At the precipice of the Memorial Day weekend, more than 100 National Security Council (NSC) staffers were unceremoniously removed from their positions. This overwhelming decision was spearheaded by President Donald Trump, who had seemingly harbored a disdain for the council since his initial term in office. It was then that a couple of disgruntled employees lodged a troublesome complaint about his interactions with Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, leading to Trump’s impeachment.
White House representatives expressed to Axios that the NSC, bedeviled by its bureaucratic entanglements and incessant meetings, was a barrier preventing the president from exercising his full authority. These officials conveyed their belief that the NSC represented ‘the ultimate Deep State,’ a clandestine operation stifling the genuine aspirations of the president. Such an interpretation contradicts the true purpose of the NSC, which is to ensure the faithful execution of the president’s directives.
In his zealous stride to dismantle the NSC, President Trump risked jettisoning a significant part of his government’s analytical power, inadvertently setting the stage for potential threats in times of crisis. Created by congressional statute, the council plays a dual role – counseling the president on issues regarding national security and foreign policy, and orchestrating efforts of various agencies to implement the president’s policies.
Upon the conclusion of Joe Biden’s administration, there were 186 members on the NSC policy staff. Even though this number was greater compared to Trump’s premier term, it was still less than George W. Bush’s or Barack Obama’s administrations. Comprised of staff from approximately 20 different directorates and diverse government sectors, the NSC plays an essential role in policy formulation and crisis management.
Most staffers relieved of their duties on this unanticipated Friday were long-standing civil servants working within these directorates. The NSC, in spite of its less than glamorous appeal, proves indispensable in times of crisis. A fitting example to this point is Russia’s encroachment into Ukraine in 2022.
The response from the Biden administration to this crisis encompassed a broad range of strategies, from sanctions and military might to diplomacy and intelligence cooperation. In addition to harmonizing tasks amongst various U.S., European, Chinese, and Middle Eastern entities, the NSC was the driving force behind providing Ukraine with adequate air-defense missiles and devising innovative funding methods.
Critics argue that while President Trump could have leveraged the NSC in alternative ways to further his agenda, he chose to relinquish this authority instead. The remaining senior directors, whose precise numbers were not disclosed, received the short end of the stick, as they were left to oversee a multitude of responsibilities without proper support.
As these directors work with minimal assistance, policies could end up haphazard, speeches could lack thorough review, and embassies may languish without a dedicated point of contact. Such unprecedented circumstances may not only yield disarray and ineffectiveness in U.S. foreign policy but could compromise contingency planning as well.
The events of early April furnish a classic example. China had just executed Strait-Thunder 2025A – a maritime exercise aimed at targeting Taiwan’s military facilities. This sent a clear message to the U.S. and allied nations that China’s future plans might involve considerable aggressive actions against Taiwan.
Without the NSC preparing apt strategies, the critical interdependency between Taiwan’s semiconductor production and U.S.’s AI operations could be jeopardized. Such a scenario would generally imply that the one or two remaining NSC senior directors would gather top officials from various departments and the military to consider the wide gamut of options including deterrents, responses, sanctions, and diplomacy.
However, without the NSC’s traditional mechanisms of synchronization in place, these preparations do not occur automatically. The administration could face significant challenges in anticipating and responding effectively to crises. Relying on any singular department to fill the shoes of the NSC could result in bias towards its tools and vested interests.
Unfortunately, the belief seems to pervade that having the Donald Trump can navigate any situation, negating the need for any council’s input. If China executes a maneuver against Taiwan that is both innovative and unforeseen, Trump may find himself dumbfounded about his options.
If appropriate plans were not made beforehand, making choices among them becomes an impossibility. Instead of being safeguarded by meticulously developed strategies, the nation would be dreadfully exposed, hinging solely on the president’s general instincts on issues he does not comprehend.
Thus, the president’s overzealous endeavor to dismantle the NSC paints him as reckless, undermining the stability and security of his own administration. Is it not damning to mock the very platform designed to ensure the smooth execution of his own agenda? The hasty decision to rid the NSC of experienced civil servants, in an attempt to ‘gut the Deep State’, could instead lead to deep regrets.