Inside Stephen Miller’s Dark Plot
to Build a MAGA Terror State
He is
descended from Russian Jews—you know, the kind of people who were once
denounced as alien and unassimilable. Today, his project is to unleash
government persecution of those he deems alien and unassimilable. How far will
Miller’s sadistic designs go?
Greg Sargent/December 15, 2025
Stephen
Miller’s ancestors first arrived in the United States in 1903. That’s when a
man named Wolf Laib Glosser disembarked at Ellis Island after leaving behind
his hometown in Antopol, a small town in the part of the czarist
Russian empire that is now Belarus. Wolf Laib, who was fleeing a life marked by
anti-Jewish pogroms and forced conscription, quickly set about trying to raise
more money to bring over relatives.
“Wolf
Laib found work in New York City peddling bananas and other fruit on street
corners, and began sending small sums of money back to the family,” reads an
unpublished book about the family that one of Stephen Miller’s relatives shared
with The New Republic. The book—which tells the story of some of
Miller’s ancestors’ immigration to the United States and their subsequent
thriving here—was written by Miller’s grandmother, Ruth Glosser. Now that
Miller has accumulated such extraordinary power over the future of our
immigration system, it’s worth turning to this remarkable document, which
we’re making available online for the first time.
As
the book recounts, Wolf Laib managed to bring over more family members in 1906,
including a son, Sam Glosser. Over time, Wolf Laib—Miller’s
great-great-grandfather—and his descendants built a successful haberdashery
business in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, which evolved into a chain of supermarkets
and department stores. Sam Glosser’s American-born son, Izzy, had two American
children, David and Miriam Glosser—who were to become the uncle and mother of
Stephen Miller.
This
story, of course, tracks with that of countless others who arrived in the United
States as part of the great migration, mostly from Southern and Eastern Europe,
between the 1880s and the 1910s, which numbered as high as 20 million. As the
book notes, they were out to “escape economic hardships and religious persecution”
to build a “better life for themselves and their children.”
At the time, many Americans didn’t think people like
Miller’s ancestors were fit to become a part of the United
States. They were targeted by a virulent strain of nativism toward those
from Southern and Eastern Europe that was largely about race.
Yet
at the time, many Americans didn’t think people like Miller’s ancestors were
fit to become a part of the United States. They were targeted by a virulent
strain of nativism toward those
from Southern and Eastern Europe that was largely about race—it was rooted in
the “scientific racism” of the day. But it also involved a somewhat
different claim: that the new
arrivals suffered from a “social degeneracy” or “social inadequacy”—two typical
phrases at the time—which rendered them a threat to the
“civilization” the United States was in the process of becoming. In this
telling, as prominent sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross declared in a 1914
broadside, these new immigrants were inferior to Americans who descended from
the “pioneer breed” who’d given birth to the American nation. The new arrivals,
Ross said, had “submerged” that ancestral connection to the “pioneer breed,”
setting the nation on a path to the “extinction that surely awaits it.”
“There
is little or no similarity between the clear-thinking, self-governing stocks
that sired the American people and this stream of irresponsible and broken
wreckage that is pouring into the lifeblood of America the social and political
diseases of the Old World,” declared one congressman not long after. As
historian Gary Gerstle, author of the great book American Crucible, noted
in an email to me, many nativists at the time lamented the “civilizational
vulnerability” of the United States, believing that “white, Christian, and
western European culture” stretching back to “ancient Greece and Rome”
represented the “summit of human achievement” and the core of American
civilization. This was under dire threat from “groups outside that culture” who
were “unassimilable, with Jewish ranks full of Bolsheviks and Italian ranks
full of anarchists.”
More
than a century later, those diatribes about people like Miller’s ancestors are
very similar to claims Miller makes
today about the threat to “civilization” supposedly posed by those emigrating from
Africa, Latin America, Asia, and elsewhere. To be sure, it is not a new move to
bring up Miller’s ancestry in the context of his current nativism, and many
aspects of Miller’s worldview are well-known in a scattershot way: his disdain for
multiculturalism, his hatred of mass
migration, his affinity with white
nationalists.
But
in a series of tweets, interviews in right-wing media, and statements made
elsewhere, Miller has outlined something more comprehensive and sinister—an
elaborate worldview that has escaped notice in the mainstream media. It centers
immigrants as a threat to “civilization” in terms that echo the rhetoric of
those determined to exclude people like his ancestors.
That
larger worldview—and its intellectual roots—deserve more scrutiny. Given
Miller’s extraordinary power—his near unfettered control over
President Donald Trump’s massive ramp-up in immigration enforcement—a deeper
understanding of Miller’s views is essential. It demonstrates in a more vivid
way the true extremism of his anti-immigrant project—and why it poses a serious
threat to the country and its future.
Miller’s Actions: A Meaner, and Whiter, America
In
that book about Miller’s ancestors, titled A Precious Legacy, there
are wrenching passages about the Immigration Act of 1924. That law, which represented the
culmination of all those aforementioned virulent sentiments about Southern and
Eastern Europeans, adopted an immigration formula tied to the 1890 distribution
of ethnicities in the United States. This guaranteed that most of the 150,000
immigrants allowed entry each year would henceforth come from Northern and
Western Europe, imposing tighter limits on those from Southern and Eastern
Europe and elsewhere. The law’s primary aim was to slam the breaks on
immigration by people like Miller’s ancestors.
Thanks
to the 1924 act, the book notes, “the doors to free and open immigration here
swung shut.” Fortunately, all of Wolf Laib’s immediate family made it to the
United States by 1920, the book says, but many left behind did not fare well.
“Those Jews who remained in Antopol were not so lucky,” ruefully recounts the
book, which was first discussed in Hatemonger by
journalist Jean Guerrero. It adds that most of those who remained in Wolf
Laib’s town “were murdered by the Nazis.”
Strikingly,
Stephen Miller has spoken positively
about the 1924 law. “During the last period in which America was the undisputed
global superpower—financially, culturally, militarily—immigration was net
negative,” Miller tweeted in August. He’s referring to
the period between the
1924 law and the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which ended ethnic quotas
for immigration created in 1924: In short, Miller is extolling the impacts of
the 1924 measure. He was even more direct in 2015 emails to Breitbart obtained by the
Southern Poverty Law Center. He repeatedly praised President Calvin Coolidge
for signing that law, describing the act rhapsodically as Coolidge’s “heritage”
and suggesting the country should act “like Coolidge did”; that is, either
dramatically restrict immigration or impose new ethnic quotas on it.
None
of this necessarily means Miller is unconcerned about the fate of those who met
terrible ends due to their inability to immigrate. But Miller offered those
quotes about that century-old law as a device to describe his present-day
vision, and, in a very real sense, his true ideological project is to unmake
the world the 1965 act created when it ended
the ethnic quota system and opened the country to more immigration from all
over the world.
Indeed,
Miller’s grander aims are best understood as an effort to destroy the entire
architecture of immigration and humanitarian resettlement put in place in the
post–World War II era. The 1965 law’s end to ethnic quotas guaranteed that,
henceforth, immigration slots would be doled out on a race-neutral basis. That
and subsequent measures—which created the
contemporary refugee and asylum system—drew heavily on the international human
rights treaties that the United States and many countries signed on to after
the war. Subsequent U.S. law has enshrined the right
to seek refuge here and protections against getting sent home to face
persecution or grave danger—and a set of values that, theoretically at least,
has been to some degree a bipartisan consensus for
decades.
Miller
is, at bottom, trying to eradicate that set of obligations and
values—to undo that larger consensus. To grasp this, you need to look at all
the small things Miller is doing, which, taken together, all add up to one very
big thing.
Take
the administration’s handling of white South Africans. Officials recently announced that they
will accept only 7,500 refugees this fiscal year—a dramatic reduction from
125,000 under President Joe Biden—and, critically, it reserved a majority of
those slots for white Afrikaners, who are mostly descendants of Dutch and
French settlers. This implements Trump’s 2025 executive order decreeing
that they must be treated as a persecuted “ethnic minority.” He says they face white
“genocide,” which has been roundly debunked by statistics and experts.
Yet
the implementation of this has been corrupted, according to two former senior
State Department officials who witnessed this firsthand.
Typically,
such an announcement designating a group subject to persecution would be backed
up by a serious State Department analysis—often from its
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, or PRM—laying out a substantive
case detailing this persecution. But after Trump’s executive order hit, PRM was
not directed to work up any such analysis, the officials told me. “PRM was not asked
for this,” one of the officials said.
Instead,
word came down from State Department political appointees declaring that this
had to happen simply because the order said so, the officials stated.
“We
should have a process that has integrity in determining who among the world’s
refugees are most in need of resettlement,” the second source said. “They blew
right through that.” Asked for comment, another State Department official
insisted that Afrikaner “refugees” meet “statutory requirements.”
Strikingly,
the administration is also reportedly mulling proposals to
prioritize far-right European political actors, who are supposedly being
persecuted for anti-immigrant views, for refugee status. Let’s be clear: It is
now apparently U.S. policy to favor whites in the doling out of refugee
admissions.
What’s
more, the slashing of annual refugee admissions from 125,000 to 7,500 itself
represents an enormous retreat on the
obligations that members of both parties have long felt toward those seeking
refuge here. This comes even as the worldwide refugee population has about doubled in the
last decade to over 40 million. Trump and Miller have also moved to end Temporary
Protected Status, or TPS, for people here from at least eight countries,
totaling over one million. That legal protection provides temporary
sojourn to people fleeing some of the most horrific conditions on the planet:
armed conflicts, natural and environmental disasters, large-scale civic
breakdown. These are not undocumented immigrants. They are here lawfully, have
work permits, and are integrating into U.S. communities. That’s all been
cruelly wrenched out from under them.
Critically,
in moving to end all these things, Miller is feverishly stamping out every
single avenue for those fleeing horrific conditions to come here legally that
he possibly can. Republican presidents have traditionally set refugee
admissions levels much higher than Trump has
in both his terms, and TPS was signed into law by a Republican president,
George H.W. Bush. In functionally ending all this, Miller is breaking with a
consensus that has largely been bipartisan for decades.
Miller
may also be restricting legal immigration in a broader, unnoticed sense. At my
request, Migration Policy Institute analyst Julia Gelatt looked at data from
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to determine current processing
rates. She found that if you total up most applications for immigrating to the
United States—from green cards to family reunification to naturalization to
temporary visas and other forms of legal status—the number of denials is going
up. Denials rose from around 274,000 during the last three months of Biden’s
2024 term to around 324,000 from April to June of 2025, a hike of about 50,000.
While
acceptances are still much higher than denials, those acceptances have been
declining, Gelatt found, leading her to conclude that USCIS is “approving fewer
applications and denying more.” And as of early December, after an Afghan
refugee allegedly shot two West
Virginia National Guard members in Washington, Trump suspended all asylum applications and all immigration applications from
19 countries.
Miller’s mission of boosting deportation numbers of
necessity requires arresting people who are not criminals or gang
members—people who have jobs and have become integrated into U.S.
communities—because there’s no other way to get the
removals up.
Miller’s obsession with
sheer numbers—the amounts of various categories of immigrants who
are either in the United States or trying to get here—borders on pathological.
Take his handling of undocumented immigrants. Miller has repeatedly raged at Immigration
and Customs Enforcement officials for arrest numbers he deems too low. Since
the summer, arrests have hovered at around
1,000 daily. But he’s demanding 3,000
arrests per day, a pace of about one million people per year. To that
end, The New York Times reports, the
administration has already shifted thousands of federal law enforcement
personnel into deportations, hampering critical efforts to combat serious
crimes like child and drug trafficking. What’s more, ICE itself is arresting a lot of
undocumented immigrants who are not dangerous criminals, diverting resources
away from arresting the latter.
Here’s
the thing: Miller’s mission of boosting deportation numbers of
necessity requires arresting
people who are not criminals or gang members—people who have jobs and have
become integrated into U.S. communities—because there’s no other way to
get the removals up. But it makes us less safe. Miller plainly places more
importance on reducing the totals of people here—or trying to get here—than on
removing people who pose any actual danger. He appears to be actively
prioritizing shifting the ethnic mix of the country over public safety.
The Intellectual Roots of Miller’s Ethno-Nationalism
“If
you import the Third World, you become the Third World,” Stephen Miller declared as the
presidential campaign heated up in 2024, in a quote flagged by Media Matters
for America. “Elect Joe Biden, and America becomes the Third World.”
This
is one of the single most revealing quotes Miller has ever uttered. At the core
of Miller’s worldview is the idea that the immigration levels and humanitarian
resettlement programs that existed under Biden posed an existential threat to
American civilization, whereas those that now exist under Trump will preserve
it from ruin and even outright extinction. During a Cabinet meeting in October,
Miller gushed to Trump:
“This was a country on the verge of dying, and you alone saved it.” This was
widely mocked, but Miller meant it quite literally.
Cull
through lots of Miller quotes, and a clearer picture of this emerges. “Why
would any civilization that actually wants to preserve itself allow for any
migration that is negative to the country as a whole?” Miller seethed last spring. He also
pointedly asked: “Do you know what happens to a
civilization that allows for the large-scale migration of people who hate it?”
Miller regularly describes migration
as an “invasion” and insists that getting rid of undocumented
immigrants would free up emergency rooms, playing on longtime tropes depicting migrants as bearers of
disease. During the 2024 campaign, he told a right-wing podcaster that reelecting
Biden would represent “the assisted suicide of Western civilization.”
Note
that Miller treats it as self-evident that most immigrants to the United States
are either “negative to the country” or “hate” it. You see, it’s where these
immigrants are coming from that determines whether they pose this existential,
civilizational threat. As Miller himself put it: Import the Third
World, and you become the Third World.
When
I asked Steve Bannon, a longtime Miller ally, which writers most influenced Miller’s
view that migration threatens American or Western “civilization,” he texted me
some names. The top three were Pat Buchanan, Samuel Huntington, and Oswald
Spengler. I was unable to confirm from Miller himself whether he’s read these
three authors. However, Miller plainly draws sustenance from a strain of
right-wing thought that loosely includes those writers, as well as David
Horowitz, who mentored Miller as he
came of age politically in a diversifying high school in Santa Monica.
This strain holds roughly
that “Western civilization” is something like a static cultural inheritance
forever teetering on the edge of plunging into terminal decline. That’s usually
due to standard maladies—globalization, mass Third World migration, multiculturalism,
and cosmopolitanism, which emphasizes our common humanity across borders—that
threaten civilization’s dissolution or obliteration. America’s status as an
inheritor of the best of “Western civilization” is perpetually on the brink of
annihilation.
Conservative
writers, to be sure, have long depicted the West as
under siege, but in the hands of Buchanan and others like him, this took a more
explicitly ethno-nationalist turn. As John Ganz explains in his excellent
book, When the Clock Broke, Buchananism
more directly draws inspiration from figures like former Ku Klux Klansman David
Duke and white nationalist Sam Francis, and in this sense is a precursor to
Trump—and, by extension, Miller.
The
similarities between Miller’s language and that of Buchanan—and others writing
in a similar vein—are obvious. Buchanan wrote a 2011 book called Suicide
of a Superpower. In a companion column, Buchanan declared that
“Western civilization” probably won’t “survive the passing of the European
peoples whose ancestors created it and their replacement by Third World
immigrants.” Buchanan lamented the coming extinction of the “white race” and
“European peoples” whose ancestors are credited with creating the “civilization
that came out of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London.” If the white race passes,
civilization disappears with it.
Now
compare that with Miller’s twin claims that if you “import the Third World, you
become the Third World,” and that electing Biden would represent the “assisted
suicide of Western civilization.” The United States is steward and inheritor of
this disappearing civilization: Miller recently declared that “our legacy hails back to
Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello,” and is under threat from
assorted “enemies” who want to keep us in “darkness.” Among those enemies
hell-bent on dragging us back into civilizational darkness are immigrants from
the Third World and their globalist allies. In those emails to Breitbart,
Miller made this clear. After Pope Francis declared in 2015 that
the United States should be more open to immigrants who “travel north”—from
Latin America—Miller drew parallels to The Camp of the Saints, the
1973 Jean Raspail novel, beloved by white
nationalists, that depicts the West as under siege by teeming masses of Third
World immigrants, who are depicted in virulently racist terms.
In
Miller’s formulations relative to Buchanan’s, all that’s missing is the word
“white.” To be sure, Miller has adamantly denied ties to
explicit white nationalists. But even if you accept that claim, Miller’s
worldview is still the Buchanan-Francis one, which holds that people from the
Third World are fundamentally unfit to partake of the inheritance of Western
civilization that is the United States.
“The
basic idea is that if you don’t come from a cultural background that comes from
a traditional Western perspective—ideally Anglo-Saxon—then you aren’t equipped
for and properly formed for freedom,” Laura K. Field, author of Furious Minds, a
great new book about the intellectual roots of MAGA, told me. In this
worldview, Field continued, without that shared philosophical, cultural, and
ancestral foundation, “civilization is impossible.”
For
Miller, it all started to go wrong with the 1965 immigration act. Miller has
long lamented what this
law and its impacts supposedly “did” to the United States. In 2022,
Miller declared that the
act’s legacy has been to destroy “social cohesion” in the country. “There
cannot be social trust,” Miller continued. “There cannot be civic bonding.
There cannot be a shared culture, a shared language, a shared education, a
shared experience.”
But
all of this is wrong. And it’s a terrible basis for U.S. immigration policy.
Miller’s Civilizational Charmed Circle Is Absurd
Let’s
return to the fact that Miller’s own ancestors were subjected to similar
claims: They, too, were deemed unfit to participate in the inheritance of
Western civilization that the United States represented at the beginning of the
twentieth century. Obviously history disproved this, as does Miller’s own
story. To use Miller’s own frame, this would have to mean that Southern and
Eastern Europeans actually did have the cultural genus to carry on the
inheritance from Greece and Rome as it was transmitted via (Northern and
Western) Europe to Thomas Jefferson’s pen in Monticello and the Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia, whereas today’s immigrants do not.
Defenders
of Miller might insist this assimilation happened because of post-1920s
restrictionism, but the argument at the time was that they—a “they” that
included his own forebears, remember—could not be assimilated at all because
they were fundamentally unfit for it. And those immigrants
defied such predictions because the United States turned out to have very
powerful mechanisms of assimilation. In countless ways, that great migration
positively redefined our “civilization,” which turns out not to be a static
thing. Miller has in essence shifted the civilizational goalposts: If Southern
and Eastern Europeans didn’t end up threatening U.S. civilization, well,
the actual threat lies further afield, in Africa, Latin
America, and elsewhere. Miller has simply moved the geographic lines of the
civilizational charmed circle, dividing those who are fit to partake in our
civilizational inheritance from those who are not.
It’s
sometimes argued that the 1965 act, by opening us to global immigration, shifted the country’s
demographics far more than predicted. That’s true, but nonetheless, studies
have shown that recent waves of immigrants have assimilated just as
successfully as previous ones did, and that immigrants embrace American
political institutions. Other empirical work has
undermined claims that they’re dissolving our social bonds. If you’re worried
about declining “social cohesion,” let’s talk about soaring economic
inequality, weakening civic virtue, declining worker power, and social tensions
cynically stoked and manipulated by right-wing elites—all of which Trump is
exacerbating.
Miller Is Wrong About “Social Trust”
“You
cannot have migration without consent,” Miller insists. “That is a fundamental principle of
having a civilization.” The second that undocumented immigrants settle in our
communities, our social contract instantly dissolves, and our civilizational
epoxy has come apart.
But
immigration—including undocumented migration—spawns new forms of community and
solidarity. You know who understands this perfectly well? Joe Rogan does, when
he calls it “horrific”
to arrest “normal, regular people that have been here for 20 years” in “front
of their kids.” So do the residents of a small Missouri town when they rebel against the
arrest of a 20-year resident whom they now see as a local “mom.” So do majorities of
Americans when they tell pollsters that they don’t support deporting
undocumented immigrants who have jobs or have been here for a number of years.
In
saying these things, Rogan and all these others are articulating a deeper idea:
As time passes and outsiders contribute to—and associate with—local
communities, their original illegal entry loses significance, and they develop
a claim to belonging. We recognize this because we see them as human, and
human life is messy and complicated. Most people understand this intuitively:
Communities are dynamic things; their boundaries are not fixed and rigid and
unchanging. Polities can decide collectively to grant amnesty to people who
didn’t enter perfectly by the book but have since demonstrated good intentions
after a democratically determined amount of time has passed. And they are often
made stronger by it.
It
should go without saying that if immigrants were dissolving our social bonds in
any sense that most normal people care about, Miller and his allies would not
have to lie constantly about
immigrants committing crimes,
about immigrants stealing social
welfare benefits, and about immigrants adopting alienating social habits
like eating people’s pets.
Miller Is Wrong About Cosmopolitanism
Miller
has long harbored particular
venom for “cosmopolitanism.” He draws heavily on a tradition on the far right
that treats cosmopolitanism as a threat to a model of
Western civilization constructed upon the
building blocks of ancient nations whose volkish identities
stretch deep into the mists of the past.
But
our understanding of cosmopolitanism is itself partly an inheritance from
Miller’s beloved “Western civilization.” It originated with the
Stoic philosophers of the ancient world and was developed by the Roman
statesman Cicero. It passed via him and others to European philosophers like
Immanuel Kant, who elaborated on it further. Its conception of common humanity
informed the human rights ideals that emerged after World
War II, which the United States signed on to.
In
short, there are plenty of resources in our “Western inheritance” that run
directly counter to, and are far more admirable than, Miller’s ideology of
ethno-nationalist self-preservation. The 1965 immigration act that Miller hates
so much—by ending the idea that
some ethnicities are more “fit” to be American than others—itself carried
forward some of those “Western” inheritances.
Miller Is Wrong to Want Net-Negative Migration
Ultimately,
Miller’s goal of net-negative
migration is itself a recipe for decline. Miller’s claim
that this was responsible for our postwar successes overlooks the role of the U.S.
victory in World War II combined with Europe lying in ruins, which helped
enable the United States to establish global
industrial dominance. It also overlooks the strength of unions in boosting worker power
and in building the American
middle class, which Trump is trying to destroy.
What’s
more, demographers like William H. Frey have gamed out what a
scenario of net-negative migration will look like over time, and it’s not
pretty. It results in population decline, a dangerously aging workforce, and
depleted tax revenues to pay for social insurance for our aging population.
At
this point, someone will note that Biden’s policies resulted in an
unusually large percentage of foreign-born residents and an out-of-control
asylum system that encouraged nativist
backlash, leading to Trump. That story is far too simplistic. Indeed,
the ferocious public opposition to Trump’s
mass deportations suggests that the “nativist backlash” is a mirage: Polls show
that Americans are reaffirming their
very wide support for immigration as good for the country. Some restrictionist
writers have claimed to discern a
broad societal backlash to the world the 1965 act made, but it just isn’t
materializing.
That
aside—even if the politics of the issue are brutal and we liberals haven’t
solved that conundrum—the answer is not to throw immigration into reverse. As
Jordan Weissmann puts it, “The fact that it
is hard does not take away from one fundamental point: There is no real plan
for economic stability or for a generous welfare state without more
immigration. Full stop. Period.”
Miller’s
alternative is a horror. He has set in motion a vicious math problem: His
deportation machinery is arresting people faster than they are
being removed. To hold them, he’s now looking to build out a network
of vast warehouses. We’re going to end up with a massively expanded immigrant
carceral state at an enormous cost to all of us,
both in taxpayer dollars and in the searing social conflict that Miller’s
masked storm troopers have unleashed on the
streets of U.S. cities.
We need more immigrants,
and there absolutely are ways to limit asylum and end the system’s failures
while opening up more channels for orderly legal migration and for those here
illegally to get right with the law. Miller’s project is to persuade you that
immigration cannot be managed in the national interest. It can, and it’s on us
to show how. Because at the end of the day, Miller is trying to restore ethnic
engineering to the center of immigration policy. In so doing, he’s denying to
millions the blessings that his ancestors and he himself have been so fortunate
to enjoy.
On
this point, we’re giving the last word to Miller’s cousin on his father’s side,
Alisa Kasmer. Over the summer, Kasmer posted a scalding Facebook takedown of Miller
that made big news. She refused all
subsequent interview requests. But she agreed to talk to me for this piece.
“We’re
Jewish—we grew up knowing how hated we were just for existing,” Kasmer told me.
“Now he’s trying to take away the exact thing that his own family benefited
from: that ability to create a life for themselves, to prosper, to build
community, to have successful businesses—to live a rewarding life.” This—not
“saving” our “dying” country, as Miller absurdly claims Trump is doing—will be
Miller’s ugly legacy.
Greg Sargent is a staff
writer at The New Republic and the host of the podcast The Daily Blast. A seasoned political
commentator with over two decades of experience, he was a prominent columnist
and blogger at The Washington Post from 2010 to 2023 and has
worked at Talking Points Memo, New York magazine, and
the New York Observer. Greg is also the author of the critically acclaimed book An
Uncivil War: Taking Back Our Democracy in an Age of Disinformation and
Thunderdome Politics.