Friday, December 26, 2025

Stephen King Slams Stephen Miller’s ‘Leftwing Terrorism’ Claim

Stephen King confronted Stephen Miller’s recent claim regarding a surge in leftwing terrorism during the weekend on social media. Miller, who serves as the deputy chief of staff in the Trump administration, suggested there is a

“large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism”

in the United States, a statement King strongly criticized in his response.

Details on Miller’s Allegations and King’s Rebuttal

Stephen Miller’s original message accused far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors, and attorneys general of shielding what he described as well-organized and funded leftwing terrorist networks. Miller argued that the solution requires state power to dismantle these terror operations. This declaration followed Miller’s posts about ICE protests occurring in Chicago, where federal troops, including the National Guard, have been deployed under President Trump’s orders.

King quoted Miller’s post and replied sharply, emphasizing the importance of the Constitution as the foundation of democracy. He contested Miller’s framing by saying,

“Sorry, Steve–The Constitution isn’t far left or far right. It’s the basis on our democracy, and you’re playing the terror card to try and overturn it. Won’t work.”

Context of Federal Troop Deployments and Political Tensions

The Trump administration has recently sent National Guard troops to several Democratic-led cities, citing crime control as the reason. This move has sparked controversy and opposition, highlighted by a federal judge’s recent decision to halt the deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon. The use of federal forces in cities like Chicago and Portland has intensified political friction amid nationwide protests, including those involving ICE.

Implications of the Debate Over Domestic Security and Political Narrative

The dispute between Stephen King and Stephen Miller underscores the ongoing struggle over how domestic unrest and protests are interpreted and managed. King’s intervention, highlighting constitutional principles, challenges attempts to classify political opposition as terrorism, while Miller’s stance reflects the administration’s firm approach toward dissent. This clash reveals broader concerns about civil liberties, government power, and the political climate leading into future elections.