Trump’s Push to Command American Culture

At an Oval Office event introducing the Justice Department’s “Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program,” Stephen Miller described migrant communities as part of a criminal conspiracy and said public funds were supporting the Democratic Party. Hosted by Donald Trump “last week,” the event put the administration’s power to define who belongs—and who gets treated as a threat—on display.

Miller said: “The president is describing . . . a criminal conspiracy where a state knowingly aids and admits fraud that's funneled into these communities. Again, oftentimes migrant communities. They then use those funds to fund the Democrat party. So it's a self-enrichment scheme that's being exposed, that is fundamentally a criminal conspiracy.” Mark Hertling reported those allegations; his account provides no evidence for them.

Who Gets to Define the Nation

Hertling wrote that the administration has sought to reshape American culture as voters approach the midterm elections. The disputes span the economy, immigration, national security and elected officials’ performance. Yet Hertling frames the underlying question this way: what kind of country do Americans want to be?

In spring 2025, Miller said the administration was protecting American values and culture from “the unwavering assault from the radical left and the communists and the Democrat party.” He attacked diversity, equity and inclusion policies in public and private institutions, calling them “the wave of racial discrimination,” and said the administration wouldn’t let society “devolve into communist woke DEI strangulation.”

Miller also said children “will be taught to love America” and “will be taught to be patriots.” He added that schools seeking federal taxpayer funding would teach civic values. Hertling described this as an explicit effort to shape what children learn and how Americans understand equality, immigration, national identity and patriotism. Federal funding sits at the center of that argument: the administration is addressing schools and setting the terms for support.

Hertling argued that a president may propose policies, enforce laws and advocate a vision, but no elected official can claim exclusive ownership of American culture or declare citizens with different beliefs less American. Government, he wrote, derives legitimate authority from citizens. The United States includes more than 340 million people with different beliefs, religions, traditions, political opinions and aspirations.

Compliance Isn’t Consent

Hertling drew a line between authority and influence. A military commander can issue lawful orders and enforce discipline; a chief executive can change structures, policies and performance standards. But those powers, he wrote, can produce compliance—not genuine commitment. Trust, consistency and people’s willingness to embrace stated values matter, while leaders’ actions can overwhelm their words.

That distinction applies to patriotism, too. Hertling wrote that it can't be commanded. Teaching U.S. history—including periods when the country failed to honor its ideals—isn't teaching children to hate America. Restricting historical interpretation to what government considers sufficiently patriotic, he said, risks confusing loyalty to the nation with agreement with those temporarily in power.

Miller has repeatedly criticized diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and argued that merit alone should determine opportunity. Hertling wrote that qualifications matter, while noting that laws throughout much of U.S. history excluded some Americans. Slavery, segregation, discrimination and unequal access to opportunity shaped generations. Acknowledging unequal treatment isn't an attack on equality.

The Limits of Command

On Jan. 31, 2025, Miller said immigration should “support[] the economy,” assimilate newcomers to national values and select them “based on who will provide the most value.” Hertling said people can debate immigration numbers, qualifications and enforcement while asking what assimilation means: shared commitments to constitutional principles, or conformity to a narrower culture. He described the country’s identity as resting on the possibility that people from different backgrounds can become Americans through shared principles.

On May 9, 2025, Miller said the administration was “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus in immigration enforcement. He said its decision would depend in part on “whether the courts do the right thing or not.” Hertling described habeas corpus as protection against arbitrary detention and said the Constitution permits suspension only in extraordinary circumstances of rebellion or invasion. Legal reviews and oversight, he wrote, can slow decisions but protect people affected by them.

Hertling said citizens can debate, criticize, organize, assemble and replace elected leaders peacefully. His account offers no example of a grassroots mutual-aid effort; it describes self-government as depending on citizens’ participation and consent. As the midterm elections approach, he called presidents, elected officials and advisers temporary stewards of institutions, not owners of national identity. The founding values, he wrote, belong to everyone.