Stephen Miller — once best known as the architect of the Trump administration’s hardline immigration agenda — has emerged as a central figure shaping U.S. foreign policy in the second Trump administration, unsettling diplomats, allies and lawmakers alike.

Long a controversial adviser in domestic policy, Miller’s role has expanded well beyond immigration, positioning him as a key voice in strategic debates that would once have been dominated by the State Department and Pentagon.

According to the NY Times, Miller recently made headlines for asserting that Greenland “rightfully belonged” to the United States, a statement that underscores his increasingly assertive and unconventional approach to international affairs.

Miller’s comments on Greenland reflect a dramatic escalation in rhetoric from a senior White House official. In an interview, he questioned Denmark’s authority over the Arctic territory and suggested that the U.S. could — and should — consider options to acquire it, arguing that “nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily” over Greenland’s future.

This line of thinking aligns with a broader shift in Washington’s posture toward great-power competition and hemispheric dominance, but it has alarmed both allies and critics.

While President Trump has at times floated the idea of buying or otherwise acquiring Greenland, Miller’s remarks underscored a willingness to challenge long-standing diplomatic norms and treaties, including the sanctity of NATO allies’ territorial integrity.

Reactions to Miller’s statements were swift and pointed. European governments, particularly in Denmark and across NATO, voiced strong objections, framing control of Greenland as a matter for the people of Greenland and their government, not an object of U.S. ambition.

Lawmakers in the United States also registered dissent; even some Republicans criticized the idea as unrealistic and potentially harmful to alliances. This pushback reflects broader concerns about Miller’s influence, as his rise marks a departure from traditional diplomatic channels and career foreign-service expertise toward a more ideologically driven and unilateral foreign policy vision.

The tension over Greenland is part of a larger pattern in which Miller’s worldview appears to inform key foreign policy discussions, including how the United States projects power and defines its national interests.

Observers note that his perspective — shaped by nationalist and America-first principles — often prioritizes strategic dominance and security over cooperation, multilateralism or respect for existing international frameworks.

Whether this influence represents a lasting shift in U.S. foreign policy or a flashpoint in an internal debate over America’s role in the world, Miller’s ascent underscores the evolving and contentious nature of strategic decision-making inside the White House.

Read More Here