Stephen Miller Just Claimed the President Can End Democracy
When a regime says “plenary power,” what they mean is democracy no longer matters.
The other day on CNN, Stephen Miller said something that should stop everyone in their tracks.
He claimed “the President has plenary power.”
Then—right as the words left his mouth—he pretended his mic was cutting out and stopped talking.
That wasn’t a glitch. It was a tell.
What “Plenary Power” Actually Means
“Plenary” means complete, unqualified, absolute.
In constitutional law, a claim of plenary power means the person making it believes they have total authority — not subject to checks from Congress, courts, or even the Constitution itself.
It’s a phrase that sounds technical, maybe even harmless. But it’s one of the most dangerous ideas in our system.
Historically, “plenary power” has been used mostly in immigration law — the idea that deciding who can enter or be deported is an act of sovereignty beyond normal judicial review.
Even then, the courts have chipped away at that logic, insisting that due process and equal protection still apply.
So when Miller applies that concept to the presidency itself, he’s not talking about border policy.
He’s talking about dismantling the separation of powers.
Why This Is Dangerous, and Anti-American
If the President truly had plenary power, here’s what that would mean:
The President could detain or deport anyone, indefinitely, without review.
Congress couldn’t stop executive orders, no matter how extreme.
The courts couldn’t intervene, because the actions would be “beyond review.”
The rule of law would collapse into the rule of one man.
That’s not democracy. That’s dictatorship wearing a constitutional mask.
Miller knows this. And so do the people writing the playbook he’s helping to implement.
This Isn’t Theory. It’s The Plan
Project 2025 — the roadmap drawn up by the same network of loyalists Miller works with — explicitly aims to concentrate federal power in the executive branch.
Fire the civil servants. Gut the guardrails. Replace expertise with obedience.
“Plenary power” is how you justify that.
It’s how you turn every act of authoritarianism into a “legal” one.
So when Miller drops that phrase and ducks out of the conversation, it’s not embarrassment — it’s revelation. He said the quiet part out loud, then tried to disappear it.
What We Have to Remember
The American system was built on limits — checks, balances, rights. The founders feared exactly what Miller is describing: a ruler who believes their power is total.
Every time someone claims plenary power, we have to respond with the same clarity:
Power in a democracy is conditional.
It is temporary.
And it is accountable.
Because if we ever let that go — if we start accepting that any President has “plenary power” — then we’ve already lost the republic they’re trying to resurrect in name only.
Takeaway: Stephen Miller didn’t invent this idea. He’s simply saying out loud what this regime has been working toward all along — a presidency that answers to no one. And that should terrify all of us.
What We Must Do
Call out the claim: demand they name the legal basis, and insist on constitutional guardrails.
Educate: make “plenary power” no longer a technocratic term, but a red flag to the public.
Fortify institutions: push for courts, Congress, state governments, civil society to resist power grabs.
Be vigilant: these power claims are rarely about one domain; once accepted, they spread.
When someone claims plenary power, they’re not merely arguing authority — they’re arguing to transform the regime itself.
Let’s not treat that as rhetoric. Let’s confront it as the existential threat it is.
Subscribe to The Pathfinder Chronicles
For clear-eyed analysis that cuts through the noise — and helps you see what’s really at stake in America’s ongoing fight for democracy.