Stephen Miller’s Absence in Crisis Response Raises Questions as Oil Prices Surge

Oil prices have surged back above $110 a barrel, nearing levels last seen during the Iran war, as the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz remains unresolved. Meanwhile, the White House’s response to the recent attempted mass shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner has taken an unexpected turn—one notably devoid of Stephen Miller, a key architect of past hardline responses.

In the wake of the attack, the White House and Capitol Hill have focused on two immediate demands. First, the Trump administration and Justice Department have insisted that all legal efforts to block the construction of the president’s long-sought East Wing ballroom must cease immediately. Some Republican lawmakers have even called for Congress to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the project, despite Trump’s prior claims that it would be privately financed.

The second demand targets ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, who had joked two nights before the attack that First Lady Melania Trump had “a glow like an expectant widow.” Both Trumps accused Kimmel of making “a despicable call to violence” and demanded his immediate firing, with Melania writing, “People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. It is time for ABC to take a stand.”

Kimmel responded on his show, clarifying that his remarks were a lighthearted, age-gap joke about the president’s much younger third wife—not a call for violence.

Miller’s Absence Stands Out

Of greater significance than these political skirmishes is the absence of Stephen Miller, who played a pivotal role in past crisis responses. After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last year, Miller emerged as the public face of a sweeping “whole-of-government mobilization” against what the administration described as “domestic terrorism” from the political left.

Miller’s presence was ubiquitous in the days following Kirk’s killing, dominating discussions on X (formerly Twitter) and cable news with his fiery, apocalyptic rhetoric. As The Bulwark noted at the time:

“Last Thursday morning, less than 24 hours after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Stephen Miller took to X to declare that ‘the gloves are off’ and that the administration would pursue a ‘total war’ on the left.”

Yet, in the current crisis, Miller has been conspicuously absent from the public response. His absence raises questions about the administration’s strategy—or lack thereof—as oil prices climb and geopolitical tensions escalate.

Contrasting Responses: Kirk’s Assassination vs. the WHCD Attack

The contrast between the two events is stark. After Kirk’s assassination, the White House swiftly framed the killing as an act of “domestic terrorism” and mobilized a coordinated response. Miller’s leadership was central to this effort, which included aggressive rhetoric, policy proposals, and a push for legislative action.

In the case of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner attack, however, the response has been fragmented and largely symbolic. The focus on the East Wing ballroom and Jimmy Kimmel, while politically charged, lacks the urgency and scope of the post-Kirk mobilization. There has been no public declaration of a “whole-of-government” effort, nor has Miller taken a leading role in framing the administration’s response.

As the Strait of Hormuz crisis deepens and oil prices remain volatile, the absence of Miller’s decisive leadership is increasingly noticeable. Whether this signals a shift in strategy or simply a momentary gap remains to be seen—but for now, the White House’s response feels uncharacteristically subdued.