White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller understands the Constitution and American history far better than his liberal antagonists.
In a remarkable clip that went viral Monday on the social media platform X, Miller skillfully dismantled CNN host Kasie Hunt’s lie about the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, the legislation that President Donald Trump invoked over the weekend when he signed an executive order designed to expedite the deportation of members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
Along the way, Miller received an unexpected assist from the show’s producer.
The Miller-Hunt exchange occurred Monday on CNN’s “The Arena with Kasie Hunt.”
“It does say in the very beginning [that] there has to be a declared war against a nation or a state,” Hunt said, thereby offering perhaps the most ridiculous analysis of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act ever advanced.
Why ridiculous? President John Adams signed the Alien Enemies Act during an undeclared naval war against revolutionary France.
Miller made quick work of Hunt’s nonsense, though not before the host tried to cover her tracks.
“No. Wrong,” Miller replied. “Look up the statute. It’s on my account on social media.”
“That’s actually where we found it earlier,” she replied.
Who do you think won the exchange?
“It says, ‘or a predatory incursion,’” Miller explained.
At that point, the show’s producer instantly supplied a graphic that proved Miller’s point.
“Any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,” the graphic read.
That excerpt, slightly paraphrased, did indeed come from Section 1 of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
Stephen Miller on CNN talking about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
Absolute must-see TV.pic.twitter.com/aDd2jPvkfq
— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) March 17, 2025
As of Tuesday morning, the nearly ten-minute clip had more than 2.9 million views on X. Miller’s performance very much justifies the time spent watching the clip.
In the big picture, of course, the Miller-Hunt exchange represented the years-long conflict between American populists and their establishment enemies.
The establishment wants open borders, in part to import both cheap labor and Democrat voters. At its core, however, the establishment simply despises ordinary American citizens who love their country. So establishment elites threw open the borders in an effort to destroy both.
Hunt, therefore, did the only thing that most CNN hosts do well. She told an obvious lie in the service of an establishment narrative.
Nonetheless, the Miller-Hunt exchange also symbolized a parallel and perhaps even more ominous conflict.
With the preternatural hubris common in loathsome liberal jurists, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg tried to usurp the powers of the president under the Constitution’s Article II by ordering — or at least purporting to order; he possesses no such authority — two deportation flights filled with Tren de Aragua gangsters to return to the United States.
As I explained here, the Trump administration responded swiftly to ensure successful deportation, but it needs to go further.
In short, at some point, Trump and his administration officials must assert the full power of the executive branch while making the only possible constitutional argument, namely that unelected judges, on the Supreme Court or otherwise, absolutely and unequivocally have no exclusive power under the Constitution to interpret the extent of the powers exercised by the other two branches.
Courts may render opinions on the matter, but they possess neither the power of the purse nor the power of the sword.
The Founders intended it that way.
In fact, during one of the earliest constitutional crises, which involved the wildly unpopular Jay Treaty, President George Washington simply ignored the House of Representatives’ demand for information related to treaty negotiations. Congress had the power to regulate commerce, whereas the president and Senate made treaties. So who made treaties of commerce? The parties argued, but no one thought to ask the Supreme Court.
Moreover, when Chief Justice John Marshall invented the concept of judicial review in the much-ballyhooed and wildly overrated 1803 “Marbury v. Madison” decision, President Thomas Jefferson simply ignored the Chief Justice and then spent part of his retirement years refuting Marshall’s absurd interpretation of the Constitution as an agent of judicial supremacy.
Adams. Washington. Jefferson. The Trump administration certainly has some formidable names on its side.
Thus, the time has come to use those venerated names and assert the Constitution’s true meaning. Miller’s swift refutation of Hunt’s ridiculous assertion, aided by a CNN graphic, represented a good start.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
