- The NSC Itself Does Not Occupy Official Staffing Quotas
The President’s National Security Advisor is a role defined by trust rather than formal authority. Appointed by the president without Senate confirmation, the advisor’s power derives not from institutional mandates but from personal proximity to the president and influence over U.S. national security strategy. A classic example is Henry Kissinger under Nixon. Cutting NSC staff, framed as reducing government scale, is fundamentally misguided: NSC members either hold no independent positions (acting as temporary presidential appointees) or are seconded from other departments. Reducing their numbers merely sends the former back to new posts or returns the latter to their original agencies. The real bloated bureaucracy lies in permanent government roles with formal staffing quotas. - The President Bears the Brunt of NSC Staff Reductions
The NSC was designed to empower the president by circumventing bureaucratic inertia from agencies like the State Department or Pentagon. This administration’s decision to shrink the NSC, while claiming to confront the “deep state,” is counterproductive. The true “deep state” lies in the career civil service—nonpartisan officials who ensure policy continuity across administrations. While their expertise and procedural knowledge can constrain elected leaders (e.g., selectively filtering information to reduce the president to a “rubber-stamp”), the NSC serves as the president’s counterweight: a loyal team providing independent analysis and shielding the president from departmental lobbying. Shrinking the NSC weakens this mechanism, leaving the president more reliant on entrenched bureaucracies. The cited rationale—that cuts empower the president—is transparently disingenuous, reflecting either manipulation by insiders or deliberate sabotage. - The Primary Beneficiary: Secretary of State Rubio
Rubio, as Secretary of State, has long rivaled the NSC for influence. The State Department’s policy offices traditionally compete with the NSC, which coordinates cross-agency strategy without bureaucratic rank. For Rubio, a Cuban-American “overachiever” eager to assert dominance, the timing aligns with the president’s impulsive leadership style. By flattering the president’s ego and claiming cuts “return decision-making to the president,” Rubio exploits the president’s inability to draft complex strategies independently. Without NSC support, the State Department’s institutional expertise would dominate national security debates. Meanwhile, rival factions—Defense Secretary Hay (a reference to “海排长”) and “eye-liner” (likely a jab at a rival’s vanity)—lack the technical depth to challenge Rubio. Hay’s Pentagon teams focus on budget battles, while the “eye-liner” specializes in petty administrative critiques, leaving Rubio to consolidate influence over foreign policy. - U.S. Strategic Quality Will Plummet
The NSC’s role in drafting coherent strategies and enforcing interagency compliance is irreplaceable. Shrinking it weakens the president’s grip on national security, forcing reliance on siloed departments like State or Defense, whose agendas often reflect parochial interests rather than holistic national priorities. The president may feel more empowered to act on instinct, but this illusion masks a loss of strategic coherence. Policies will grow erratic, unpredictable, and prone to capture by interest groups—a self-inflicted wound to U.S. global leadership.
Published by
US-China Relations Updates 
Leave a comment