Miller Slams Tapper Over Venezuela Operation
Stephen Miller, a former Trump White House adviser, went on CNN to talk about the fallout from recent U.S. action in Venezuela. He did not pull punches. He spoke like someone who thinks America’s back is strong again.
Miller framed the move as decisive. He pushed a simple message: the U.S. will act to protect its borders and citizens. He made clear he supports tough measures — military options included — when leaders in other countries threaten Americans or send drugs and crime our way.
The network’s Jake Tapper pressed him on next steps, including whether Venezuela should hold an election after its leader was taken into custody. Tapper interrupted at one point and said, “I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about right now.”
Miller snapped back: “By the way… you love doing that smarmy thing, Jake, and I was hoping you would be better than that this time,” exactly as he said on the air. The exchange got heated fast.
Tapper said, “We went into the country and seized the leader of Venezuela!” Miller answered without hesitation: “Damn straight we did!” That line landed hard. It was blunt. It was unapologetic.
Miller also told Tapper, “We’re a superpower, and under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower,” and he doubled down on the security argument: “We’re NOT going to let tin pot Communist dictators send rapists into our country, send drugs into our country, send weapons into our country!” Those words show the administration’s posture: forceful, direct, and unwilling to tolerate threats.
Meanwhile, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said the U.S. is putting pressure on Venezuela by enforcing an oil quarantine and other economic steps. The broader Republican case is straightforward. Push the regime economically. Hold its leaders accountable. Use targeted force if needed. Don’t apologize.
On TV, Miller’s tone was meant to reassure conservatives. He signaled that America can and should act in its interests. Tapper, playing the skeptical journalist, kept asking about process and consequences. The back-and-forth exposed the split: hawkish action versus questions about the aftermath.
If you like direct answers, Miller delivered them. He was loud and clear. If you want nuance about long-term nation-building or elections, Tapper tried to pull the conversation that way. The clip shows both sides in a nutshell: decisive power politics versus cautious media scrutiny.
WATCH: