Democrats on immigration. In that interview, he suggested that some undocumented immigrants who entered illegally many years ago, have jobs such as "landscaping or a hotel," and have not committed serious crimes might be allowed to remain in the United States as part of a broader deal. During his 2024 campaign, Trump had pledged what he described as the largest deportation program in U.S. history, telling Time Magazine he would deport 15 to 20 million people and citing President Eisenhower's 1954 "Operation Wetback" as a model. After the "60 Minutes" exchange drew attention, Trump told reporters at a press conference that there would be "no amnesty," while Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said he was open to a bipartisan immigration agreement that could include permanent legal status for DACA recipients but would not cross what he called a red line on amnesty; Representative Maria Salazar praised Trump's comments as aligning with her Dignity Act proposal.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
The biggest gap is that each side tells a different story about whether Trump is hardening or softening his immigration stance after the midterms. Left-leaning coverage focuses on his choice of Stephen Miller as chief of staff and describes him as "doubling down" after a Democratic wave, but never mentions his new talk of compromise on immigration enforcement. Right-leaning coverage centers almost entirely on that 60 Minutes interview and his suggestion that some long‑time undocumented workers might be allowed to stay, while ignoring the Miller promotion that would support the opposite narrative. A reader of only one side either sees a president defiantly escalating or one quietly edging toward leniency, with no sense that both moves happened at once.
Another pattern is language choice, with left-leaning writing invoking a "blue tsunami" while right-leaning commentary repeats the word "amnesty." The left talks about Trump deciding it is time to double down, while the right warns of a slap in the face to voters who trusted his promises.
Neither side squarely asks how much of the midterm damage to Republicans can be credibly tied to Trump’s Iran War versus his immigration record, and what evidence separates those effects.
Bottom line
By highlighting Stephen Miller’s elevation and calling the midterms a "blue tsunami," The Hill presents Trump as doubling down, while The Federalist, which never mentions Miller, fixates on his 60 Minutes talk of possible "amnesty"—so each side’s readers come away with opposite impressions of whether Trump is toughening or softening on immigration after the same election setback.
The receipts — 1 fact one side's coverage lacks
- NBC exit polling cited by conservatives showed voters preferred Republicans over Democrats on immigration by 44 percent to 41 percent.
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage frames the midterm elections as a "blue tsunami" that badly damaged Republicans and should have prompted Trump to rethink his political strategy. It argues that by elevating Stephen Miller to chief of staff, Trump is signaling that he has drawn the opposite conclusion and intends to "double down" rather than moderate. The Miller appointment is treated as emblematic of a refusal to adjust course after voters delivered what the left sees as a clear rebuke.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage in The Federalist argues that Trump has "learned the wrong lesson" from the midterm wipeout, but specifically on immigration rather than staffing. It contends that immigration was one of the few issues that helped Republicans, citing NBC exit polling in which more voters preferred the GOP to Democrats on that topic, and therefore says Trump should not retreat from a tough stance. The article criticizes Trump for telling "60 Minutes" that his immigration policy may have been "too tough" and for floating the idea that long-time undocumented workers who have not committed serious crimes could potentially stay. It stresses that during the 2024 campaign Trump promised mass deportations in the range of 15 to 20 million people and invoked Eisenhower's 1954 operation as a precedent, and it claims his current deportation record is closer to Obama-era levels. Any deal that grants legal status to undocumented immigrants, including what the article describes as permanent status for DACA recipients, is repeatedly labeled "amnesty" and a "slap in the face" to voters who backed Trump expecting sweeping removals. The piece warns that if Trump pursues such a compromise, after already losing trust over the Iran War, Republicans risk long-term political damage.
Our Take (balanced)
From the left, the strongest argument is that a party that has just suffered a self-described "blue tsunami" would normally broaden its appeal, and choosing Stephen Miller as chief of staff instead signals continuity with the approach voters just punished. The appointment is easy to portray as proof that Trump is not interested in recalibrating after defeat, but is relying on the same inner circle and themes.
From the right, the most forceful case is that immigration may be an exception to the broader midterm pattern: if NBC exit polling is accurate that voters slightly favored Republicans on this issue, then softening toward an arrangement that lets many undocumented immigrants stay looks both like a broken 2024 promise of mass deportations and a political miscalculation. The emphasis on Trump’s own statements about deporting 15 to 20 million people and his subsequent reassurance that there will be "no amnesty" underlines a perceived gap between his rhetoric to supporters and the compromises he is now entertaining.
The central unresolved tension is whether Trump’s post-midterm problem is that he is too unyielding, as the Miller chief-of-staff choice suggests to critics, or that he is wavering on a core hard-line pledge, as his immigration comments suggest to supporters—and, underneath that, what voters actually mandated on immigration versus other issues when they delivered the midterm losses.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.