In his newly released book “Blowback,” Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official and the anonymous author of the anti-Trump op-ed, makes a stunning claim about Trump insider Stephen Miller. Taylor alleges that Miller proposed using military force to bomb migrants in international waters under President Donald Trump. The incident reportedly took place during a conversation between Miller and Admiral Paul Zukunft, who was then the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, in 2018.
According to a passage from Taylor’s book published by Rolling Stone, Miller asked Admiral Zukunft about the military’s aerial drones and their missile capabilities. He then posed the question of why a Predator drone couldn’t be used to obliterate a boat carrying migrants in international waters, arguing that such migrants were not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Admiral Zukunft responded by stating that it would be against international law to do so, highlighting the moral and legal implications of targeting unarmed civilians.
When contacted by Rolling Stone, Stephen Miller’s spokesman dismissed Taylor’s claim as “complete fiction” and an attempt by Taylor to remain relevant with fabricated material. Admiral Zukunft, for his part, stated that he had no recollection of the conversation as detailed in the book. He did, however, recall a discussion with Miller about Southwest border security and the importance of addressing the root causes of illegal migration.
Miles Taylor stood by his account of the conversation, affirming that it did take place. The discrepancy between Taylor’s recollection and Admiral Zukunft’s lack of memory raises questions about the accuracy of the claim. As with any controversial allegation, further investigation and corroboration would be necessary to ascertain the truth.
‘Admiral, the military has aerial drones, correct?’ Stephen inquired.
‘Yes,’ Zukunft replied.
‘And some of those drones are equipped with missiles, correct?’
‘Sure,’ the commandant answered, clearly wondering where the line of questioning was going.
‘And when a boat full of migrants is in international waters, they aren’t protected by the U.S. Constitution, right?’
‘Technically, no, but I’m not sure what you’re getting at.’
‘Tell me why, then, can’t we use a Predator drone to obliterate that boat?’
Admiral Zukunft looked nonplussed. ‘Because, Stephen, it would be against international law.’
Taylor then recalls how Miller and Zukunft argued:
[The] United States launched airstrikes on terrorists in disputed areas all the time, Miller said, or retaliated against pirates commandeering ships off the coast of Somalia. The Coast Guard chief calmly explained the difference. America attacked enemy forces when they were armed and posed an imminent threat. Seafaring migrants were generally unarmed civilians. They quarreled for a few minutes. Stephen wasn’t interested in the moral conflict of drone-bombing migrants. He wanted to know whether anyone could stop America from doing it.
I vividly recall having a lengthy conversation with Stephen Miller regarding Southwest border security in 2018. My point was that the U.S. is not exerting enough influence in the form of foreign aid in the tri-border region of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador that have been key source nations for illegal migration. In effect, get at the root cause of illegal migration at the source rather than a goal line defense at the border. And the preponderance of these migrants traverse on foot. But to use deadly force to thwart maritime migration would be preposterous and the antithesis of our Nation’s vanguard for advancing human rights.
