Washington is buzzing with unease as Stephen Miller’s influence appears to stretch far beyond domestic policy and into an ambitious — and deeply controversial — vision
for America’s role on the global stage. Once best known as a hardline architect of immigration policy, Miller is now being linked to a broader foreign agenda that connects two unlikely flashpoints: Venezuela and Greenland. To critics, the scope alone is alarming. To supporters, it signals a long-overdue assertion of American power.
A Shift That Has Caught Washington Off Guard
For years, Miller’s name was synonymous with internal battles over borders, asylum, and executive authority. But recent discussions inside policy circles suggest his worldview is increasingly shapi
ng how key figures think about global leverage, resources, and strategic dominance.
What has startled many in Washington is not just the substance of the ideas, but the scale. Venezuela, long a focal point of U.S. pressure in Latin America, now appears linked — ideologically — to Greenland, a strategically vital Arctic territory once dismissed as a geopolitical curiosity. The connection reflects a mindset that sees global politics as a zero-sum contest for influence.
Venezuela: A Test Case for Power Politics
Venezuela remains central to this vision. Within Trump-aligned circles, the country is viewed as both a cautionary tale and an opportunity — a symbol of socialist collapse and a str
ategic battleground in the Western Hemisphere.
Advocates of a tougher line argue that prolonged pressure is necessary to prevent hostile powers from gaining a foothold close to U.S. borders. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and backing opposition movements are framed not as intervention, but as deterrence.
Critics, however, say the approach has already deepened humanitarian suffering while failing to produce political change. They warn that doubling down risks further destabilizing the region and entangling the U.S. in conflicts with no clear exit strategy.
