The Current State of the National Security Council
The United States is facing a significant concern yet again. Since January 20th, the Trump administration has been reshaping what ought to be the president’s primary decision-making body—the National Security Council (NSC). Some might argue, perhaps with some justification, that it should be retitled the “Non-Security Council.”
Created in 1947 under President Harry Truman, the NSC was meant to advise the president on critical national security issues along with the independent US Air Force and the CIA. It seems that the president’s influence over foreign policy has been somewhat diluted. Traditionally, the NSC has included key national security appointees from the administration.
Historically, the NSC has played significant roles in various pivotal events. For instance, it was instrumental during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and in facilitating the historic arms agreements between China and the Soviet Union under Richard Nixon. Additionally, it aided in establishing the peace agreements between Egypt and Israel during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, and was involved in the coalition that forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
However, the NSC hasn’t always been effective. Under President George W. Bush, the approach to foreign intervention—especially in Afghanistan and Iraq—often pointed to flawed decision-making. Still, when utilized effectively, the NSC is crucial for well-informed choices.
Throughout Trump’s first term, the NSC struggled. Two national security advisers were dismissed, and John Bolton, the third to hold the position, couldn’t reverse the trend of disarray brought on by a lack of formal decision-making processes.
In his second term, Trump made adjustments to the NSC, including the dismissal of former representative Mike Waltz, who had a rather short tenure after his predecessor Mike Flynn was removed just 24 days into his role. Key personnel involved with Waltz were also let go. Notably, Marco Rubio has now been appointed as the new national security adviser, taking on combined roles that were previously held separately.
Despite his credentials, few would compare Rubio to seasoned advisers like Zbigniew Brzezinski or Henry Kissinger. The latter maintained a long tenure in the NSC before being appointed national security adviser by Gerald Ford.
The current setup prompts questions. Who even knows the identity of Rubio’s deputy national security adviser? The revitalization of the Trump-era NSC appears to be lacking sufficient stability.
Moreover, this arrangement complicates the process. National security advisers need to be closely integrated with the president’s priorities, which means they can’t be confined to Washington alone. Unfortunately, the NSC has been characterized more by dysfunction than effectiveness, as illustrated by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Recently, a report suggested that military support to Ukraine was paused without proper direction from the NSC. Some narratives indicate that Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth made this call without consulting others in the administration, despite the urgent need for military aid in Kiev.
This raises questions about the motivations behind such a decision. Perhaps someone close to Trump misjudged the president’s stance, thinking he favored rapprochement with Russia, thus advising a reduction in support to Ukraine.
Whether Hegseth or his associate had a role in this decision, the responsibility seemed to shift to the Office of Policy led by Elbridge Colby, raising further eyebrows. After this, President Trump’s last communication with Putin reportedly ended in frustration, especially regarding withheld military support for Ukraine.
Some believe Colby acted too quickly, prioritizing other plans instead of a cohesive strategy at the Pentagon. Yet, the question lingers: could the Pentagon navigate these waters independently? When the issue of delayed support arose, Trump claimed ignorance. This pattern of erratic decision-making undermines the NSC’s effectiveness.
In the future, these missteps could have severe consequences.
Rubio’s team comprises Andy Baker and Stephen Gabriel.
Harlan Ullman is a noted columnist, senior advisor at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC, and co-author of impending works on strategic catastrophe prevention.
