Stephen Miller, Executive Privilege, and the Chicago Record (with a Minnesota warning)

There’s a line in the Chicago record that should make every American sit up straight, not because it’s poetic, but because it’s operational.

In open court, the government’s posture gets summarized like this: if you get hit with a PepperBall, “that’s on you.” And if you don’t like it? “Don’t protest.”

That’s not a slip. That’s the worldview. And once you see it, the real question stops being “did agents overreact?” and becomes:

Who told them they could?

The Chain of Command QuestionThe Chain of Command Question

Because Chicago isn’t just chaos on a street corner. It’s a federal operation with a chain of command, paperwork, and policy, especially around crowd control and “less-lethal” munitions. Judge Sara Ellis’s injunction record points straight at that reality: federal use-of-force rules themselves emphasize warnings and giving people a reasonable chance to comply when feasible.

So plaintiffs went hunting for the directive layer, the part you’re not supposed to see.

They deposed Gregory Bovino (the face of the operation on the ground). And they asked the most basic oversight question imaginable:

Did DHS leadership give you direction on how and when to use force at protests?

And then they asked the question that makes Washington lawyers reach for the panic button:

Has Stephen Miller?

Where Transparency DiesWhere Transparency Dies

That’s where the transparency dies. On the record, the government’s lawyer instructs the witness not to answer and invokes executive privilege.

Let that land.

Not classified tactics. Not informant identities. Not troop movements.

“Did Stephen Miller give direction on when/how to use force?” → “Executive privilege.”

And if you think that’s just aggressive lawyering, look at what happened next: the judge explicitly signaled that questions about communications with Miller, what he wanted, what he was saying, “how I want this operation to go”, are fair game if they bear on justification.

The PatternThe Pattern

So here’s the shape of it:

• The operation runs hot on the street.
• The paper policy says “warnings when feasible.”
• The plaintiffs ask who set the posture.
• The moment Miller’s name enters the transcript, privilege slams shut.

That’s the tell.

If there’s nothing there, no direction, no pressure, no “light ‘em up” energy flowing downhill, then you answer the question. You don’t hide behind the constitutional equivalent of “lol, you can’t see my texts.”

And yes: the court record itself treats Miller as a central enough node that he’s named in the litigation as White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and U.S. Homeland Security Adviser.

Why This Matters Beyond Chicago: Minnesota is What “Rollout” Looks LikeWhy This Matters Beyond Chicago: Minnesota is What “Rollout” Looks Like

Now link it to Minnesota, because that’s the part people keep missing:

Chicago is the lab. Minnesota is the proof of concept.

When Minneapolis became a flashpoint after ICE officer Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renée Nicole Good, federal officials immediately pushed a narrative of justification (“domestic terrorism” / “ramming an officer”), while reporting emphasized that video evidence disputed key elements of that story.

That’s the same structural move you see in Chicago:

1. Force first
2. Narrative second
3. Accountability buried in process fights, privilege, and jurisdictional insulation

The Tripwire ScanThe Tripwire Scan

So if you want a clean “tripwire scan” for what’s coming next, don’t start with the street footage. Start with the records fight:

• Do they block basic chain-of-command questions with “executive privilege”?
• Do they treat lawful observation and protest as something you “deserve” to be hit for?
• Do they lean on policy language about compliance while acting like warnings are optional?
• Do they keep trying to make the identity of the directive-givers off-limits?

The Bottom LineThe Bottom Line

I’m not claiming I’ve seen a written “Miller use-of-force order.”

I’m saying the Chicago record shows lawyers tried to ask whether Miller gave direction on when/how to employ force, and the government shut it down with executive privilege.

If you care about rule of law, that should bother you no matter who you voted for.

Because a state that can hit you in the street and block you from asking who authorized the posture… is teaching you what kind of country it wants to be.