Stephen Miller calls out CNN anchor's 'lazy assumptions' about Trump's executive power
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called out CNN's Pamela Brown's "lazy assumptions" regarding the Trump administration's executive power during an appearance on "The Situation Room" on Friday.
Miller rejected the notion that district judges should have to "green light" each individual policy directive or executive order that President Donald Trump implements, claiming that it challenges the will of the voters who put him in office.
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a lower court order that blocked the Trump administration from deporting roughly 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision is a near-term victory for Trump as he moves to crack down on border security and immigration priorities in his second term.
The order stays, for now. The lower court ruling halted Trump's plans to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for some migrants living in the U.S., which allows individuals to live and work in the U.S. legally if they cannot work safely in their home country due to a disaster, armed conflict or other "extraordinary and temporary conditions."
Brown asked Miller whether he believes district judges should just "rubber stamp" whatever the Trump White House does, and if not, what checks and balances he thinks should be in place.
"It's not the job of a district court judge to perform an individual green light or red light on every single policy that the president takes as the head of the executive branch," Miller replied. "Just think about the premise baked into your question. Respectfully, Pam, you're saying that when the American people elect a president of the United States of America…"
Brown interrupted before he could finish his thought, claiming that her words were being taken out of context, and that she was just asking what checks and balances should be in place.
"I will answer the question happily," Miller responded. "But look, when you have these kinds of lazy assumptions built into questions, it makes it hard to have a constructive dialogue."
The CNN anchor asked what "lazy assumptions" he thought she was making.
Miller began to argue that district judges should not individually approve each executive action implemented by the president, but was interrupted by Brown stating that her question was being misinterpreted. She went on to clarify that she was questioning what checks and balances the Trump official felt were appropriate.
Brown contended that her question about whether judges are expected to "rubber stamp" White House decisions was reasonable, before giving Miller the floor to finish his argument.
"When you say, 'Do we think district court judges should rubber stamp each action' — there is a premise that is built into that that is absurd," he asserted. "The president is the sole head of the executive branch. He's the only officer in the entire government that's elected by the entire American people."
"Democracy cannot function — in fact, democracy does not exist at all if each action the president takes - foreign policy, diplomatic, military, national security - has to be individually approved by 700 district court judges," he continued. "That's democracy? So if there's 15 communist, crazy judges on the court, that each of them as a team working together can block and freeze each and every executive action?"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
The US has long been a research powerhouse. After Trump's cuts, other countries are stepping in
Growing up in Brazil, neuroscientist Danielle Beckman always dreamed of moving to the US for work. So, in 2017, when Beckman got the opportunity to work at the California National Primate Research Center at UC Davis, she jumped on it. 'I was so excited,' she recalled. 'Coming to the US was always the dream. It was always the place to be, where there's the biggest investment in science.' But months into President Donald Trump's second term, as his administration wages an unprecedented war on the country's top universities and research institutions, Beckman no longer sees the US as a welcome home for her or her research, which focuses on how viral infections like Covid-19 affect the brain. She told CNN she now plans to move and is looking at opportunities in Germany and France. Beckman is part of a growing wave of academics, scientists and researchers leaving the US in what many are warning could be the biggest brain drain the country has seen in decades. But America's loss could be the rest of the world's gain. As the Trump administration freezes and slashes billions of dollars in research funding, meddles with curricula, and threatens international students' ability to study in the US, governments, universities and research institutions in Canada, Europe and Asia are racing to attract fleeing talent. The European Union pledged €500 million ($562 million) over the next three years 'to make Europe a magnet for researchers.' A university in Marseille, France, is wooing persecuted academics under a new program called a 'Safe Place for Science.' Canada's largest health research organization is investing 30 million Canadian dollars ($21.8 million) to attract 100 scientists early in their careers from the US and elsewhere. The Research Council of Norway launched a 100 million kroner ($9.8 million) fund to lure new researchers. The president of Singapore's Nanyang Technological University recently told a crowd at a higher education summit the school is identifying 'superstar' US researchers and making them offers as soon as the next day. The Australian Academy of Science also launched a new talent program to recruit disillusioned US-based scientists and lure Australians back home. 'We know these individuals are highly trained, talented, and have much to offer,' said Anna-Maria Arabia, chief executive of the academy, noting the program has received 'encouraging interest' so far. Arabia told CNN the flood of institutions rushing to fill the void left by US funding cuts reflects a 'global hunger' for science and technology professionals. 'It's vitally important that science can continue without ideological interference,' Arabia said. The US has long been a powerhouse when it comes to research and development, attracting talent from far afield with its big budgets, high salaries and swanky labs. Since the 1960s, US government expenditure in research and development (R&D) has more than doubled from $58 billion in 1961 to almost $160 billion in 2024 (in inflation-adjusted dollars), according to federal data. When incorporating R&D funding from the private sector, that number balloons to more than an estimated $900 billion in 2023. The US's enormous investment in R&D has led to an outsized influence on the world stage. The US has racked up more than 400 Nobel Prizes, more than double the amount of the next country, the United Kingdom. More than a third of the US's prizes were won by immigrants. 'We have been respected worldwide for decades because we have trained succeeding generations of researchers who are pushing into new territories,' said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University. But Trump's second term has upended the relationship between higher education and the federal government. Trump's gutting of federal health and science agencies has led to sweeping job losses and funding cuts, including at the National Institutes of Health, which funds nearly $50 billion in medical research each year at universities, hospitals and scientific institutions. Between the end of February and the beginning of April, the administration cancelled almost 700 NIH grants totaling $1.8 billion, according to an analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Trump administration has proposed reducing the NIH's budget in 2026 by 40%. The National Science Foundation has also slashed nearly $1.4 billion worth of grants. On Wednesday, 16 US states sued the Trump administration over the NSF cuts, which they argue will impede 'groundbreaking scientific research' and '(jeopardize) national security, the economy and public health.' Trump has also targeted elite universities and is in the middle of a legal battle with Harvard University over its refusal to bow to his administration's directives to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, resulting in billions in frozen federal funding. That battle significantly escalated this month when Trump banned Harvard's ability to enroll international students – a decision swiftly halted by a federal judge hours after Harvard filed suit. This week, the White House directed federal agencies to cancel all remaining contracts with Harvard. 'The president is more interested in giving that taxpayer money to trade schools and programs and state schools where they are promoting American values, but most importantly, educating the next generation based on skills that we need in our economy and our society: apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News this week. 'We need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University.' Foreign institutions have already jumped on the chance to welcome Harvard students now caught in legal limbo. On Monday, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology said it will accept any Harvard students that wish to transfer, as well as prospective students with a current offer from Harvard. 'I see this as the most significant crisis that universities are facing since World War Two,' Wong said. 'We are seeing a complete reset of this collaborative relationship between the federal government and leading research institutions.' Once the beacon of scientific research, the US has now become an increasingly hostile place to study, teach, and do research. Three quarters of US scientists surveyed by the journal Nature in March said they were considering leaving because of the Trump administration's policies. Some have already jumped ship. Yale professors Jason Stanley, Marci Shore and Timothy Snyder, preeminent fascism scholars, announced in March they were leaving for the University of Toronto across the border in Canada because of Trump's affronts to academic freedom. Beckman, the Brazilian neuroscientist, said her lab has seen $2.5 million in grant funding cancelled in recent months. On top of these funding woes, Beckman said the Trump administration's crackdown on immigrants, and shifting attitudes towards foreigners in the US, has also pushed her to look for work elsewhere. 'It's the first time since I moved here that I don't feel so welcome anymore,' she said. As the US research ecosystem responds to shrinking budgets and intrusions on academic freedom, early-career scientists are going to be hardest hit, Wong said. But younger researchers are also more mobile, and institutions around the world are welcoming them with open arms. 'What we are losing is this whole cadre of highly productive, young, energetic, well-trained, knowledgeable, advanced researchers who are primed to take off,' Wong said. Other countries have long deprioritized investment in scientific research as the US absorbed the R&D needs of the world, Wong said. But that trend is shifting. R&D spending in China has surged in recent decades, and the country is close to narrowing the gap with the US. China spent more than $780 billion on R&D in 2023, according to OECD data. The European Union is also spending more on R&D. R&D investment in the bloc has increased from about $336 billion in 2007 to $504 billion in 2023, according to the OECD. For a couple of months, Beckman said she considered stepping away from her Covid-19 research, which has become increasingly politicized under the Trump administration. But then she started getting interviews at institutions in other countries. 'There is interest in virology everywhere in the world except the US right now.'
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tobin Heath Breaks Down The World Sevens Football Experience
Tobin Heath Breaks Down The World Sevens Football Experience | Full Time Podcast It has been billed as women's football 'reimagined,' but with the inaugural edition behind us, what really is World Sevens Football (W7F) offering to the sport's global ecosystem? This week on Full Time, hosts Tamerra Griffin and Meg Linehan are joined by USWNT legend Tobin Heath to discuss her role in developing the innovative seven-a-side tournament as chair of the player advisory council. Why was W7F such a breath of fresh air for players, and how can it disrupt the status quo? Then The Athletic's Charlotte Harpur, joins the podcast to give her perspective from covering the W7F on the media side and the concerns regarding its hand-picked competing teams. Plus, Charlotte gives her inside view on Tuesday's sudden news that Mary Earps has retired from international soccer. 42:03 Now Playing Paused Ad Playing
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rabiot, Maignan & Cherki arrive at Clairefontaine before facing Spain
Tobin Heath Breaks Down The World Sevens Football Experience | Full Time Podcast It has been billed as women's football 'reimagined,' but with the inaugural edition behind us, what really is World Sevens Football (W7F) offering to the sport's global ecosystem? This week on Full Time, hosts Tamerra Griffin and Meg Linehan are joined by USWNT legend Tobin Heath to discuss her role in developing the innovative seven-a-side tournament as chair of the player advisory council. Why was W7F such a breath of fresh air for players, and how can it disrupt the status quo? Then The Athletic's Charlotte Harpur, joins the podcast to give her perspective from covering the W7F on the media side and the concerns regarding its hand-picked competing teams. Plus, Charlotte gives her inside view on Tuesday's sudden news that Mary Earps has retired from international soccer. 42:03 Now Playing Paused Ad Playing
