'Arrest Newsom': MAGA Lawmaker Fumes After Governor Calls Stephen Miller a Fascist

A Republican congressman has ignited a firestorm by demanding the arrest of California Governor Gavin Newsom over a social media post in which Newsom's office called White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller a 'fascist.'

It is the latest salvo in an increasingly heated partisan rhetoric raises fresh questions about the boundaries of free speech, political aggression, and enforcement of federal law.

From Insult to Arrest Call

Newsom's press office took to X on a Friday to post, in all caps, "STEPHEN MILLER IS A FASCIST!" The post quickly went viral, racking up more than 24 million views by Sunday night.

The reaction from Republican circles was swift and fierce. South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace condemned the post as 'violent rhetoric,' while Wisconsin Republican Derrick Francis Van Orden went further, characterising the wording as criminal and demanding legal action.

Van Orden invoked 18 U.S. Code § 2331, claiming the statement meets the legal threshold of domestic terrorism. 'At this point, this reaches the threshold of domestic terrorism,' he wrote. 'This is no longer "inflammatory", it is criminal.' He added pointedly: 'No one is above the law, @CAgovernor.'

Van Orden attached a screenshot of the legal statute, citing the section that says domestic terrorism covers activities intended to influence government policy via intimidation or coercion.

Newsom's Office Fires Back

Despite the threats from Republican lawmakers, Newsom's press office did not back down. On Saturday, they returned to X with even stronger language: 'DING DONGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE: IF YOU DON'T WANT US TO CALL YOU A FASCIST THEN STOP DOING FASCIST THINGS!'

They also published a satirical meme depicting Disney's Cinderella being fitted with a glass slipper — only with Miller's face on Cinderella and the shoe labelled "fascism."

The press office clearly sought to frame their messaging as protected free speech, and they declined to issue any apologies or retractions.

A History of 'Fascist' Charges

The irony of the controversy is not lost on many observers. Stephen Miller has long been known for throwing around the term 'fascist' himself. In April 2022, he wrote on X: 'If the idea of free speech enrages you — the cornerstone of democratic self-government — than I regret to inform you that you are a facist.' In March 2024, he claimed: 'The Democratic Party is now a Facist party. Using corporate and government power to punish dissent and dissenters.'

So it is not the first time Miller has deployed this label; what is different now is the political escalation that followed.

Free Speech, Political Norms & Legal Boundaries

At the heart of the dispute lies a tension between political speech and prosecutable threats. Critics of Van Orden's move argue that calling someone a 'fascist' — even in all caps — is protected by the First Amendment, especially when used in a political critique. The risk, they say, is turning heated political language into criminal matters, chilling expression.

Supporters of the arrest demand, however, read the post as more than rhetorical flourishes. They see it as a direct attempt to intimidate or coerce political behavior, possibly crossing into the kind of rhetoric that the law intends to regulate.

Legal scholars note that 18 U.S. Code § 2331 is rarely invoked in domestic political contexts; it was constructed primarily to define terms for counterterrorism statutes. To successfully argue domestic terrorism would require demonstrating that the act was intended to influence government policy or intimidate civilians — a very high bar in U.S. jurisprudence.

Political Theatre or Legal Seriousness?

Observers suggest that Van Orden's demand may be more symbolic than realistic, intended less to prompt prosecution than to escalate political pressure and rally conservative audiences. In the highly polarized environment of 2025, such moves feed narrative, galvanize base support, and force media cycles.

Newsom's office may also see strategic advantage in leaning into the controversy: the meme, the defiant tone, the viral spread — all serve to energise his supporters and position him as standing firm under pressure.

Legal experts note that the Justice Department has rarely pursued criminal charges in cases involving political speech of this nature, and doing so would raise complex constitutional questions. The episode has nonetheless drawn attention to the boundaries of free expression in politics, particularly when rhetoric escalates into accusations of criminal conduct. For now, observers in Washington are watching to see whether Representative Van Orden's call leads to any formal action or remains confined to political debate.