Stephen Miller Launches a Verbal Barrage Against Amazon at Press Briefing
During a particularly fiery press conference on Thursday morning, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller took aim at Amazon’s recent proposal to display tariff costs on its website, accusing the retail giant of pandering to liberal states and the interests of Communist China. Miller was joined by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt as they outlined the Trump administration’s commitment to restoring “common sense” in its initial 100 days.
In a moment described as both theatrical and incisive by the Gateway Pundit, Miller delivered a scathing five-minute critique of the media’s perceived complicity in favoring illegal immigration, prompted by a question regarding Kilmar Garcia Abreago, a deported member of the MS-13 gang.
MUST SEE: Stephen Miller GOES OFF in Explosive Five-Minute-Long Rebuke of the Fake News Media for Shilling for Terrorists and Failing Death and Destruction Caused by Biden’s Illegals (VIDEO)
Miller also provided a pointed analysis of how Amazon’s actions could potentially “undermine” U.S.-China trade negotiations. Following a call from President Trump, Amazon appeared to retract its plan to display tariff costs on Chinese goods, a move that Leavitt described as both “hostile” and politically charged.
“This is a hostile and political act by Amazon,” Leavitt asserted, urging Americans to prioritize domestic products over those from the retail behemoth. She criticized the company for not implementing such transparency during the Biden administration’s inflationary period, which saw prices soar to levels not witnessed in four decades. Leavitt further pointed to Amazon’s recent collaboration with a “Chinese propaganda arm” as a concerning development.
Following Leavitt’s remarks, Amazon’s stock price dipped by 2%, prompting the company to clarify that the tariff display proposal was intended solely for the Amazon Haul store, not its main retail platform. They later claimed that the proposal was never officially approved, insisting it would “not be happening.”
President Trump later commended Bezos for taking the “right action” post-conversation and reiterated Leavitt’s assessment of Amazon’s behavior as politically motivated.
When pressed by a reporter about the alleged politicization of Amazon’s actions, Miller seized the opportunity to highlight the absurdities of price transparency. “If we’re talking about price inputs, why doesn’t Amazon disclose the cost of California’s regulations on products manufactured there?” he challenged. He argued that products from California inherently carry inflated prices due to stringent health and labor regulations, as well as subsidies for legal immigrants, all of which contribute to the rising costs for consumers.
Despite his assertions, Miller pointed out that Amazon fails to inform consumers about the financial implications of these liberal policies on the pricing of California-made goods. He further criticized Amazon for marketing Chinese-made products that he described as cheap imitations of American goods, labeling this as a significant concern for American manufacturers.
Leavitt had previously indicated that Amazon’s consideration to show tariff costs was expected, given its recent association with a Chinese propaganda entity. The implications of such partnerships raise questions about the integrity of trade and consumer protection.
WATCH:
Reporter: This administration has stressed the need for price transparency for things like health care bills and concert tickets. So why is it a political and hostile act for Amazon to display price transparency on consumer goods?
Miller: Well, I think that’s the wrong way of looking at it. First of all, that proposal is down now, but why would Amazon, of all the different things that go into a theoretical price input, list the cost of California’s regulations on everything made in California? Anything you make in California has a massive price increase due to unworkable health care and labor regulations, and the bureaucracy involved. So, why wouldn’t Amazon be transparent about that? This was likely an attempt by whoever proposed it to undermine our trade negotiations with China.
Furthermore, there have been numerous complaints regarding products sold on Amazon that are essentially knock-offs of American innovations, a practice that undermines our intellectual property and threatens American jobs. If we are to focus on labeling issues, ensuring we aren’t undercutting American consumers should be our top priority.
