Politics
Stephen Miller, Channeling Trump, Has Built More Power Than Ever
When Stephen Miller met with Mark Zuckerberg at Mar-a-Lago late last year, the 39-year-old Trump adviser was in a position of power that would have been unimaginable a decade ago.
Back then, Mr. Miller was a mere Senate staffer railing about the evils of immigration. Now he was holding forth on U.S. policy with the billionaire chief executive of Meta, a man he had vilified for years as a globalist bent on destroying the nation.
The scale had flipped.
Mr. Miller told Mr. Zuckerberg that he had an opportunity to help reform America, but it would be on President-elect Donald J. Trump’s terms. He made clear that Mr. Trump would crack down on immigration and go to war against the diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I., culture that had been embraced by Meta and much of corporate America in recent years.
Mr. Zuckerberg was amenable. He signaled to Mr. Miller and his colleagues, including other senior Trump advisers, that he would do nothing to obstruct the Trump agenda, according to three people with knowledge of the meeting, who asked for anonymity to discuss a private conversation. Mr. Zuckerberg said he would instead focus solely on building tech products.
Mr. Zuckerberg blamed his former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, for an inclusivity initiative at Facebook that encouraged employees’ self-expression in the workplace, according to one of the people with knowledge of the meeting. He said new guidelines and a series of layoffs amounted to a reset and that more changes were coming.
Earlier this month, Mr. Zuckerberg’s political lieutenants previewed the changes to Mr. Miller in a private briefing. And on Jan. 10, Mr. Zuckerberg made them official: Meta would abolish its D.E.I. policy.
The meeting at Mar-a-Lago on Nov. 27 represented more than just another tech billionaire bending the knee to Mr. Trump. It vividly demonstrated the power and influence of Mr. Miller, who in less than a decade has risen from an anti-immigrant agitator on Capitol Hill to one of the most powerful unelected people in America.
Officials from Meta declined to comment, as did Mr. Miller. A Trump transition spokeswoman declined to address a majority of the reporting.
Mr. Miller was influential in Mr. Trump’s first term but stands to be exponentially more so this time. He holds the positions of deputy chief of staff, with oversight of domestic policy, and homeland security adviser, which gives him range to coordinate among cabinet agencies. He will be a key legislative strategist and is expected to play an important role in crafting Mr. Trump’s speeches, as he has done since he joined the first Trump campaign in 2016.
Most significantly, Mr. Miller will be in charge of Mr. Trump’s signature issue and the one that Mr. Miller has been fixated on since childhood: immigration. And he has been working, in secrecy, to oversee the team drafting the dozens of executive orders that Mr. Trump will sign after he takes office on Jan. 20.
“I call Stephen ‘Trump’s brain,’” said Kevin McCarthy, the former House speaker who credited Mr. Miller — a private citizen at the time — with helping to rally Republican lawmakers to insert a sweeping border crackdown into a spending bill in 2023.
In the four years since Mr. Trump has been out of office, Mr. Miller has spent more time than any close Trump adviser mapping out a second-term playbook. He expanded on the hard-line first-term immigration policies; he deepened his relationships with House members, senators and influential right-wing media figures; he built a nationwide donor network to fund a nonprofit that he used as an additional tool of influence; and he quietly cultivated a relationship with the richest man in the world, Elon Musk.
Mr. Miller will re-enter government with even more trust and credibility with the president, fewer internal rivals and a more expansive team reporting to him.
Those who dealt with — and often dismissed — Mr. Miller a decade ago when he was a young Senate staffer, emailing reporters late at night on behalf of Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, with lurid stories about immigrants committing crimes, can hardly believe the scope of his power.
Taking Charge
After Mr. Trump won the election in November, Mr. Miller moved his family down to Palm Beach, Fla., and took a major role in the transition.
People briefed on the executive orders that his team is drafting say they include an attempt to end birthright citizenship; a designation of drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations; and a reinstatement of Title 42, which allows the United States to seal the border with Mexico if there is a public health threat. (Mr. Trump’s advisers have spent months trying to identify a disease that will help them build a case for Title 42, since there is no such emergency at the moment.)
It will be up to Mr. Trump to decide which orders to issue, but Mr. Miller is focused on immigration. The homeland security adviser’s other responsibilities include dealing with natural disasters like the one raging in California, his home state. (The fires destroyed Mr. Miller’s parents’ home, people close to him said.) Mr. Miller is expected to shift some of his portfolio to the national security adviser.
As he works out his priorities, Mr. Miller appears to have learned two key lessons from the first Trump term.
The first is to flood the zone. He believes that those he regards as Mr. Trump’s enemies — Democrats, the media, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and portions of the federal bureaucracy — are depleted and only have so much bandwidth for outrage and opposition. Mr. Miller has told people that the goal is to overwhelm them with a blitz of activity.
The second lesson has been to operate with as much secrecy as possible to prevent anyone from finding ways to obstruct the Trump agenda. As a congressional staffer, Mr. Miller was freewheeling in his digital communications. But since working for Mr. Trump, who doesn’t use email and regards people who take notes with suspicion, he puts almost nothing in writing. Instead, he works through emissaries.
The protectiveness around the executive orders is particularly notable. An incoming administration would usually send the drafts to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, where a career lawyer — walled off from the outgoing administration’s political appointees — reviews them for form and legality and suggests improvements. For the most part, Mr. Trump’s first transition is said to have followed that practice.
But Mr. Miller is using a team of lawyers from outside the Justice Department to vet the orders, a person with knowledge of the situation said — a sign of Trump aides’ general distrust of the Justice Department, which brought three special counsel investigations into Mr. Trump and twice indicted him.
In the meantime, Mr. Miller is trying to eliminate any roadblocks to Mr. Trump’s immigration plans. Mass deportations will require arrangements with other countries to take in the migrants; to that end, Mr. Miller lobbied for his ally, the former ambassador to Mexico, Christopher Landau, to be chosen as deputy secretary of state under Marco Rubio, the Florida senator whom Mr. Trump has chosen to lead the agency.
Knowing the White House will need billions in congressional appropriations for the biggest deportation operation in American history — which he’s previously said will include sweeping raids and use of the U.S. military to build massive camps to detain the migrants — Mr. Miller has spent the past four years building relationships with lawmakers.
It appears to have paid off.
When Mike Johnson addressed the House Republican conference after securing the speakership, he made a point of singling out Mr. Miller for praise. Senator Jim Banks of Indiana, a former House member, said he talked to Mr. Miller nearly every day for the four years that Mr. Trump was out of the White House. And Senator Mike Lee of Utah said there had been many times he pondered a new policy, when “all of a sudden a thought will occur to me: I wonder what Stephen Miller thinks of this one.”
The Long Game
The last time Mr. Miller participated in a Trump transition, after the surprise victory of 2016, he was fairly low in the Washington power structure.
He had become a minor celebrity on the right in 2006 for vocally defending a group of Duke University lacrosse players who had been accused — falsely, it later became clear — of rape. But he was best known to insiders as the scrappy congressional staffer for Mr. Sessions. Much of Washington’s establishment regarded Mr. Miller as a racist, and as an irritant, mocking his over-the-top pronouncements and skinny ties.
He joined the Trump campaign part time in late 2015 and full time in early 2016, one of a handful of original aides on a small team. He worked like a man possessed, staying up all night to write Mr. Trump’s speeches, a task assigned to him by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. He channeled Mr. Trump’s voice better than any other adviser.
But he entered the executive branch knowing little about how it worked, and it showed. The travel ban executive order against mostly Muslim-majority countries, crafted in secret by an ally of Mr. Miller’s amid concern some Trump appointees would try to stop it, was criticized as sloppily drafted and was initially blocked by the courts.
Mr. Miller mostly stayed out of the factional warfare that defined the early years of Mr. Trump’s first term. He was friendly with the more moderate West Wing camp — people like Mr. Kushner and Hope Hicks — and with those on the sharp edge of Mr. Trump’s movement.
People who have worked closely with Mr. Miller say they cannot recall him ever expending his political capital on an ally who fell out of favor with Mr. Trump. When Mr. Sessions, his former boss who was now attorney general, became persona non grata with Mr. Trump over the Russia investigations, Mr. Miller made it clear that his allegiance was to the president.
His strategy paid off. He survived. And his vision for immigration — including deeply restrictive and xenophobic policies — are now at the center of Mr. Trump’s economic and cultural agenda.
Unlike many others, he stuck with Mr. Trump after the violence of Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. He remained a paid adviser and a frequent Fox News presence promoting the Trump agenda, and made an early public endorsement of Mr. Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign at a time when many Republicans wanted to move on.
Mr. Miller, who comes from a wealthy family, did something else that Mr. Trump appreciated: He did not try to leverage his Trump ties into lucrative consulting contracts. The compensation he drew from his nonprofit, the America First Legal Foundation, in 2023 — $266,000 — was far less than what he could have earned working as a political gun for hire.
“Some people in Trump’s world have been there for career advantage or transactional reasons,” said Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist who is close to both Mr. Trump and Mr. Miller. “But Stephen believes in the president’s agenda deeply.”
He plays the long game on relationships, scouting people who may be influential several years in the future. He built a relationship with JD Vance ahead of his successful Ohio Senate primary, years before he would become Mr. Trump’s running mate.
He also can be a political shape-shifter when it’s expedient for him.
His long-term demonization of “radical Islam” went relatively quiet at moments during the 2024 presidential race, as he encouraged the Trump campaign to issue inviting statements to Muslims in Michigan — part of a strategy to exploit Muslims’ anger over the Biden administration’s support for Israel, according to three people with direct knowledge.
Mr. Miller is generally well-liked on the Trump staff, though he is regarded as unusually intense and has been known to berate government officials he deemed obstructive. He has strongly held opinions about even minor matters, like men’s fashion. Specifically: fabrics, patterns, colors and collars.
He never argues with Mr. Trump, certainly never in front of others. Once it’s clear to him that Mr. Trump is headed in a certain direction, he sets aside his reservations.
In recent weeks, according to multiple people with direct knowledge, Mr. Miller has done little, if anything, to try to talk Mr. Trump out of his support for H-1B visas to import high-skilled foreign workers — despite the fact that Mr. Miller has spent much of his career condemning such visas.
Another recent example: Mr. Miller was initially surprised that Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor, was chosen by Mr. Trump for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Miller had wanted Thomas D. Homan, whom Mr. Trump had picked as his border czar, for the D.H.S. role, according to two people who spoke to him at the time. But when it was clear Mr. Trump was set on the idea, he did not try to dissuade him.
“He has the president’s complete trust,” said Mr. McCarthy. “Trump’s complained about everyone. Never him.”
Mr. Trump may not complain about Mr. Miller, but he does occasionally poke at his obsession with immigrants — a hostility that goes far beyond Mr. Trump’s. In one meeting during the 2024 campaign, Mr. Trump said that if it was up to Mr. Miller there would be only 100 million people in this country, and they would all look like Mr. Miller, according to a person with knowledge of the comment. Karoline Leavitt, Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, denied the account.
The Outside-In Strategy
Since he was a high schooler in Santa Monica, Calif., obsessed with Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Miller has cultivated right-wing media personalities. He is close to Tucker Carlson and Fox News’s Laura Ingraham, but he also follows the new wave of podcasters and comedians.
Mr. Miller has told friends how pleased he is that the Trump movement has shifted the cultural dial on his favored policies. Prominent Democrats have scrambled to rebrand themselves as tough on immigration, and officials such as New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams, have welcomed tighter restrictions after an influx of migrants in their cities.
Mr. Miller has spent much of the past four years figuring out how to build pressure from outside of government to help enact Mr. Trump’s agenda.
Less than a month after Mr. Trump left office, he founded the America First Legal Foundation, a nonprofit “public interest law firm.” Mr. Miller, who is not a lawyer himself, cast the group as a conservative answer to the American Civil Liberties Union, helping the little guy fight big government or big tech.
His group quickly became a fund-raising powerhouse, raising $44 million in 2022.
Mr. Miller’s group used some of that money on legal work. It filed more than 100 lawsuits, legal briefs and other actions, and helped block a Biden administration plan to offer debt relief to Black farmers, which Mr. Miller’s group said was discriminatory.
But it spent far more on advertising: $32 million, which was nearly 70 percent of its total spending. Some of those ads seemed designed to damage Democrats in the run-up to elections. In 2022, for instance, the group paid for ads in swing states that accused the Biden administration of “anti-white bigotry.”
Now, as Mr. Trump returns to the White House, the America First Legal Foundation wants to serve as an attack dog for the Trump administration. In December, the group sent letters to 249 city and state officials in “sanctuary” jurisdictions that have said they will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities to help them arrest immigrants. If these officials do not participate in Mr. Trump’s crackdown, Mr. Miller’s group said, the local officials could be considered to be illegally “harboring” undocumented immigrants.
Experts said it would be difficult for the group to actually sue local officials, but, as before, Mr. Miller’s group is contemplating a campaign outside the courtroom. It filed public-records requests with 17 states and cities, seeking evidence that they were preparing to defy Mr. Trump’s crackdown. And it set up a website called “Sanctuary Strongholds,” designed to direct public pressure against state and local officials.
Key to some of those outside efforts will be one of the relationships Mr. Miller has established in the last few years — an alliance almost as valuable as his one with Mr. Trump. Mr. Miller found common cause with Mr. Musk, who had begun describing undocumented immigrants as a threat to Western civilization. Mr. Miller’s wife, Katie, is also working with Mr. Musk, at his so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
Mr. Miller began advising Mr. Musk on his political donations, which were at the time a closely held secret, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. A nonprofit called Citizens for Sanity, which tax filings show is closely tied to Mr. Miller’s group, raised $94 million in 2022 and paid for ads that attacked Democrats’ policies on transgender youth. The Wall Street Journal reported that $50 million of the donations to Citizens for Sanity that year came from an outside group that Mr. Musk had been donating to. The America First Legal Foundation and Citizens for Sanity did not respond to questions sent by The New York Times.
Mr. Miller is also secretive about his relationship with Mr. Musk. But one person willing to discuss it on condition of anonymity said Mr. Musk had once told him: “I want doers. And most of these people in government, that’s not how they are.”
The person recalled that Mr. Musk allowed for one exception: “But Stephen Miller — I love Stephen Miller. He’s a doer.”
Annie Karni contributed reporting from Washington.
Politics
California abortion pill suppliers ready with workaround in case of Supreme Court ban
The last time the Supreme Court threatened to end access to the country’s most popular abortion method, California’s network of online providers and their pharmaceutical suppliers scrambled to respond.
Now, with the fate of the cocktail used in roughly two-thirds of U.S. terminations once again in the balance, they’re not even breaking a sweat.
Dr. Michele Gomez, co-founder of the MYA Network, a consortium of virtual reproductive healthcare providers, said the supply chain is “ready to switch in a day” to an alternative drug combination.
“It’s not going away and it’s not going to slow down,” Gomez said.
On May 1, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to block the drug mifepristone from being prescribed virtually and shipped through the mail, making such deliveries illegal across the country. On Monday, the Supreme Court stayed that decision, allowing prescriptions to resume until the court issues an emergency ruling next week.
Mifepristone is the first half of a two-drug protocol for medication abortion, which made up 63% of all legal abortions in the U.S. in 2023.
Between a quarter and a third of those abortion drugs are now prescribed by healthcare providers over the internet and delivered by mail — a path Louisiana and other ban states are fighting to bar.
“Abortion access has gone up with all the telehealth providers,” Gomez said. “We uncovered an unmet need.”
But the cocktail’s second ingredient, misoprostol, can be used to produce abortion on its own — a method that’s often more painful and slightly less effective.
It would be easy for suppliers to switch to a misoprostol-only protocol — and much harder for courts to block it, experts said.
“We heard about this on Friday and organizations that mail pills were mailing misoprostol on Saturday,” Gomez said. “They already knew what to do.”
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022, California became one of the first states to enshrine abortion rights for residents in its Constitution and legislate protection for clinicians who prescribe abortion pills to women in states with bans.
Last fall, legislators in Sacramento expanded those protections by allowing pills to be mailed without either the doctor or the patient’s name attached.
But cases like the one being decided next week could still sharply limit abortion rights even in states with extensive legal protections, experts warned.
“Even though California has built a fortress around its own constitutional protections of reproductive freedom, those [protections] become vulnerable to the whims of antiabortion states if the Supreme Court gives those states their imprimatur,” said Michele Goodwin, professor at Georgetown Law and an expert on reproductive justice.
Coral Alonso sings in Spanish as protesters rally on the three-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade on June 24, 2025, in Los Angeles. The ruling ended the federal right to legal abortion in the United States.
(David McNew / Getty Images)
Legal experts are split over how the justices will decide the medication’s mail-order fate.
“This is a case where law clearly won’t matter,” said Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and an expert on the Supreme Court.
“In a very important midterm election year, I think there’s at least two Republicans on the court who will decide that upholding the 5th Circuit would really hurt the Republicans at the polls,” he said. “If women can’t get this by mail in California or other blue states where abortion is legal, it’s going to have devastating consequences, and I think the court knows that.”
But he and others believe it’s no longer a matter of if — but when and how — the drugs are restricted, including in California.
“This is curating a backdrop for a legal showdown that may surely come,” Goodwin said.
The court’s most conservative justices could find grounds to act in the long-forgotten Comstock Act of 1873. The brainchild of America’s zealously anti-porn postmaster Anthony Comstock, the law not only banned the mailing of the “Birth of Venus” and “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” but also condoms, diaphragms and any drug, tool or text that could be used to produce an abortion.
Though it hasn’t been enforced since the 1970s, the antiabortion provision of the law remains on the books, experts said.
“The next move is with the Comstock Act, which Justices Alito and Thomas have already been hinting at,” Goodwin said. “In that case, it’s like playing Monopoly — we could skip mifepristone and go straight to contraception. The goal is to make sure none of that gets to be in the mail.”
That move would upend how Americans get both abortions and birth control, and put an unassuming L.A. County pharmacy squarely in the government’s crosshairs.
Although doctors in nearly two dozen states can safely prescribe medication abortion to women anywhere in the U.S., only a handful of specialty pharmacies actually fill those mail orders, Gomez explained. Among the largest is Honeybee in Culver City, which did not reply to requests for comment.
Even if the justices don’t reach for Comstock, a decision in Louisiana’s favor next week could create a two-tiered system of abortion across California and other blue states, experts said.
“The people this case hurts the most are the poor and the rural,” said Segall, the Supreme Court expert.
National data show that abortion patients are disproportionately poor. Most are also already mothers. Losing mail access to mifepristone would leave many with the more painful, less effective option while those with the time and means to reach a clinic continue to get the gold standard of care.
“There are fundamental questions of citizenship at the heart of this,” said Goodwin, the constitutional scholar. “Under the 14th Amendment, women are supposed to have equality, citizenship, liberty. It’s as though the Supreme Court has taken a black marker and pressed it against all of those words.”
For Gomez and other providers, that’s tomorrow’s problem.
“The lawyers and the politicians are just going to do their thing,” the doctor said. “The healthcare providers are just trying to get medications to people who need them.”
Politics
Which Trump Tariffs Are in Place, in the Works or Ruled Illegal
Under President Trump, the tariffs keep on changing.
The latest shift arrived this week after a federal trade court ruled that the current centerpiece of his trade strategy — a 10 percent tax on most imports from around the world — exceeded the president’s authority under the law.
For now, that across-the-board duty remains in place, with an appeal getting underway. Still, the legal battle, which is far from finished, adds to the uncertainty that has plagued businesses and consumers throughout Mr. Trump’s global trade war.
Sorting out the tariffs that currently apply (or don’t) generally has boiled down to tracking the status of a handful of high-stakes lawsuits.
Many of the president’s tariffs — the sky-high rates that he first imposed on what became known as “Liberation Day” last year — were struck down by the Supreme Court in February. The administration has begun the work to refund the money collected under those duties, which totals around $166 billion, and the first checks are expected to arrive as soon as Monday.
This bucket of tariffs includes the country-by-country rates that Mr. Trump first announced to combat the illicit sale of drugs, as well as those he imposed on a “reciprocal” basis in response to what he described as persistent trade imbalances.
Other tariffs applied by Mr. Trump are more legally settled, yet have shifted up or down with some frequency as the White House has sought to accomplish its economic goals — or lessen the consequences of the president’s policies. These include the tariffs that the president applied to products like cars and steel on national security grounds, using a legal provision known as Section 232.
Yet much remains uncertain about Mr. Trump’s next steps, and his tariffs are expected to change considerably — again — in the coming months. Using another set of authorities, known as Section 301, the administration has opened investigations into the trade practices of dozens of countries. Mr. Trump’s goal is to revive the sort of tariffs that he had in place before the Supreme Court sided against him.
At the same time, Mr. Trump has continued to lob new tariff threats against countries, including those in Europe, while promising in general terms to double down on his strategy even in the face of court setbacks.
“We always do it a different way,” Mr. Trump said this week when asked about his latest loss. “We get one ruling, and we do it a different way.”
Politics
Inside the US military playbook to cripple Iran if nuclear talks collapse
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
If negotiations with Iran collapse, the U.S. likely is to move quickly to degrade Tehran’s military capabilities — a campaign analysts say would begin with missile systems, naval assets and command networks before escalating to more controversial targets.
Negotiators are still working toward what officials describe as a preliminary framework agreement — effectively a one-page starting point for broader talks centered on Iran’s nuclear program and potential sanctions relief. But deep mistrust on both sides has left the process fragile, raising the stakes if diplomacy fails.
“We’re not starting at zero,” retired Army Col. Seth Krummrich, a former Joint Staff planner and current Vice President at Global Guardian, told Fox News Digital. “We’re both starting at minus 1,000 because neither side trusts each other at all. This is going to be a pretty hard process going forward.”
That tension was on display Thursday, when a senior U.S. official confirmed American forces struck Iran’s Qeshm port and Bandar Abbas — key locations near the Strait of Hormuz — while insisting the operation did not mark a restart of the war or the end of the ceasefire.
The strike on one of Iran’s oil ports came two days after Iran launched 15 ballistic and cruise missiles at the UAE’s Fujairah Port, drawing anger from Gulf allies. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine said earlier this week the attack did not rise to the level of breaking the ceasefire, describing it as a low-level strike.
President Donald Trump repeatedly has warned that if negotiations collapse, the U.S. could resume bombing Iran — even signaling before the recent ceasefire was implemented that Washington could target the country’s energy infrastructure and key economic assets. But any escalation would likely unfold in phases, beginning with efforts to dismantle Iran’s ability to project force across the region before expanding to more controversial targets.
President Donald Trump has warned repeatedly that if negotiations collapse, the U.S. could resume bombing Iran. (Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
If talks break down, any renewed conflict would likely become a “contest for escalation control,” where Iran seeks to impose costs without provoking regime-threatening retaliation while the U.S. works to strip away Tehran’s remaining leverage, according to retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula.
“The capabilities that would come into focus are the ones Iran uses to generate coercive leverage: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, air defense systems, maritime strike assets, command-and-control networks, IRGC infrastructure, proxy support channels, and nuclear-related facilities,” he said, referring to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“The military objective would be less about punishment and more about denying Iran the tools it uses to escalate,” he said.
“President Trump has all the cards, and he wisely keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales told Fox News Digital. The Pentagon could not immediately be reached for comment.
One early focus could be Iran’s fleet of fast attack boats in the Strait of Hormuz — a central component of Tehran’s ability to threaten global shipping in one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.
RP Newman, a military and terrorism analyst and Marine Corp veteran, said leaving much of that fleet intact during earlier strikes was a mistake.
IRAN’S REMAINING WEAPONS: HOW TEHRAN CAN STILL DISRUPT THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ
“We’ve blown up six of them,” he said. “They’ve got about 400 left.”
The small, fast-moving boats are a key part of Iran’s asymmetric maritime strategy, capable of harassing commercial tankers and U.S. naval forces — and could quickly become a priority target in any renewed campaign.
Much of Iran’s core military structure also remains intact.
INSIDE IRAN’S MILITARY: MISSILES, MILITIAS AND A FORCE BUILT FOR SURVIVAL
Newman said “we’ve only killed less than one percent of IRGC troops,” leaving a large portion of the force still capable of carrying out operations. He estimated the group “numbers between 150 and 190,000.”
But targeting the IRGC is far more complex than eliminating senior leadership.
“They’re not just a group of leaders at the top that you can kill away,” Krummrich said. “Over 47 years it’s percolated down to every level.”
An excavator removes rubble at the site of a strike that destroyed half of the Khorasaniha Synagogue and nearby residential buildings in Tehran, Iran, on April 7, 2026, according to a security official at the scene. (Francisco Seco/AP)
Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies policy institute, said Washington may continue tightening economic pressure before broadening military action, arguing the U.S. should “squeeze them for at least another three to six weeks” before considering more aggressive escalation.
“You could have blown Kharg Island back to smithereens,” Krummrich said, referring to Iran’s primary oil export terminal in the Persian Gulf. “But what the planner said was, no — what we can do is a maritime blockade. It will have the same effect.”
Iran has continued moving crude through covert shipping networks and ship-to-ship transfers, with tanker trackers reporting millions of barrels still reaching markets in recent weeks.
A CIA analysis found Iran may be able to sustain those pressures for another three to four months before facing more severe economic strain, according to a report by The Washington Post.
The question is how far a U.S. campaign could expand if initial pressure fails to force concessions.
Trump has signaled a willingness to go further, warning before the ceasefire that the U.S. could “completely obliterate” Iran’s electric generating plants, oil infrastructure and key export hubs such as Kharg Island if a deal is not reached.
Strikes on the Iranian leadership, the IRGC, and Iranian naval vessels and oil infrastructure have roiled the markets. ( Sasan / Middle East Images / AFP via Getty Images)
“You don’t do that at first,” Montgomery said, describing strikes on dual-use infrastructure as a conditional step dependent on Iran’s response.
Targeting dual-use infrastructure presents significant legal and operational challenges.
“I’ve got 500 people standing on my target. You can’t hit that,” Newman said.
Such decisions carry political and legal risks, particularly given the likelihood of international scrutiny.
Broader infrastructure strikes also could create long-term instability if they push Iran toward internal collapse.
“In the short term, it might help. But in the long term, we’re all going to have to deal with it,” Krummrich said. “Once you pull that lever, you’re basically pushing Iran closer to the edge of the abyss.”
A collapse of state authority could create a failed-state scenario across the Strait of Hormuz, with armed groups, drones and missiles operating unchecked in one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.
Even some of the most discussed military options — such as seizing Iran’s highly enriched uranium — would be extremely difficult to execute.
“That’s much harder than it sounds,” said Montgomery.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Such a mission would likely take months, and require engineers, technicians and heavy excavation equipment, in addition to thousands of U.S. operators providing continuous air coverage.
“When you start to stack that up, that becomes resource intensive and high risk — not even high, extreme risk,” said Krummrich.
-
Health4 minutes agoSingle workout cuts cravings, offering new hope for smokers trying to quit
-
Sports10 minutes agoWings rookie Azzi Fudd sets dubious WNBA record with lowest-scoring debut by top pick
-
Technology16 minutes agoFive data broker opt-out myths that leave retirees exposed
-
Business22 minutes agoMattel investor campaigns to take the company private
-
Entertainment28 minutes agoFCC drops trove of viewer complaints over Bad Bunny’s ‘disgusting’ Super Bowl halftime show
-
Lifestyle34 minutes agoHow to have the best Sunday in L.A., according to Pete Yorn
-
Politics40 minutes agoCalifornia abortion pill suppliers ready with workaround in case of Supreme Court ban
-
Sports52 minutes agoLakers drop Game 3 to Thunder; now one loss from elimination