How Stephen Miller’s Rhetoric Strikingly Echoes Joseph Goebbels’ Propaganda Tactics
History offers many lessons on the dangers of toxic rhetoric and propaganda used to manipulate public opinion, scapegoat vulnerable groups, and consolidate power. One disturbing parallel in recent American politics is the way Stephen Miller, a chief architect of Trump-era immigration policies, employs rhetoric and messaging strategies that recall those used by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi regime’s infamous Minister of Propaganda.
While it is essential to recognize the vast differences in context, scope, and consequences between Miller’s actions and those of Goebbels, examining the striking similarities in their communication tactics sheds light on the dangerous power of propaganda.
1. Crafting a Villainous ‘Other’
Goebbels was a master at demonizing Jewish people, communists, and other marginalized groups to unite Germans under a hateful, exclusionary nationalism. Miller similarly built narratives painting immigrants, especially from Latin America and Muslim-majority countries, as existential threats to the American way of life—criminals, terrorists, and job stealers.
This creation of a threatening “other” stokes fear, division, and hostility, enabling harsh policies and societal acceptance of cruelty.
2. Manipulating Fear to Justify Harsh Policies
Both used fear as a central tool: Goebbels warned of communist uprisings and racial “degeneration,” while Miller amplified fears of crime, terrorism, and cultural loss. These fears justified extreme and often inhumane policies—concentration camps then, family separation and detention centers now.
3. Use of Repetition and Simple Messaging
Goebbels understood that repeated simple slogans and messages embed themselves deeply in public consciousness. Miller’s use of repetitive slogans like “Build the Wall,” “Zero Tolerance,” and “Law and Order” echoed this approach, creating clear, emotionally charged rallying cries that bypass critical analysis.
4. Control Over Media Narratives
Goebbels controlled Nazi Germany’s media to shape narratives and suppress dissenting voices. While Miller doesn’t control media, his role in influencing White House messaging and coordinating with sympathetic media outlets helped amplify his messages and marginalize opposing views.
5. Demonizing the Press and Undermining Truth
Goebbels labeled independent media as “enemies of the state.” Miller and his allies frequently called mainstream media “fake news,” fostering distrust and confusion, which weakens democratic accountability and allows misinformation to spread unchecked.
6. Appealing to Nationalism and Identity
Both propagated an exclusionary nationalism rooted in racial or cultural purity—Goebbels’ Aryan ideal and Miller’s “America First” ethos. This appeal creates an in-group/out-group mentality, justifying discrimination and policy brutality.
7. Targeting Vulnerable Populations for Political Gain
The scapegoating of vulnerable groups serves to divert attention from systemic issues. Goebbels did this to rally support during economic hardship. Miller similarly capitalized on economic anxieties and cultural fears to push aggressive immigration restrictions.
8. Dehumanization Through Language
Dehumanizing language—referring to people as “vermin,” “criminals,” or “invaders”—makes cruelty easier to accept. Miller’s use of terms like “illegal aliens” and the framing of immigrants as a “flood” echoes this tactic, reducing empathy and normalizing harsh enforcement.
9. Creating a Siege Mentality
Goebbels portrayed Germany as surrounded by enemies needing defense at all costs. Miller’s rhetoric suggested America was under siege by foreign invaders, necessitating zero-tolerance policies and aggressive border control.
10. Mobilizing Youth and Grassroots Support
Both figures mobilized passionate supporters, especially among youth and marginalized groups seeking belonging. While Goebbels had the Hitler Youth, Miller engaged nationalist student groups and grassroots activists, fueling a loyal political base.
Final Thoughts
While Stephen Miller is not Joseph Goebbels—nor does the United States face the same existential threat Nazi Germany did—the resemblance in propaganda style and rhetorical tactics is striking and troubling. It serves as a cautionary tale of how hate-fueled messaging can poison public discourse, justify cruelty, and erode democratic norms.
Understanding these parallels is essential to recognizing and resisting dangerous propaganda in all its forms—past and present.