Last week voters across the country rejected Republican politicians and the Trump administration’s agenda. Democrats gained control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate — nabbing historic pickups in Republican strongholds such as Kansas, South Carolina and Texas.
Notably, Latino voters turned their back on Republicans after giving Donald Trump 48% of the vote in 2024. A New York Times voter analysis found that Latino voters shifted 29 points toward Democrats between 2024 and 2026, compared with a 15-point shift among voters overall.
After the monumental about-face, President Trump processed the defeat by blaming everyone around him for the blue tsunami.
After Trump-endorsed candidates lost pivotal Senate seats, the president posted on social media, “I wasn’t on the Ballot and if I was, we would have won IN A LANDSLIDE!”
The resignation of White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles last week was perhaps the most telling move about how Trump plans to deal with Republican losses nationwide. Wiles was promptly replaced with far-right advisor Stephen Miller, who previously served as the deputy chief of staff.
“I wanted to make a change,” Trump told reporters Nov. 6. “I think Susie’s done a very good job. … Stephen’s been great and we’ve got to make moves.”
Political observers now fear the appointment signals Trump will double down on an agenda that has alienated broad swaths of voters, including Latinos, who were among the most targeted demographic in the administration’s campaign of aggressive immigration enforcement spearheaded by Miller.
To better understand what Miller’s promotion will mean for the president’s future plans, The Times spoke with New York Times contributing writer and USC associate professor of journalism Jean Guerrero, who literally wrote the book on Miller.
Her 2020 book, “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, and the White Nationalist Agenda,” examined Miller’s upbringing, the political forces that shaped his ideologies and the origins of his anti-immigrant policies.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
With the big news of this election cycle being that Latinos turned their back on Trump, do you see the appointment of Stephen Miller as an act of revenge by Trump? What do you think he’s trying to signal for his agenda over the next two years with this promotion?
I think he’s trying to signal that he plans to double down on talking down on Latino and immigrant communities because [Trump and his allies] need the war on immigrants to continue their war on the working classes, which is what this is all about.
The general public is fed up with this administration because of how de-prioritized working families have been, and that’s across the board: white, Latino, Black, Asian. The war on immigrants is central to that de-prioritization because by criminalizing a sector of the population and keeping [them] in the shadows and in fear, they are able to suppress wages for the entire working class and they’re able to keep immigrants from being able to organize with their citizen co-workers in the workplace.
What do you think we can expect to happen to immigrant Latino communities specifically under this era of Stephen Miller?
I think what we’re going to see is an extreme expansion of the war on immigrant communities and their allies specifically. That is going to disproportionately target U.S. citizen Latinos — using what power and privilege they’ve been able to accumulate through the sacrifices of their parents and grandparents — who are at the front lines of defending their community members.
Your book discussed how Miller’s high school years helped shape his anti-immigrant, anti-Latino sentiment and how that seems to have stemmed a bit from going to a public school in Santa Monica. Can you talk a little bit about that?
A lot of people get surprised when they learn that Stephen Miller was from Santa Monica, because it’s a liberal enclave, but he is very much a product of the liberal hypocrisy that he witnessed growing up in California. What he witnessed remains true of establishment and corporate Democrats today, which is a professed concern for marginalized communities and performative support for social justice, while completely neglecting to pursue any concrete policies that would make the lives of marginalized communities any better.
One of the ways he exploited that fact to rise in power was by aligning himself with the conservative movement that was growing rapidly in California during the 1990s, led by David Horowitz — a conservative activist in Studio City — who became one of Stephen Miller’s main mentors and who groomed a generation of young conservatives to use the tools and terms of the civil rights movement against the gains of the civil rights movement. Miller learned to perceive multiculturalism and people of color as an existential threat to the U.S.
Do you think that putting Miller in the position of chief of staff is a way for Trump to reposition this war on immigrants as his main thing and to move away from the more economic and cost-of-living concerns that people also seem aggravated by?
They’re going to continue to try to frame immigrants as the enemies of the working classes, which is masterful gaslighting. By doing that, they are ensuring that citizen workers don’t organize alongside immigrants for higher wages, for economic equality. I think the immigration issue is actually at the heart of the economic issues that people are upset about. I say that because you saw the mass deportations affecting things like construction sites, which were left empty of workers, so people who were trying to build housing at a time of housing scarcity were being targeted. You saw farmworkers getting targeted in the fields, which led to higher food prices.
The war on immigrants is a war on the working classes. By doubling down on it, Trump is going to be trying desperately to confuse people into thinking that immigrants are to blame for the economic pain that everybody is feeling. When in reality, the economic pain that everybody is feeling is because of this war on immigrants which is pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into mass surveillance, mass incarceration of people based on their race and language. It is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.
Trump has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth on his immigration messaging. He recently acknowledged that people might have thought he was too tough on immigration, but this appointment of Miller signals that he will be going harder on the issue. What is the calculation there in your view?
He’s trying to exploit the echo chambers, which makes sense for a dear friend of the tech elites for him to know how to do that. He’s hoping that one piece of information will reach one audience and another piece of information will reach the other audience. So the people who are fed up with the war on immigrants will hear him say that he’s scaling it back and they’ll be happy and they’ll support him. The people who love the war on immigrants, which are fewer and fewer every day, will hear about Stephen Miller and get really excited about that. He’s just hoping that the [online] algorithm will work in his favor.
You’ve previously spoken about noticing a shift in Miller’s immigration mindset over the years, can you talk about that change?
During the first administration, he was focused entirely on strangling legal pathways into this country, such as gutting the asylum and refugee systems, and restricting green card access and separating families at the U.S.-Mexico border. All of this geared towards racially reengineering the demographics of this country. During the second administration, he’s done some of that with these mass deportations where he’s directed agents to round people up at worksites and where they’ve been racially profiling people and detaining people based on their skin color and language and blue-collar jobs as opposed to their criminal records.
At the same time, Miller has been one of the most vocal proponents of Trump’s foreign interventions and invasions, which have set the stage for the mass displacement of new refugees and immigrants. Watching Miller be so vocally supportive of these interventions, I realized he had shifted, and that he was no longer primarily motivated by restrictionist ideologies and white nationalist ideologies — it was about class.
Trump and Miller are using the war on immigrants to manufacture and maintain a permanent underclass in the United States, which is something that has been done by many administrations for many generations. But they’ve taken it to an astounding level that has caused an unprecedented amount of economic, spiritual and psychological pain across this country.
With Democrats gaining a bunch of seats in the Senate and the House, and taking control of a bunch of state legislatures, what can they do to potentially minimize Miller’s effect in the White House?
It is imperative that the Democrats use their majorities not only to investigate the crimes against humanity that this administration has been committing, but also to deliver on behalf of working families. At the center of that has to be ending the war on immigrants. They have to abolish ICE. They have to pass legislation to protect the longtime undocumented population — who Democrats have said that they’ve been going to protect for many administrations and have not prioritized, even when they previously had majorities in Congress.
If they do not deliver on behalf of working families by emancipating the subjugated classes, then they’re admitting they too are in alliance with the pillaging classes and that they are no different from Trump and Miller. The main thing they have to do is counter any maneuvers that Miller is going to be making from the White House. They can’t just be all talk. They have to deliver in concrete ways for working families and they’re not going to be able to do that if they ignore the immigrant community that has been at the center of the Trump administration’s persecution.
Nithya Raman’s win upends L.A. Latino politics
A few weeks back in this newsletter, I discussed how Latino voters would be the deciding factor in the L.A. mayoral race as the demographic helped carry Mayor Karen Bass in the primary, with her winning 35 Latino-majority neighborhoods in the June 2 election.
Five months, much campaigning and the botched response to a massive warehouse fire in heavily Latino Boyle Heights later, Bass’s competitor, Councilmember Nithya Raman, courted the Latino vote in last week’s election. A Times analysis of early election returns showed Raman won big in the heavily Latino neighborhoods such as Wilmington, South L.A. and Pico-Union.
My colleague and Latino voting expert Gustavo Arellano wrote about how Raman’s win was the death knell for L.A.’s Latino political establishment.
Arellano discussed how Bass consistently aligned herself with a cohort of moderate Latino politicians — such as City Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and Imelda Padilla, Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez and Rep. Luz Rivas — at reelection events. Conversely, Raman focused on activating younger, more progressive Latinos throughout her campaign.
The L.A. Latinos’ traditional political machine was in trouble before hitching its wagon to Bass’s failed reelection campaign, Arellano noted. It began in 2022 when three City Council members were embroiled in an audio leak scandal, which created an avenue for two democratic socialists to grab council seats. The Latino old guard also lost two more council members in 2024, and former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, bastion of that political class, ran a supremely unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign this year.
Raman’s grassroots approach met Latino voters where they were and not where she thought they were supposed to be — something Bass’ chief campaign strategist, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, could learn a lesson from.
“The mayor ran on a very institutional playbook of getting a bunch of Latino politicians together so they could tell Latinos how to vote,” Marco Santana, who ran for City Council earlier this year, told Arellano. “That doesn’t work anymore. Latinos want deeds.”
One actor’s pursuit to dub “The Lion King” in Quechua
Voice actor Fernando Valencia grew up in the Andean Peruvian town of Huanimpampa, where the Indigenous language of Quechua is still an integral part of everyday life. He noticed that the dialect is never represented in dubbed versions of Hollywood family hits, which creates a barrier for comprehension among children whose primary language is Quechua.
To point out this lack of availability and to show that an avenue for accessibility was possible, Valencia dubbed segments of Hollywood blockbusters such as “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back” and “The Lion King” into the language spoken by nearly 10 million South Americans.
He has since dared to dub “The Lion King” — the first movie Valencia watched in its entirety as a child — fully into Quechua. Valencia’s attempts are documented in Peruvian filmmaker Augusto Zegarra’s debut feature, “Runa Simi,” which is the name of the Quechua language in Quechua and translates to ”language of the people.”
De Los contributor Carlos Aguilar recently spoke with Valencia and Zegarra about the film and the voice actor’s monumental undertaking.
“If I keep my language and culture in a fragile little jar, someone will come along and trample it, and it will disappear forever,” Valencia said. “But if I open this little jar and build bridges, it will be difficult to eliminate it because it will be integrated into the world.”
A similar linguistic venture to preserve a native language was completed by Tweedie Waititi, the sister of Oscar-winning director Taika Waititi, who partnered with Disney to dub multiple titles into te reo Māori.
Valencia’s mission was given a major bump after Peter and Benjamin Bratt, whose mother, Eldy Banda, is an Indigenous activist of Quechua descent, signed on to the project as executive producers.
“It felt like a statement to have someone who has never heard of the Quechua language, maybe someone in Europe or the U.S., ask what runa simi is and then being able to tell them: ‘You’re already speaking it! By saying the words runa simi, you’re already using the language,’” Zegarra said.
Stories we read this week that we think you should read
Unless otherwise noted, stories below were published by the Los Angeles Times.