Stephen Miller Seems Unfazed by Wife Leaving With Musk
In the middle of a media storm this week, senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller appeared on Fox News late Saturday night for a softball interview with the president's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump.
At the end of a long week that included Elon Musk stepping down from his senior role in the Trump White House and Miller's wife Katie leaving her role as spokesperson for the Department of Government Efficiency to continue working for Musk full-time, Miller appeared unfazed, sitting down with Lara Trump to discuss the president's policies and future plans.
Miller spent much of the interview discussing the Trump administration's policies, including repeating the administration's line that non-citizens, specifically undocumented immigrants, are not covered by the constitutional right to habeas corpus despite previous Supreme Court rulings affirming that they are.
Miller also accused the Democratic Party of 'rigging' the system because in a fair system, he said, they are 'unable to compete.' He also waxed lyrical about Trump's legacy with the MAGA movement, telling Lara that the president has ensured his legacy by building a movement that has elevated an entire generation of leaders who will continue implementing his agenda even after he has left office.
The interview then turned to more personal matters, with Miller volunteering an incredibly neutral anecdote about how he met his wife: 'When I first met her [during the first Trump administration], she was the communications director at the Department of Homeland Security, so it's on-brand, the relationship, because we were on conference calls every day on border security.'
Miller also talked about his children—he and his wife have a daughter and two sons—who apparently love the president. He told Lara that his daughter first met the president when she was a newborn, and is always asking when she can see him again, adding, 'She's desperate for any chance to get face time with the president.' Miller's daughter is 4.
Miller also told Trump that the president is 'great with kids,' describing him as a 'kid magnet' and a 'child whisperer' who has worked to ensure the West Wing of the White House is child-friendly, with staffers allowed to bring their children not just to work whenever they want, but even to the Oval Office.
While it is unclear when the interview was recorded, the segment goes to great lengths to frame Miller as a family man after days of commentary about the Millers finding themselves on opposite sides of the Trump/Musk divide.
Democrats were quick to taunt Miller about the news of his wife's departure from the Trump administration, with the official Democrats X account jokingly implying Miller was a cuckold in one post.
Katie Miller worked as a deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security from 2017 to 2019 before moving to Vice President Mike Pence's office. Following Trump's second inauguration, she was appointed as an adviser and spokesperson for DOGE under the auspices of Musk, and also served as a member of the president's Intelligence Advisory Board.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
9 minutes ago
- Axios
Musk goes nuclear: "Without me, Trump would have lost the election"
Elon Musk declared all-out war on President Trump Thursday, writing on X: "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate." Why it matters: The public breakup between Trump and Musk — who spent nearly $300 million to support the president's campaign and served in his administration until this week — has escalated dramatically.
Epoch Times
13 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Says He's ‘Very Disappointed' With Musk Over Criticism of GOP Megabill
President Donald Trump said on June 5 he is 'very disappointed' with Elon Musk and is not sure if he will continue to have a great relationship with the Tesla head. 'He was upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles ... and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy,' Trump said in the Oval Office during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
Business Wire
15 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce That University of California Researchers Have Filed a Class Action Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration for the Illegal and Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce that a group of six University of California faculty and other researchers have filed a class action in federal court against the Trump Administration on behalf of all UC researchers whose previously approved agency grants were terminated pursuant to Executive Orders or other directives of President Trump, as implemented through the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'). University of California Researchers File Class Action Suit Against Trump Administration for Illegal & Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these grant terminations violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, as well as statutes that govern agencies' missions and grantmaking and the Administrative Procedure Act. As detailed in the Complaint, these abrupt cancellations of already awarded grants 'ignored or contradicted the purposes for which Congress created the granting agencies and appropriated funds, and dispensed with the regular procedures and due process afforded grantees under the Administrative Procedure Act, in implementing the Trump Administration's political 'cost-cutting' agenda and ideological purity campaign.' According to UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional law scholar and co-counsel on the case, 'President Trump and DOGE have arbitrarily cut off funding to researchers throughout the University of California system in clear violation of the Constitution and federal laws. There has not been a semblance of due process or compliance with the procedures required by federal statutes and regulations. This has caused great harm to a large number of faculty and other researchers and the UC research enterprise as a whole, with potentially grave consequences to everyone in society who benefits from the research in a myriad of disciplines." As described by Plaintiff Dr. Neeta Thakur, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at UCSF, 'The EPA has abruptly terminated a three-year grant that was supporting research on how wildfire smoke affects the lungs, heart, and brain of all Californians. My colleagues and I at UCSF and UC Berkeley have worked on this important project for two years, and its sudden end — communicated through a simple form letter — puts our progress in danger. This decision disrupts our ongoing work with community-based organizations and stops us from generating life-saving information designed to improve public health and protect the well-being of all Californians, especially those living in at-risk communities.' Plaintiff Jedda Foreman, the Director of the Center for Environmental Learning at the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, explains, 'My team and I at the Lawrence Hall of Science earned NSF grants to make science education more accessible to all learners. Instilling a love of science is critical to envisioning and creating a better future for us all. In one day, we lost two projects, and nearly 75% of our funding, because of terminations by NSF. A week later, NSF terminated yet another one of our projects. These terminations haven't just affected our team, but also our longtime community partners and thousands of students across the United States.' These are just two of hundreds of examples of the damage wrought by the Trump Administration's illegal and unconstitutional terminations. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, seeks a return to the pre-Trump Administration process of orderly grantmaking that aligns with congressionally authorized purposes, and affords due process to grant-funded researchers. Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and the class of UC researchers who have suffered unlawful grant terminations, an injunction restoring their lost funding, providing them sufficient time to complete the work for which their grants were originally approved, and preventing further illegal grant terminations. Plaintiffs will be filing a motion for a temporary restraining order on June 5, 2025. The case, No. 3:25-cv-4737, is assigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin. Background on the Lawsuit Each year, researchers in the UC system receive hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the full spectrum of federal agencies, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency, to the National Science Foundation, to the National Institutes of Health. These grants fund the production of new knowledge and fuel the development of discoveries that greatly benefit society at large. The grants have also been key to the innovation that has consistently earned the UC system pride of place among research institutions, including first place in the list of universities with the most utility patents. They have also made the UC Berkeley campus the number one ranked public research in institution in the world for nine of the past ten years. Before President Trump took office, federal grantmaking proceeded under the authority of Congress, which appropriated taxpayer funds for specific public purposes. For decades, agencies carried out these statutory directives and observed due process in making, renewing, and (only seldom) terminating grants. They each adhered to their own grant regulations and followed Administrative Procedure Act processes when modifying such regulations. On the rare occasions when agencies terminated grants, they did so pursuant to predictable, regularized processes and terminated grants only for reasons stated in the regulations. All of this changed abruptly on January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day). After January 20, 2025, Defendants Donald J. Trump and DOGE, through a flurry of Executive Orders and other directives, commanded the Federal Agency Defendants to terminate scores of previously awarded research grants. As the Complaint notes, the 'abrupt, wholesale, and unilateral termination of these grants has violated the Constitution's bedrock principle of separation of powers and its guarantees of freedom of speech and due process; flouted the Impoundment Control Act limits on the Executive's ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated money; ignored statutory requirements that agencies fulfill their substantive missions and fund congressionally specified activities; contravened agency-specific grant-making regulations that cannot by law be revised on an abrupt, unexplained, chaotic basis; and violated the Administrative Procedure Act through this arbitrary, capricious, and ultra vires conduct.' As further detailed in the Complaint, grounds the agencies have offered for such terminations were spurious. In some cases, agency correspondence to grantees asserted that grant termination would reduce public costs and promote government efficiency, although no evidence was provided to support this claim. In other cases, agency communications made it clear that grants were being terminated to further Defendant Trump's political objectives, which included the elimination of research on climate, environmental justice, 'gender ideology,' and 'DEI.' These grant terminations are occurring not because the grant-funded research departed from its originally approved purpose, but because that purpose now offends the political agenda and ideological requirements of the Trump Administration. In terminating these grants, the agencies have violated the Constitution, numerous federal statutes, and their own regulations. Plaintiff UC researchers have suffered concrete financial, professional, and other harms from Defendants' unilateral termination of grants for projects to which they have already dedicated time and effort; for research upon which they have staked careers and reputations; and for work with research teams through which they endeavored to train a next generation. These terminations have impaired and will impair the public-serving research mission of the UC system and the concern for public welfare that undergirds it. Named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class will continue to suffer such harms on an ongoing basis, and will experience increasing and irreparable harm absent the court declaration and injunction they seek through this lawsuit.
