Marco Rubio & Stephen Miller Compete for Who Is More Aggressive Against Venezuela

By Misión Verdad – Sep 30, 2025

The US security architecture rests on two pillars of distinct origin and scope: the Homeland Security Council (HSC) and the National Security Advisor (NSA). The first is based on the logic of “internal strength,” and the second embodies the heart of the “grand global strategy.”

Both are part of the Executive Office of the President, but their political weight and ability to influence foreign policy formulation are not equivalent.

The HSC, created on October 29, 2001, by executive order of George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11, was conceived to coordinate policies that protect US territory from “internal threats:” terrorism, illegal migration, cyberattacks, critical infrastructure, and natural disasters.

Currently, under the direction of Stephen Miller, the HSC is driving measures for immigration control, technological surveillance, and tightening the border. Although projecting the external nature of the “threats,” these remain essentially domestic policy decisions. Its function is not to negotiate treaties or forge military alliances, but to detect risks and recommend actions to safeguard the domestic sphere.

In contrast, the NSA, officially the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, occupies a privileged position in US strategic decision-making. Created in 1953 to advise the president directly without Senate confirmation, the position has been held on an interim basis by Secretary of State Marco Rubio since May.

From the White House, the NSA defines defense priorities, military alliances, economic sanctions, and covert operations. Its direct access to the president allows it to shape foreign policy in real time, without the checks and balances that other institutions face.

Although the HSC does not design foreign policy in the classical sense, the interconnectedness of what it considers internal and external threats compels it to work hand-in-hand with the National Security Council (NSC) and the NSA itself.

What The Guardian says
The Signalgate episode opened an unexpected crack in the structure of the Trump cabinet. In May, an alleged “accident” exposed the fragility of internal communications when then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz mistakenly added a journalist to a Signal messaging group, comprising several senior government officials.

The scandal led to his removal and left a key White House post vacant, sparking a fierce competition to fill the position.

Among the names that immediately circulated were Stephen Miller, Richard Grenell, and Sebastian Gorka. Bloomberg even listed Miller, the architect of the most extreme immigration policies of the Trump era, as one of the leading candidates.

However, Trump himself dismissed it, without disqualifying Miller, in an interview with NBC News, saying, “Stephen is much higher up in the hierarchy. This position would be a demotion for him.”

The comment confirmed that Miller does not need a formal position to wield decisive influence within the innermost circle of presidential power.

A report by The Guardian brought new elements to the chessboard in Washington. Reportedly, according to internal administration sources, Stephen Miller, in his role as Homeland Security Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, has been the true architect of the attacks on ships in the Caribbean, in which 21 civilians have been killed—actions that Washington justifies with the charade of anti-drug operations.

The article reports that, under Miller’s leadership, the HSC acquired an unprecedented degree of autonomy, operating de facto as a command center alongside the NSC.

According to the article, it was Miller who granted the HSC the authority to act as an autonomous entity during Trump’s second term. It coordinated military missions such as the Hellfire missile strike against a “Venezuelan vessel” on September 15, without the full knowledge of all senior White House officials until just hours before its execution.

The report also exposes the legal loopholes in these operations. The White House has attempted to justify its actions by invoking the powers under Article II of the US Constitution, claiming “self-defense” in response to the designation of the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua as a “foreign terrorist organization.” This is the typical victimhood tactic used to legitimize actions that violate fundamental rights in international law under the guise of a perpetual “emergency.” Exceptionalism in action.

However, a federal appeals court has already ruled that deportations of Venezuelans based on that designation are illegal, since there is no evidence that the Tren de Aragua acts as an arm of the Venezuelan government. Despite this, the attacks continued under a murky legal framework approved by the Pentagon, the Department of Justice, and White House legal advisors.

While the report seems to sideline Rubio from this new push against Venezuela, the reality is more complex. Both Miller and the current secretary of State share the same ideological discourse of aggression and, without evidence, maintain the “drug trafficking” narrative against Venezuela.

Nevertheless, they do not work together as a cohesive team. Rather, they are engaged in a covert competition, each with his own interests and distinct positions within his respective spheres of influence. However, their agendas may overlap, making the situation for Venezuela all the more dangerous if it comes down to pleasing the tycoon US president.

What the Military Deployment in the Caribbean Reveals About Trump’s Strategy

Miller as a free electron
Rubio, dubbed “Little Marco” by Trump during the 2016 Republican primaries, represents the Republican Party’s foreign policy orthodoxy, which has been taken over by neoconservatives and perpetual-war hawks. He is not part of the MAGA core of the Trumpist coalition cabinet. As such, he has had to maneuver to secure spheres of influence that allow him to shape key decisions without provoking rejection from the most extreme circle and, consequently, advance his own agenda.

Miller, on the other hand, is a pure product of the MAGA agenda, forged in the hard-line anti-immigration wing and with direct access to Trump since his first administration. In fact, during the Republican primaries, Miller not only worked to undermine Jeb Bush but also made Rubio his favorite target, whom he attacked fiercely for his role in the so-called “Gang of Eight,” the bipartisan immigration reform bill of 2013.

“Marco Rubio is, let’s say, his biggest enemy,” a Republican operative said at the time.

Emails revealed by NBC News show how Miller coordinated with Breitbart News to publish articles portraying Rubio as a pro-immigration “extremist” and even accusing him of “legalizing foreign sex offenders.” From rallies in Florida to leaks to the conservative press, Miller cultivated a systematic campaign to destroy Rubio’s credibility among the Trump base.

However, within the White House, Miller is not immune to resistance. In 2018, 17 Jewish organizations, including American Jewish World Service and J Street, publicly demanded his removal based on allegations of his “extreme views” and his advocacy of racist policies.

These criticisms, far from weakening him, reinforced the power style that Trump has granted him—first-tier influence without holding any visible office, which makes him less vulnerable to public pressure and allows him to operate in the shadows.

Rubio, for his part, has had to adapt to this reality. Although he maintains a classic interventionist stance and tries to portray himself as an indispensable figure on Latin American issues, his being from outside the MAGA core forces him to forge tactical alliances to avoid losing ground to Miller.

In the case of Venezuela, both share the same coercive approach, but differ in their position within the Trump administration.

Miller, without needing to establish himself as a political figure within the cabinet, wields structural influence from his position. Meanwhile, Rubio depends on visibility and staying relevant in that inner circle to stay afloat. In other words, Miller does not need to get Trump’s attention. Rubio, on the other hand, must survive politically in that environment.

Rubio is the main promoter of the regime-change agenda against Venezuela and the main driver of the illegal sanctions regime.

It is no coincidence that the new escalation of aggression began to take shape when Rubio took over as interim national security advisor. Miller, for his part, seems to be capitalizing on the fallout from that dynamic, aligning his extremist views with the political opportunity that his position presents.

It is even plausible that Rubio will maneuver to convince Miller to channel his radical style toward the objectives that he is pursuing, leveraging the influence and extreme temperament of Trump’s protégé.

These initiatives demonstrate not only Miller’s authoritarian view of migration as a threat but also an extreme pattern of behavior that Rubio has skillfully channeled to insert his own intentions and maximize the impact of pressure on Venezuela.

In the absence of a coherent policy, that internal struggle or lack of consensus turns decision-making into an erratic, unpredictable, and potentially more aggressive process.

(Misión Verdad)

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/SF