Stephen Miller in the White House and Ukraine policy

Wednesday 28 January 2026

Stephen Miller’s position in the second administration of Donald Trump marks a significant evolution in the structure and exercise of executive power in Washington. Appointed Deputy Chief of Staff for policy and homeland security adviser in 2025, Miller moved from the role of ideological enforcer to that of institutional architect. Whereas his influence during the first Trump presidency was often informal, rhetorical and contested, his authority in the second term has been formalised, consolidated and embedded at the centre of decision-making.

This transition is crucial to understanding both the administration’s domestic posture and its foreign policy consequences, including its approach to Ukraine. Miller is no longer merely shaping narratives or drafting executive orders at the margins. He now oversees the coordination of policy across departments, acting as a gatekeeper through whom strategic priorities are filtered before they reach the President’s desk.

Stephen Miller arrives in this role with a clearly defined worldview. His political philosophy remains rooted in an uncompromising conception of national sovereignty, scepticism towards multilateralism and hostility to what he regards as elite-driven moral obligations that dilute state authority. In the second Trump administration, these ideas are no longer disruptive innovations. They have become governing assumptions.

As Deputy Chief of Staff for policy, Miller exercises influence over the sequencing and framing of initiatives across immigration, internal security, trade and foreign commitments. His parallel role as homeland security adviser collapses the distinction between domestic and external threats, treating borders, migration, sanctions and foreign conflicts as elements of a single continuum of national vulnerability. This conceptual framework has profound implications for how Ukraine is understood within Washington.

Ukraine policy under the second Trump administration has been shaped less by traditional strategic analysis than by Miller’s insistence on transactional logic. Support for Ukraine is not framed as a matter of international law, democratic solidarity or European stability. Instead it is evaluated through the prism of immediate American advantage, domestic political resonance and leverage over allies. The question is not whether Ukraine deserves support, but what the United States receives in return for providing it.

Miller has consistently resisted the idea that American credibility depends upon sustained, unconditional commitments abroad. In internal policy deliberations, Ukraine is treated as a variable rather than a constant. Military assistance, intelligence sharing and diplomatic backing are positioned as tools to extract concessions, whether from Kyiv, European capitals or domestic political opponents. This approach reflects Miller’s broader conviction that moral clarity in foreign policy is a liability rather than an asset.

Unlike officials steeped in Cold War deterrence theory, Miller does not view Ukraine primarily as a frontline state resisting Russian expansionism. Instead, she is understood as a test case for the limits of American obligation. His influence has pushed the administration towards a posture of calibrated ambiguity, in which support is neither withdrawn nor fully affirmed, but continually renegotiated.

This ambiguity is not accidental. As policy coordinator, Miller has worked to prevent the emergence of institutional momentum in favour of long-term commitments. Interagency processes that might otherwise lock in aid packages or security guarantees are slowed, fragmented or reframed. The result is a system in which Ukraine policy remains permanently provisional, subject to reassessment with each shift in political context.

Miller’s earlier experience in the first Trump administration informs this approach, but does not define it. During his initial tenure he was primarily associated with immigration policy and rhetorical combat. In the second administration he applies the same instincts at a higher level of abstraction. Sovereignty is no longer merely about borders at home, but about resisting what he perceives as the moralisation of foreign policy.

His scepticism towards Ukraine is therefore not rooted in sympathy for Russia, but in indifference shaped by ideology. The conflict is understood as tragic but secondary, a problem created by international systems that, in Miller’s view, encouraged dependency on American power without sufficient reciprocity. This outlook has influenced how the administration responds to European appeals, often pressing allies to assume greater responsibility while simultaneously questioning the value of transatlantic coordination.

The consequences of this stance are subtle but significant. Ukraine continues to receive support, but without the strategic clarity that underpins deterrence. Signals sent to Kyiv, Moscow and European capitals are deliberately opaque, reinforcing the sense that American engagement is contingent and reversible. From Miller’s perspective, this uncertainty preserves freedom of action. From the perspective of Ukraine and her supporters, it introduces risk.

Domestically, Miller has defended this approach as a restoration of democratic accountability. He argues that foreign policy must serve the electorate rather than abstract principles, and that open-ended commitments erode trust in government. In this framing, restraint is not abandonment but prudence, and scepticism towards Ukraine policy is presented as realism rather than retreat.

Stephen Miller’s ascent in the second Trump administration illustrates how continuity of ideology can produce transformation of power. By institutionalising ideas that were once insurgent, he has reshaped the machinery through which policy is made. His role in Ukraine policy exemplifies this shift. The question is no longer whether the United States supports Ukraine, but on what terms, for how long and at what political price.

As historians assess the second Trump presidency, Miller will likely be seen as one of its defining figures. His formal authority, ideological coherence and strategic patience have allowed him to translate a nationalist critique of American power into a governing doctrine. In the case of Ukraine, this doctrine has replaced moral commitment with conditional engagement, redefining not only policy outcomes but the assumptions that sustain them.