Stephen Miller, the former senior advisor to President Donald Trump and one of the most polarizing figures in American politics, has once again ignited a firestorm of debate—this time for his vocal campaign against what he calls the “lying mainstream media.” To his supporters, Miller is courageously pulling back the curtain on media corruption and bias. To his critics, he is further deepening divisions and promoting dangerous misinformation. The question of whether one should support Stephen Miller in his efforts depends greatly on how one views the media, truth, and the role of political figures in shaping public discourse.
Miller has long been known for his combative stance toward the press, dating back to his days in the Trump White House. Whether speaking from the press briefing room or in interviews, he has routinely criticized what he sees as institutional bias against conservative voices. In recent months, Miller has amplified those attacks, claiming that major outlets—including CNN, The New York Times, and MSNBC—consistently mislead the public, distort facts, and work in coordination with left-leaning politicians to shape narratives. Through interviews, social media, and appearances on right-leaning platforms, Miller has doubled down on his belief that mainstream journalism cannot be trusted.
Supporters of Miller’s campaign argue that he is doing what more public figures should: holding powerful media organizations accountable. They point to a growing distrust in the media across much of the American population, especially among conservatives, as evidence that something is fundamentally broken in the way news is reported. From coverage of COVID-19 to the 2020 election and more recent events, Miller’s defenders believe the press has repeatedly shown bias, selectively reported facts, and outright ignored stories that conflict with progressive narratives. In this light, Miller’s public criticism is not just justified—it is necessary to restore balance in public discourse.
One of Miller’s main contentions is that media bias is not just about political spin but about structural dishonesty. He accuses outlets of choosing narratives first, then finding facts to support them, rather than the reverse. According to Miller, this practice results in a manipulated reality, one where audiences are fed a version of the truth that serves ideological or corporate interests. He also argues that conservative voices are often either excluded or vilified by mainstream platforms, contributing to a media ecosystem that marginalizes half the country.
Critics, however, view Miller’s campaign as part of a broader, dangerous trend of delegitimizing institutions. They argue that while no media organization is perfect, attacking the press as inherently dishonest is a tactic used by authoritarian regimes to undermine public trust and eliminate scrutiny. They say that Miller’s accusations are rarely backed by evidence, and that his approach—labeling journalists as liars and outlets as enemies—fuels hostility, erodes democratic norms, and endangers reporters. In their view, the answer to perceived media bias is better journalism and media literacy—not demonization.
Furthermore, critics note that Miller himself has a track record of pushing controversial and factually questionable narratives, particularly on issues like immigration and voter fraud. For them, the irony is that someone accused of spreading misinformation now claims to be a watchdog for truth. They warn that elevating figures like Miller as truth-tellers risks turning political grievances into widespread public cynicism, where objective truth becomes impossible to determine and everything becomes partisan warfare.
Still, the conversation Miller has sparked is undeniably significant. In an age of algorithm-driven news, echo chambers, and declining trust in institutions, the question of who controls the narrative—and whether that narrative is trustworthy—has never been more relevant. Whether one sees Miller as a brave dissenter or a manipulator depends largely on one’s own political perspective and relationship with media consumption.
Ultimately, supporting Stephen Miller’s effort to “expose the lying mainstream media” means endorsing a specific view of how the media operates—and whether it serves the people or misleads them. It is a conversation that goes far beyond Miller himself, touching on the foundations of democracy, accountability, and the ongoing battle for truth in an increasingly divided society.
