The White House’s succession plan for Venezuela could see Stephen Miller deciding the country’s future.

Donald Trump is reportedly “weighing” whether to tap the notoriously anti-immigrant deputy chief of staff to oversee Venezuela in the coming months, according to at least one insider that spoke with The Washington Post.

Miller played a central role in U.S. efforts to oust Venezuela’s leader Nicolás Maduro. That plan came to a head late Friday, when U.S. military forces successfully captured Maduro, hauling him back to Manhattan on narco-terrorism charges.

Maduro’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has since been recognized by Venezuela’s armed forces as its interim leader, taking control as acting president in Maduro’s absence. She swore in on Monday.

In the meantime, Trump has seized the country’s oil reserves—the largest in the world—and told reporters he intends to “run” Venezuela.

That decision, in turn, could hand Miller outsize influence regarding the future of the country. Miller might be tasked with the day-to-day, nitty-gritty responsibilities of supervising the regime change under the office of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Rubio, a longtime Venezuela hawk, would be the more obvious choice to oversee the regime change—but his schedule is, unfortunately, already backed up. The Trump administration has tapped Rubio to serve not only as secretary of state but also as its national security adviser since Trump’s last pick—Mike Waltz—accidentally admitted journalists into a classified Signal group chat discussing an imminent bombing in Yemen.

Miller would not come without his own policy experience, however. The 40-year-old Californian was an architect of both Project 2025 and the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies, pushing on seemingly impossible deportation goals (upward of 3,000 detentions per day), which have forced ICE agents to harass and harangue noncriminal immigrants and U.S. citizens.

Miller was deeply involved in efforts to spark a new war on drugs, fixating on Mexican cartels and Mexico’s alleged drug traffickers. But when that fell through, Miller shifted his gaze to Venezuela, leading the charge on a classified directive in July that would lay the groundwork for months of airstrikes against small watercraft in the Caribbean, inciting new tensions between the U.S. and its supposedly new puppet state.

President Donald Trump’s imperialist warpath may be about to destroy NATO. 

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned Monday that Trump was on course to uproot the 77-year-old defense alliance between the United States and its allies in Europe. 

“I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says that he wants Greenland,” Frederiksen said in an interview. “But I will also make it clear that if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”

Frederiksen’s attempt to raise the stakes of a potential invasion comes as the imperialist fanatics in the Trump administration—emboldened by its large-scale military operation over the weekend to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—have turned their attention back to Trump’s holy grail: Greenland. 

When asked by a reporter Sunday whether he had plans to take action on Greenland, Trump laughed. “We’ll worry about Greenland in two months,” he said. 

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. And Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I’m telling you,” he added.  

Frederiksen released a statement that day urging the United States to “cease its threats against a historically close ally,” saying that it “makes absolutely no sense” for the U.S. to take over Greenland.

To be sure, Trump has rarely ever had anything nice to say about the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, calling them “decaying” nations led by “weak” people. Instead, Trump seems to take his security cues from the Kremlin. His latest effort to carve up the world how he sees fit only further exemplifies how little he cares about keeping U.S. allies.

After the United States kidnapped their president and bombed their capital, Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz swears that “there is no war in Venezuela.”

“As Secretary Rubio has said, there is no war against Venezuela or its people. We are not occupying a country. This was a law enforcement operation in furtherance of lawful indictments that have existed for decades. The United States arrested a narco-trafficker who is now going to stand trial in the United States,” Waltz said at an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council on Monday.

If this was just a simple “law enforcement operation,” then why the bombs? Why would the Trump administration consult U.S. oil companies prior to the kidnapping of Maduro? Why would Trump say outright that the U.S.

© New Republic