Trump's Cultural Push Puts State Power in Focus

Donald Trump used an Oval Office event to introduce a Justice Department program for whistleblowers, while Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller accused refugees and immigrants of exploiting government benefits and funding Democrats. The Bulwark essay by Mark Hertling places that accusation inside a wider administration effort to reshape education, history, equality, immigration and patriotism as Americans voted in the midterm elections.

Miller described migrants as part of what he called a “criminal conspiracy,” saying the state knowingly aided fraud and that funds were funneled into migrant communities and then used to fund the Democratic Party. His words put the administration’s power to define who belongs—and who is cast as a threat—on display. Hertling’s essay examines the administration’s stated plans across schools, immigration policy and constitutional protections.

Who Gets to Define American Culture

Hertling says his concern began in spring 2025, when Miller spoke at the White House about protecting “our values, our culture and our way of life” from what he called an assault by the radical left, communists and the Democratic Party. Miller denounced diversity, equity and inclusion policies in public and private institutions as racial discrimination. He said the administration wouldn’t let society “devolve into communist woke DEI strangulation.”

Miller also said children receiving federally funded schooling would be taught to love America, become patriots and learn civic values. Hertling argues that patriotism can’t be commanded, and that teaching the country’s failures alongside its achievements isn’t teaching children to hate it. Restricting historical interpretation to versions deemed patriotic, he writes, risks treating loyalty to the nation as agreement with those holding power.

The argument extends to equality. Miller said merit alone should determine opportunity and denounced DEI initiatives. Hertling says qualifications and fair judgment matter, while slavery, segregation, discrimination and unequal access to opportunity have shaped generations. Americans can debate diversity programs, he argues, without pretending unequal treatment never existed; high standards and fair opportunity reinforce each other.

Hertling notes that the United States has more than 340 million citizens with diverse beliefs, religions, traditions, political views and aspirations. He argues that government derives legitimate authority from citizens, and that no elected official can claim exclusive ownership of American culture or declare people with different beliefs less American.

Immigration, Assimilation and the Limits on Power

On Jan. 31, 2025, Miller told reporters outside the White House that Trump wanted immigration that “supports the economy,” assimilates newcomers to national values, promotes social cohesion and selects people “based on who will provide the most value.” Hertling says nations can set immigration laws and enforce borders. He asks whether assimilation means commitment to constitutional principles, equality before the law, religious freedom, democratic participation and individual responsibility—or conformity to a narrower culture. He describes pluralism as a source of national strength, noting that the country has never been one religion, ethnicity or cultural tradition.

Miller also said on May 9, 2025, that the administration was “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus during immigration enforcement. He referred to the Constitution’s suspension provision for rebellion or invasion and said a decision could depend partly on “whether the courts do the right thing or not.” Hertling describes habeas corpus as protection against arbitrary detention, allowing people to challenge imprisonment, and says the Constitution permits suspension only in extraordinary circumstances of rebellion or invasion. Legal review and limits on executive power, he argues, protect people affected by government decisions.

Hertling treats elections and public disagreement as parts of self-government: citizens must be able to debate, criticize, organize, assemble and peacefully replace leaders. The midterms sit within that account, but his argument is not that a vote settles disputes over who belongs or what history may be taught. He distinguishes compliance, which authority and punishment can produce, from commitment, which requires trust and shared purpose. Presidents and advisers, he concludes, are temporary stewards of institutions, not owners of national identity. “They belong to all of us.”