In a pointed critique, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg addressed the views expressed by Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor, regarding the nature of international relations. Miller has asserted that global interactions are fundamentally dictated by strength, force, and power, which he terms the "iron laws of the world". Buttigieg has responded with strong opposition to this stance, emphasizing that such a perspective disregards the critical role of principles and governance frameworks in shaping global affairs.
Miller, in a video shared on the social media platform X, contended that the United States exerts control over Venezuela and declared that this dynamic reflects an enduring global reality. He stated, "We live in a world governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power," labeling these forces as immutable since the dawn of time. This viewpoint frames international relations narrowly as a zero-sum struggle where only power prevails.
Buttigieg sharply countered this outlook, dismissing it as fundamentally flawed and dangerous. He called it "bullshit" and a deviation from the ideals the United States has strived to uphold. According to Buttigieg, one of America's key historical achievements has been leading a transition toward a world in which "values and rules matter at least as much as brute force." He warned that permitting ideologues who subscribe to Miller's philosophy to dictate policy would erode US safety by reverting to an approach solely centered on coercion.
Articulating an alternative path, Buttigieg underscored the importance of maintaining international norms, engaging in diplomacy, and supporting a rule-based global order. He stated emphatically that a reliance on raw power need not dictate US foreign policy, and that America’s commitment to principles can and should shape its global engagements.
The debate around Miller's influence comes amid ongoing critiques of recent US strategy toward Venezuela. Earlier in the week, former national security adviser John Bolton expressed concerns over the Trump administration's approach. Bolton suggested that the administration misinterpreted Venezuela's situation following Nicolás Maduro's tenure, arguing that removing Maduro has not dismantled the underlying regime. He also censured the administration for failing to adequately support the Venezuelan opposition, thus inadvertently conferring legitimacy on Maduro-era officials. Bolton characterized President Trump's understanding of Venezuela’s leadership transition as "very confused."
Similarly, former US envoy Richard Haass analyzed the motivations behind Trump's Venezuela policy, observing that economic interests, particularly relating to oil reserves, have played a significant role. Haass highlighted Trump's numerous references to Venezuela’s oil — citing the president mentioning it 83 times — and pointed out planned US investments aimed at rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. This suggested that access to oil resources factored prominently into the administration's decisions.
These differing perspectives illustrate the broader debate over how the US should project its influence internationally. In summary, Buttigieg’s critique confronts a force-centric worldview that Miller advocates, promoting instead a vision where diplomacy, international law, and shared values underpin American foreign policy. This discussion reflects the ongoing tension between realpolitik and idealism in managing global affairs.
Given the current administration's strategies and the roles played by key advisors, the evolving US approach will bear significant implications for national security and global stability.