Is Newsom Trying to Make Stephen Miller the Next Charlie Kirk?
His latest target is Stephen Miller … Brilliant, fiery, and exceptionally articulate, Miller is among Trump’s most effective messengers. Therefore, he must be stopped.
The Democrats’ strategy of painting President Donald Trump as a fascist whose victory would pose a threat to “our democracy” pushed two deranged men to take matters into their own hands last summer. Likewise, a similar campaign against Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk spurred an unhinged young man to assassinate him during a speaking event at Utah Valley University earlier this month. A towering figure in the conservative movement, his murder sent shockwaves through the Right and ignited outrage across the country.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots between the Left’s dangerous rhetoric and the spate of violence that has rocked the U.S. in recent months. It is undeniable that apocalyptic language from political leaders can push unstable individuals toward violence.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has already kicked off his campaign for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, has decided the best way to capture voters’ attention is by emulating Trump’s bombastic social media playbook.
His latest target is Stephen Miller — the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and U.S. homeland security adviser. Brilliant, fiery, and exceptionally articulate, Miller is among Trump’s most effective messengers. Therefore, he must be stopped.
On Friday, Newsom’s press office tweeted, “STEPHEN MILLER IS A FASCIST!”
STEPHEN MILLER IS A FASCIST!
— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) September 27, 2025
This followed an earlier post in which he called Miller “Submissive Stephen,” adding (“SS”) in case readers somehow missed the analogy. Newsom blasted the Trump administration for “terrorizing Americans” and touted California’s new law requiring ICE agents to unmask.
It read:
MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT “SUBMISSIVE STEPHEN” (“SS”) MILLER IS THROWING THE BIGGEST, MOST PATHETIC “TANTRUM” IN THE ENTIRE WEST WING. CRYING, STOMPING, WAILING, “OUR QUOTAS! OUR ARRESTS OF CHILDREN! HOW WILL WE SURVIVE WITHOUT RAIDING THE INNOCENT?!” HIS TANTRUM WAS SO LOUD IT TRIGGERED A SMALL EARTHQUAKE IN SAN FRANCISCO (SCIENTISTS ARE CALLING IT THE “MILLER QUAKE”). HE IS FURIOUS THAT I, GAVIN C. NEWSOM (THE REAL LEADER OF AMERICA), JUST SIGNED BEAUTIFUL NEW LAWS TO HOLD TRUMP’S SECRET POLICE ACCOUNTABLE: NO MASKS, NO RAIDS IN OUR SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS. KIDS, TEACHERS, NURSES ARE SAFE AGAIN BECAUSE OF ME! “SS” MILLER IS NOW GROUNDED. NO JUICE BOX. NO CARTOONS. WHEN YOU’RE READY TO STOP TERRORIZING AMERICANS, STEPHEN, YOUR DADDY (ME!) MIGHT UNGROUND YOU. UNTIL THEN, IT’S “TIME OUT.” YOU ARE WELCOME, AMERICA! — GCN
MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT “SUBMISSIVE STEPHEN” (“SS”) MILLER IS THROWING THE BIGGEST, MOST PATHETIC “TANTRUM” IN THE ENTIRE WEST WING. CRYING, STOMPING, WAILING, “OUR QUOTAS! OUR ARRESTS OF CHILDREN! HOW WILL WE SURVIVE WITHOUT RAIDING THE INNOCENT?!” HIS TANTRUM WAS SO LOUD IT…
— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) September 22, 2025
The first post garnered 27.6 million views on X, and the latter, 2.6 million. Given the account’s massive reach, the odds that these messages will be construed as a call to action are high. And, as the account continues to churn out posts, the risk that an unstable individual will act only grows.
Replies to Newsom’s posts show that the messages are resonating. One X user adds a few more targets to the list, including FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, Elon Musk, and Trump.
Terrorists pic.twitter.com/DvET4IVlGf
— Marcopolo🇺🇸 (@brickstocker) September 22, 2025
Another reinforces Newsom’s narrative with a grotesque meme that depicts Miller as a Nazi official.
— thousandfoldthought (@smithchadwick) September 23, 2025
Well aware that propaganda can shape political behavior, Newsom is playing with fire in using this rhetoric. It’s not hyperbole to suggest he is promoting violence against his political opponents, as the user below points out.
This is reprehensible and irresponsible. .@GavinNewsom is promoting violence against his political opponents. pic.twitter.com/lhmw5prBUW
— SMD (@smdowner) September 27, 2025
Another user notes that “Democrats have reached the ‘murder your political opponents stage’ of democracy.”
We see you and we know what you are doing. pic.twitter.com/7mDJCt6As6
— Cassie Cynical🐩 (@TuckerPoodleMA) September 27, 2025
Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) said Newsom’s post “reaches the threshold of domestic terrorism. This is no longer ‘inflammatory’, it is criminal.”
At this point, this reaches the threshold of domestic terrorism.
This is no longer “inflammatory”, it is criminal.
18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions
No one is above the law, @CAgovernor https://t.co/oY0neqO638 pic.twitter.com/DauIA553zV
— Derrick Van Orden (@derrickvanorden) September 27, 2025
Coming on the heels of two attempts to silence Trump, the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the anti-ICE riots, the murders of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, D.C., the attacks on Tesla dealerships, Tesla drivers, and the vehicles themselves, and the political assassination of Charlie Kirk, Newsom’s reckless remarks tell me he’s aware his party is losing the political debate and that he’s upping the ante to violence.
Should some lunatic take a shot at Miller, the governor will have blood on his hands.
Important to recognize that the left can’t even take two weeks between an assassination and calling for the next assassination
Newsom is demanding the lynching of a government official https://t.co/l82iUjzbCb
— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) September 28, 2025
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Vile crone, Pelosi, tried this wretched and slanderous tactic, during #47’s first term. This miserable harridan actually possessed the brazen and contemptible gall to slander Miller, an American Jew, as an alleged “white supremacist.” That’s the level of intellectual stupidity we’re dealing with, here.
Now, years later, other, similarly vile, stupid and evil Dhimmi-crats are now brazenly making Nazi-invoking insults towards Miller, echoing their similar slanders and vilification that they’ve slung at Israeli Jews.
Disgusting
Gov Newsom is just practicing his dog whistle. It really excites his base.
Makes sense. His base seem to be the only ones who can hear those things.
And it will get Mr Miller assassinated
Not on its own it won’t. For it to have any effect, someone must be persuaded and make his own decision to act. And that makes it entirely that person’s crime, not that of the one who put the ideas in his head.
As Charlie KIrk said, freedom is worth more than lives.
Until defenders of this has a bullet in the neck.
Do you think that bullet changed his mind?! He still exists, and I’m sure he still has the same opinion about freedom. If it costs lives, it’s worth it.
If our civil liberties weren’t worth more than lives then we wouldn’t have any, because our ancestors would not have fought to establish and preserve them. And if our civil liberties weren’t worth more than lives then we could easily save hundreds or thousands of lives a year by ignoring the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments. But we don’t, because we understand that the lives that would be saved by doing so are worth less than the freedoms we’d be giving up.
Given the mental instability, malignant narcissism and rabid ideological fanaticism that are pervasive among the Dhimmi-crat base/street, the bar for what qualifies as incitement has been substantially lowered. Prominent Dhimmi-crat apparatchiks holding positions as governors or U.S. Senators and perennially invoking dehumanizing and vilifying rhetoric to slander conservative politicians and supporting personnel as an alleged existential threat to American democracy, certainly qualifies.
No, the definition of incitement has not changed. It can’t change, because any change would simply make the laws against it invalid.
Incitement consists of speech that is (1) subjectively intended, and (2) objectively likely, to cause its audience to lose their minds and (3) imminently commit a crime, as the direct result of that speech.
In other words it whips up its audience’s emotions and temporarily robs them of free will; it turns them into zombies who act as they’re told, without ever making a conscious decision to do so. It’s like putting a gun in someone’s hand, folding his hand around it, putting his finger on the trigger, and squeezing the finger, all while he’s frozen and not processing. In such a case, of course, you are the criminal, not him. He was merely the tool you used, just like the gun itself. That’s what incitement is like, and that’s why it’s not part of the unalienable freedom of speech with which we’re endowed by our Creator.
Anything short of that is not incitement. Anything that leaves the audience free to make its own decisions is not incitement. Even explicitly advocating criminal activity is not incitement so long as all it can do is persuade people who can then make their own decisions.
So if a modern day antisemite, whose words previously resulted in riots,said the Jews of Brooklyn must be punished — and a new Crown Heights riot on steroids ensued the inciter would be protected by Branderberg????
Absolutely, just as he was the first time. The only person convicted of incitement in that riot was caught on film shouting “Kill the Jew” at the very scene of the murder. His defense had been that he had shouted it half an hour earlier and several blocks away, so it was not imminent; the film showed that he repeated it at the scene.
I think it is clear Newsom has had some sort of mental breakdown and is now trying to kill everyone he can in the Trump administration. This has been going on a couple weeks and is driven in part by the immature, mentally unstable tweet team he maintains as well as other staffers of questionable mental stability. This is compounded by the fact he is a complete operational failure as a governor. A monumental incompetent whose failures are magnified by Washington’s unwillingness to play along with his fiscally irresponsible governance as Biden and his masters did.
“Should some lunatic take a shot at Miller, the governor will have blood on his hands.”
He doesn’t care.
Maybe if it were suggested to the Guv that whatever happens to Miller, might just happen to himself, he would gain insight to his shortsightedness
No he’d considered that a threat. Odds are a dead Jew is fine, a dead him is intolerable.
The fact that Miller’s Jewish isn’t relevant.
It becomes relevant when an entire wing of the Democrat Party is Anti-Semitic.
Nope, in his mind, it would increase his street cred. Of course, he would want it to be only a mean looking flesh wound…………………………..just enough for a Bronx party hat……………..
I suspect that he is reveling in the prospect.
Subotai Bahadur
When do real Americans get to defend themselves from the fascist democrats who project their own vicious thirst to murder conservatives?
Perhaps we can take to the streets like the Brownshirts attacking our federal officers?
When do we get to help defend the defenders?
When do we get to stand up to the Gavin Newsoms, the kneegrow idiots who pretend to be representative of their constituents, the bloodthirsty voters who put theses people into office?
Do we spend our days looking over our shoulders while gong to church? To school? Shopping?
When Democrats don’t get their way, they attack, they burn, they murder. We are only supposed to capitulate.
We are not safe from any democrats. Whether voter or elected, THEY MEAN TO KILL US.
Listen to what they say.
There will come a day. But it will be defense, not murder.
here in Maryland, I do believe that the law allows the use of deadly force to defend another from severe bodily harm ofr a life threatening event
That’s the law in every state. It’s a useful law but not a panacea. There was no deadly force anyone could have used that would have saved Charlie Kirk, because no one could have known what was going to happen until it did, and the shooter didn’t stick around to try to shoot anyone else. Had he kept firing on the crowd, armed spectators could have shot him with no fear of the law.
After the first attempt on Trump’s life, many questioned why LE didn’t engage the shooter earlier, before he fired. It was considered a lapse for them to have not shot the assassin. If LE officers can detect a credible threat to the life of a person, and shoot pre-emptively, citizens can do the same. Police exercise our authority to enforce the law in our stead. They have no authority we do not have ourselves. Even the authority they get from the State ultimately comes from the people. There is no power the state wields that doesn’t come from the people. To suggest otherwise is to say this power or that authority is solely that of the state and that the state arrogated it to itself, there being no other authority from which the power could have come from if it didn’t come from the people.
Credible threat is harder to recognise and prove for a random civilian than a LEO.
I think in the case of Butler, “earlier” meant before he took his second, or third, or even fourth shot, not his first.
In Butler there was sufficient reason for them to have engaged him even before his first shot. At Utah Valley there was nothing. There was no secret service watching the guy. No one knew what he was going to do. And he didn’t stick around for a second shot.
“Credible threat is harder to recognise and prove for a random civilian than a LEO.”
Random, perhaps. But the truth is that a courtroom will always give an LEO greater leeway than a civilian. They will always defer to his “expertise” as more definitive than yours, despite him possibly not being able to hit the side of a barn from inside it.
College campus, gun-free zone. There were no armed spectators
Not true. It was not a gun-free zone, and there surely were armed spectators. But there was no threat until the shot, and there was no threat after the shot, so unfortunately there was nothing for them to do.
Sounds like the same “call to violence” from Newsom. Or worse, since this is targeting an entire class of millions of people.
Rep. Derrick Van Orden needs to be sat down and made to write out the first amendment one hundred times. No matter how inflammatory these tweets are, they cannot ever be made criminal. If you have read a statute as implying they are criminal then either you have misread it (as is the case here) or it’s not a valid statute.
In this case he has deliberately misread it, because it’s impossible to read the text he quoted without noticing that it specifically requires (1) acts, not speech; (2) that are dangerous to human life, which speech is not; (3) that are already federal or state crimes, which speech isn’t and can’t be.
wrong again! If a tweet suggests or urges the performance of a criminal act, it becomes illegal and arrest able
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/massachusetts-man-arrested-making-violent-threats-against-officials-private-individuals
You need to sit down with the constitution too. It is absolutely protected speech to advocate absolutely anything, including criminal acts, up to and including the president’s assassination, and the violent overthrow of the United States.
No state can make it a crime, and neither can Congress. Any statute that purports to criminalize such advocacy is automatically invalid, and any policeman who tries to enforce such a law is himself a criminal, and subject to a civil rights lawsuit with no qualified
immunity.
The person you reference did not “suggest”, “urge”, or “advocate” criminal acts, he made actual credible threats. He explicitly said he would kill those people, and he said it in a way that would make any reasonable person think that he had both the intent and the means to actually do so.
That is not protected speech, and therefore can be and has been made a crime. But those are the criteria. It must be an actual literal threat, and it must be credible.
FIRE!!!!!!!’
FIRE IN THE THEATER!!!!!!!!!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!
FIRE IN THE THEATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I really hate that argument. It is nearly never qualified with “falsely crying ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.” The reason it’s legal to cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater is because the theater may be on fire. Disturbing the peace by causing false alarm is not protected speech, because it’s meant to cause confusion, consternation, fear, and possibly physical harm. It is illegal to falsely cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater when the purpose is to incite panic and alarm, because causing unnecessary panic and alarm, at least, disturbs the peace.
Citing Holmes’s disgusting dicta, in a disgusting decision that the Supreme Court has by now thoroughly repudiated, and is not law at all, only serves to discredit whoever cites it.
Holmes wrote that since no one would object to punishing someone for falsely crying fire in a theater and causing a panic, therefore no one can object either to throwing someone in prison for protesting against the draft. If you cite his argument, you are endorsing that position. And that makes you an enemy of the US constitution.
Schenck was a low point in SCOTUS’s history, a decision that shames it. No part of Schenck is now law. People are free to protest the draft, or anything else they want. And thank God for that.
And that includes all advocacy, regardless of what. It also includes calling people names, including “fascist”, regardless of what some crazy person might be triggered to do. It even includes lies. And it even includes “threats” that are not “true threats”, i..e. statements phrased as threats but that no reasonable person would think were likely to be carried out. The only exceptions the law recognizes are incitement and “true threats”, both of which are defined very narrowly.
Ken White (Popehat): Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough
“Holmes’ quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”
It’s not illegal, Nor is saying that if someone goes after Newsome, I hope they get him.
Exactly.
No you need to
Another person who needs remedial constitutional education. “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”.
“Mere advocacy” is always protected. And that trumps any statute.
I thought Josef Goebbels committed suicide in the Furher Bunker. Little did I know he survived and is now employed by Newscum.
Nah, he’s posting here as Milhouse
Go take a long walk off a short pier, you disgusting piece of filth. How dare you?
The Democrats are full of dead wood and dry rot. Remember, California can’t even save water in a reservoir.
Recall that Newsom had a video of him telling people to punch us in the face. Democrats have gone full Big Brother. Sadly we cannot even debate them and their reality assaulting ideas. Violence is now in the table. Anyone who disagrees with them on ideas and policy is a fascist in their minds. Newsom needs to held accountable, and the nitwits running his social media.
Perhaps veterans can employ the same level of effort on Antifa thugs as they did to unalive undesirables in their country.
As I have written before:
Want to know why Charlie Kirk was murdered? Because when there was rioting in Kenosha, and Kyle Rittenhouse showed up with an AR-15, 1,000 Kenoshans didn’t show up with their own AR-15s to help him defend their own city. That’s why we are in our current situation.
A show of force, at least, is necessary to put our relative strengths into perspective. The Left currently believes it has a monopoly on violence. Somehow, they must receive the message that they are mistaken.
Do the Godfather thing.
Tell Newsom that we’re holding him responsible for seeing to Miller’s health and safety from this day forward.
Because if anything happens to Miller from now on, the same will happen to him.
Giving fuel to the fire helps?
How about we just start discussing shutting down excess military bases in California and write a bill for next year that reduces Salt Deductions back to 2024 levels.
Toothless threats are useless.
Not adding fuel. Just changing the direction of the wind.
The fire is already burning. Have any ideas how to put it out? If you can’t put it out, standard fire fighting procedure is to redirect the fire so as to protect what you wish to protect and/or towards something for which you don’t have a care if it burns.
Toothless threats that aren’t known to be toothless may still instill fear, and, hopefully, better behavior on the part of those made fearful.
At issue is the legal standard for incitement (The standard you could hold someone legally accountable) is extremely high. Newsome isn’t anywhere close to it by any stretch of the imagination which is part of what makes this so disgusting.
At absolute best Newsome reads a letter saying he will be held accountable talks to a lawyer to confirm what he already knows and laughs outload.
There are ways we could start holding California leftists accountable (i.e. why are we performing protectionism for California leftists like Blizzard Entertainment who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination against Japanese corporations that strongly condemned it?) that will actually hit them where it hurts.
A toothless threat that can only be toothless however invites contempt at best and is highly counterproductive at worst.
If Newsom cared about people f*ing up his state, he wouldn’t do so much of it himself.
Democrat rules — Alinsky: “PERSONALIZE and polarize.”
Don’t threaten his state. Threaten HIM.
He has access to lawyers he knows which threats can only be toothless and what we could act on.
There is nothing in the law books that says we need to tariff competition to California’s movie or video game industry. The law however is very clear on how high a standard legal incitement is and he is nowhere close.
You could say
“Danny deserves to die he doesn’t deserve life” for example. To be legal incitement takes a lot more than the possibility someone will take up the incitement and act on it.
A good place to start as a reaction is stop trying to save Hollywood under increasingly ridiculous rhetoric about national security.
Same goes for video games made in California. Why would anyone want young Americans to be swayed by woke trash from Bethesda (which celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death) or Blizzard (which also celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death) instead of non-woke and sometimes educational games from Japan?
There are easy retaliations we could do (i.e. no more tariffs to protect Hollywood or woke gaming companies that are struggling because young men ignore them).
Lots of back and forth disagreements here. Can we ALL agree however, Newsom is a complete a-hole.
He’s no worse than ironclaw. Both like to falsely accuse people of nazism.
What Newsom and other leftist politicians, leaders, influencers and their ideological allies in media are doing here with their dangerous and often violent rhetoric is incredibly harmful. It very much fits the definition of ‘stochastic terrorism’.
Their insistence on continued use of such rhetoric and labeling of their opponents as ‘nazi, fascist, racists, totalitarian and all the other accusations of ‘ists, isms and phobes’ is designed to inflame their base. Some on the left take in the violent messages and false framing and act on it. Some with harassment. Some with criminal acts of stalking ICE agents, impeding Federal LEO operations or laying siege to Federal Buildings as in Portland.
A very few engage in actual violence by committing battery on Federal LEO and a, so far, miniscule number seek to kill federal LEO and those on the center/right whom these leftist loons have been told are evil. That’s the end result and objective of stochastic terrorism; to use false framing to strip away the humanity of opponents, to demonize them, to make it ‘acceptable’ to harass, harm or even kill them.
The issue is there’s not a good way to reform our legal system to account for this vile speech without undermining to some extent our 1A protection. IMO it could be done by those of good faith using neutral criteria and a non ideological implication. The problem there is once passed the future holds no guarantee it won’t be misused on a partisan basis, just as the Patriot Act provision have been misused. Imagine the Biden Admin goons with the legal authority to bring charges against their political opponents instead of just abusing the general regulatory and tax power they brought to bear against social media.
The answer is gonna be in casting out, shunning the folks who do this. When a congressman does it the Trump WH should reject any/all interaction with that congressman. No invitation to the WH, no signing any legislation sponsored by them. If the d/prog select such a person as their congressional leaders …sucks to be them, refuse to negotiate with them. Same for media and institutions; shun them. No access, no funding. Go after the tax free status of the NGO or other entities who fund or sponsor the street level goons who act on the stochastic terrorism. People and institutions can certainly express a vile opinion but taxpayers are not obliged to underwrite it.
Rhetorical question.
Is Noisome trying to be a Trump Mini-me? Risible.
Nasty words have nasty consequences for many, including the speaker. But Americans are supposed to have Freedom of Speech!
A lot of people here endorsing the Woke Left’s concept of “stochastic terrorism”. “Fight like the Left”, indeed.
If you are so hell bent on crushing your political enemies that you are willing to burn it all down, including apparently the 1st Amendment, then you are the bad guy.
Let’s all be bad guys.
I’ve run out of cheeks.
If you want to keep spinning your head, you do you.
In war, the rules change. This is war.
Nah. Calling a spade a spade isn’t wrong, especially when the terms and definitions were provided by our opponents and applied to us in order to shame, silence, suppress and in some cases investigate. If they didn’t want or you didn’t want a ‘turnabout is fair play’ scenario then y’all should have sounded the alarm far earlier and far more effectively to have prevented the leftists from their first use of these tactics.
Adopting the tactics of your opponent in response to their first use is an important and necessary step towards ending the use of controversial tactics. It is sometimes necessary to demonstrate to the opposition that you are capable of being as deliberately ruthless as they are in order to mitigate their continued use of the tactic and to hopefully deter their employment of even more distasteful tactics. Once your opponent understands you are unwilling to keep within the rules when they are breaking them and are very willing to fight just as dirty as them, they often stop doing so. Incentives matter.
As George Carlin observed, “Did you ever notice that the guy who says ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ is always the guy who committed the first wrong?”