President Trump lost Congress last Tuesday. And now he’s handed control of the White House to Stephen Miller.
Anybody who interprets that move as a peace offering to Democrats probably thinks a rattlesnake just wants a hug.
After all, Trump’s legislative agenda is effectively dead come January. Democrats will control both chambers and have enough subpoena power to keep a small army of lawyers employed. But Trump does not have to spend his remaining two years sulking in the Oval Office. Congress may control the legislative calendar, but it cannot simply switch off the executive branch.
Miller has a powerful opportunity to use existing presidential authority to keep Trump’s agenda moving despite Democratic control of Congress. The challenge is not simply finding ways around lawmakers. It’s identifying which decisions the executive branch can already make without their cooperation.
The first opportunity comes now. With fewer than two months of Republican control remaining, Trump can press Senate Republicans to confirm as many judges as possible, while the Dec. 11 funding deadline offers a final opportunity to secure provisions Democrats may spend years trying to undo. Some fights can also be left unresolved because the White House already has money and authority that will survive the change in Congress.
Immigration is the clearest example.
Congress approved nearly $70 billion in additional Department of Homeland Security funding earlier this year, much of it available through 2029. Democrats can hold hearings, threaten cuts, and denounce deportations, but clawing back money already appropriated requires legislation Trump can veto.
That financial advantage gives Miller enormous room to expand detention capacity, accelerate deportations, and strengthen cooperation with state and local police. The administration can pursue those priorities without waiting for Democrats to approve another immigration bill.
Miller can also concentrate enforcement operations in jurisdictions where Democratic leaders refuse to cooperate, creating confrontations that put those officials on the defensive and force them to explain their opposition.
Why? Because Miller doesn’t need to win every courtroom fight to keep Democrats talking about immigration instead of grocery bills. The political advantage comes from forcing those debates onto terrain where Republicans have traditionally enjoyed stronger support.
The next tool is the federal checkbook.
Russ Vought, Trump’s budget director, is pursuing changes to give political appointees greater influence over federal grants. Congress temporarily blocked the proposed overhaul through Dec. 11, but that restriction is about to expire.
Even without those changes, existing grant authorities already give the administration considerable discretion to advance its priorities. Projects that meet lawful federal objectives can receive favorable consideration through discretionary programs, while others can face tougher conditions or scrutiny where statutes permit.
The president cannot simply seize money Congress has ordered agencies to spend, but he certainly does not need permission from Democrats to exercise discretion Congress already granted to the executive branch.
And he has another advantage that received remarkably little attention after Tuesday’s elections.
In June, the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent limiting the president’s ability to remove officials at certain independent agencies. Trump has separately moved to make thousands of policy-influencing positions easier to dismiss. Together, those changes give the White House more leverage over officials charged with implementing its decisions.
That leverage creates opportunities to reshape federal policy through regulatory decisions affecting environmental permitting, energy production, and other industries. By revisiting existing rules and pursuing new interpretations within their statutory authority, agencies can advance those priorities without waiting for Congress to act.
Democrats have ways to challenge those decisions, but their options are limited. They can use the Congressional Review Act to challenge certain regulations, but Trump can still veto their resolutions. Other disputes will end up in court, where even successful challenges can take months. A regulatory decision made today can influence investment and business decisions long before litigation concludes.
National security offers an even bigger opening.
Trump’s confrontation with Iran and competition with China already provide a framework for treating energy projects, semiconductor factories, and computing infrastructure as strategic assets.
The administration has several ways to act on those priorities. Existing Defense Production Act authorities, trade statutes, and emergency powers give it additional tools to prioritize qualifying projects and support industries considered essential to national security.
Those powers still have limits. Emergency declarations cannot magically erase existing law or congressional spending rules. Even so, a concrete national security justification forces Democrats to confront the substance of a policy rather than dismiss it as another Trump provocation.
Personnel decisions offer another opportunity. A Democratic Senate can block Trump’s nominees, but it cannot eliminate the administration’s lawful options for filling vacancies. Eligible acting officials can exercise substantial authority, while recess appointments remain available under limited constitutional circumstances. Those mechanisms give Miller alternatives when confirmation becomes a political dead end.
Meanwhile, Democrats will have their own weapons: subpoenas, hearings, investigations, and control of annual appropriations.
Those powers will give Democrats considerable leverage, but the White House has ways to fight back. It can contest overreaching demands, invoke executive privilege where justified, and defend its interests in court. The resulting confrontations also give the administration opportunities to turn the scrutiny back on Democrats and question their priorities.
Every committee hearing can become an opportunity to accuse Democrats of ignoring affordability. Every fight over immigration can become another argument about public safety. Every funding dispute can become a chance to portray Congress as the obstacle to governing.
And when Democrats pass legislation Trump opposes, he can simply veto it. They can pass bills until the printers run out of ink, but without the votes to override him, all they will have is a very expensive collection of paper.
Friday’s reshuffle creates a division of labor that could make this approach particularly effective. Miller now commands the White House policy operation, while Susie Wiles oversees Trump’s political operation. That arrangement allows the administration to fight Congress on policy while maintaining its influence over the Republican Party and its future beyond 2028.
But there’s an enormous weakness in that strategy.
Voters just punished Republicans amid frustration over prices, the Iran war, and Trump’s conduct. A government built around provoking fresh confrontations could remind Americans why they voted for change.
Political confrontation may put Democrats on the defensive, but it will accomplish little if Americans still believe the White House is ignoring their problems. Using executive authority to advance Trump’s agenda is one thing. Turning every disagreement into another political spectacle is something else entirely.
Stephen Miller has the resources and institutional leverage to make Democratic control of Congress far less consequential than his opponents might expect. Whether those advantages produce lasting policy changes or another political backlash will be one of the defining questions of Trump’s remaining presidency.
