Trump's National Security Staff Was Remarkably Inadequate Even Before Waltz's Dismissal
In this administration, the role of the national security adviser deviates from the conventional expectation of being first among equals.
TroibNews 
Losing Mike Waltz as national security adviser isn’t that big of a change. The guy never had much power.
One intriguing aspect of President Donald Trump’s second administration is how no one, aside from Trump himself, holds significant influence over foreign policy and national security issues. Instead, there’s been a proliferation of power centers—some institutional, some individual—and none particularly strong.
This unusual situation has alarmed many national security professionals in Washington and beyond.
In most modern presidencies, the National Security Council, led by the national security adviser, has typically dominated other institutions in key foreign policy and national security matters. However, Waltz struggled even to gain approval for staff, and some of his selections were dismissed following complaints from a far-right influencer regarding loyalty—an unsettling testament to his weakness.
Neither the State Department nor the Pentagon has managed to assert themselves, even as the NSC faltered. This is surprising, considering that both departments often resented the NSC's previous dominance, particularly regarding its tendencies toward micromanagement.
Foreign officials, uncertain about who truly wields influence with Trump, have resorted to engaging with various people connected to him. Their hope is that at least one of those contacts can be a persuasive communicator with Trump on issues ranging from Iran nuclear negotiations to tariffs.
They emphasized to me that this is far from ideal.
“It helps to talk to everyone, but you know that you are on shifting ground until Trump decides something. Even then, when he decides something, he is liable to change his mind,” one Latin American diplomat told me after I granted him anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. “It is a classic personalist and court style of government.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has a shot at emerging as the main foreign policy power behind the throne now that Trump has asked him to also take on Waltz’s role temporarily. However, Rubio may find himself stretched trying to handle both responsibilities while serving an unpredictable president who hasn’t always shown him respect. He also faces potential rivals.
When I’ve asked current and former U.S. and foreign officials to rank the most influential foreign policy adviser to Trump, many have mentioned special envoy Steve Witkoff. He is the real estate investor and longtime Trump friend who has taken the lead on significant issues such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Israel-Hamas situation, and the Iran nuclear discussions.
That said, current and former officials remain uncertain about Witkoff’s power and longevity. He has already faced criticism from within the administration for appearing too lenient towards Russia or overly accommodating to Iran. At a gala for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on Wednesday, former U.S. diplomats from both parties expressed concerns that Witkoff lacked adequate staff, doesn't have technical expertise, and has taken on too many significant tasks.
Rubio barely came up during that dinner.
I’ve previously written that Rubio wasn’t likely to last long as secretary of State, and that remains the overall sentiment in Washington. Still, Rubio has gone to great lengths to please Trump—abandoning former positions, sometimes in blunt terms—making him almost unrecognizable. Perhaps his readiness to conform to Trump’s demands, even suggesting he’d defy a judge, has made Trump more inclined to rely on him, including having him temporarily lead the NSC. Conversely, it could signal that Trump sees him as someone he can easily dominate.
Rubio would not be the first to serve as both national security adviser and secretary of State; Henry Kissinger notably did so. However, respecting Kissinger’s contributions, the current global landscape is more complex.
Some national security veterans argue that assigning Rubio both roles highlights the weakness of both positions under Trump, as well as the thin talent pool he has. There’s also the question of how long Rubio can effectively manage both positions, especially given the extensive travel demands placed on the secretary of State.
“The national security adviser is supposed to be running the process, getting options from the various agencies, funneling information to the president and the decisions back down. The secretary of State is supposed to be outward-facing and actually executing on the decisions,” said one former senior U.S. diplomat, whom I granted anonymity over concerns of retaliation from the Trump team. “In a real Cabinet, with the world on fire and all of these trade deals and ceasefire negotiations, the only way for one person to do both is if that person doesn’t actually matter, and they are really just a gofer for the big guy shooting from the hip.”
Some former officials have suggested that the real national security power behind Trump is Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff and the chief architect of his anti-immigration policies.
I would not be surprised if Miller plays a significant role. He is a fervent Trump supporter who, as I’ve documented before, is adept at manipulating the bureaucracy to suit his objectives. His influence in the now-infamous Signal chat was pivotal in persuading other Cabinet members that Trump was on board with bomb plans directed at Houthi rebels.
Nevertheless, Miller’s primary focus is on limiting immigration. He is not known for having substantial expertise in foreign affairs; many of his immigration policies have arguably contradicted the president’s foreign policy goals.
Others are seen as ascending in power. One person pointed me to Michael Anton, a former National Security Council spokesperson now leading the Policy Planning section at the State Department, as a quiet but effective operator. Ric Grenell, a Trump envoy with a wide-ranging portfolio whose missions have included securing the release of Americans detained in Venezuela, is another figure whose influence could expand.
For specialists in international affairs, particularly those who now populate Washington’s think tanks, there are growing concerns about the risks associated with a confusing national security hierarchy.
While many U.S. diplomats and others have bristled at the National Security Council’s past dominance, there’s still an understanding of the essential roles that body and the national security adviser play.
Crucially, the NSC oversees the interagency process—the coordinated decision-making series that involves collaboration among various agencies. A well-functioning process means that diplomats and military leaders are not caught off guard by announcements that affect their operations. It ensures that foreign leaders understand the U.S. position on issues like uranium enrichment in Iran or global tariffs.
“A fundamental problem with American foreign policy right now is there’s no mechanism or institutional capability to execute,” said Adam Ereli, a former U.S. ambassador to Bahrain under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “There’s no interagency process, there’s no leadership structure that is functioning in any of the foreign policy Cabinet departments. There is no trust in staff.”
Waltz entered the role of national security adviser already weakened by skepticism from the GOP MAGA wing that viewed him as overly interventionist. The staffing challenges further undermined his authority; some of this was due to interference from others, but Waltz arguably weakened his power base by ousting several career government employees at the NSC to signal his loyalty to Trump. The Signal scandal diminished his position further. Like the rest of the country, Waltz also had to navigate Trump’s erratic style.
Now, Trump is nominating Waltz for the position of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. There, Waltz will encounter another institution familiar with weakness.
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
One intriguing aspect of President Donald Trump’s second administration is how no one, aside from Trump himself, holds significant influence over foreign policy and national security issues. Instead, there’s been a proliferation of power centers—some institutional, some individual—and none particularly strong.
This unusual situation has alarmed many national security professionals in Washington and beyond.
In most modern presidencies, the National Security Council, led by the national security adviser, has typically dominated other institutions in key foreign policy and national security matters. However, Waltz struggled even to gain approval for staff, and some of his selections were dismissed following complaints from a far-right influencer regarding loyalty—an unsettling testament to his weakness.
Neither the State Department nor the Pentagon has managed to assert themselves, even as the NSC faltered. This is surprising, considering that both departments often resented the NSC's previous dominance, particularly regarding its tendencies toward micromanagement.
Foreign officials, uncertain about who truly wields influence with Trump, have resorted to engaging with various people connected to him. Their hope is that at least one of those contacts can be a persuasive communicator with Trump on issues ranging from Iran nuclear negotiations to tariffs.
They emphasized to me that this is far from ideal.
“It helps to talk to everyone, but you know that you are on shifting ground until Trump decides something. Even then, when he decides something, he is liable to change his mind,” one Latin American diplomat told me after I granted him anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. “It is a classic personalist and court style of government.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has a shot at emerging as the main foreign policy power behind the throne now that Trump has asked him to also take on Waltz’s role temporarily. However, Rubio may find himself stretched trying to handle both responsibilities while serving an unpredictable president who hasn’t always shown him respect. He also faces potential rivals.
When I’ve asked current and former U.S. and foreign officials to rank the most influential foreign policy adviser to Trump, many have mentioned special envoy Steve Witkoff. He is the real estate investor and longtime Trump friend who has taken the lead on significant issues such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Israel-Hamas situation, and the Iran nuclear discussions.
That said, current and former officials remain uncertain about Witkoff’s power and longevity. He has already faced criticism from within the administration for appearing too lenient towards Russia or overly accommodating to Iran. At a gala for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on Wednesday, former U.S. diplomats from both parties expressed concerns that Witkoff lacked adequate staff, doesn't have technical expertise, and has taken on too many significant tasks.
Rubio barely came up during that dinner.
I’ve previously written that Rubio wasn’t likely to last long as secretary of State, and that remains the overall sentiment in Washington. Still, Rubio has gone to great lengths to please Trump—abandoning former positions, sometimes in blunt terms—making him almost unrecognizable. Perhaps his readiness to conform to Trump’s demands, even suggesting he’d defy a judge, has made Trump more inclined to rely on him, including having him temporarily lead the NSC. Conversely, it could signal that Trump sees him as someone he can easily dominate.
Rubio would not be the first to serve as both national security adviser and secretary of State; Henry Kissinger notably did so. However, respecting Kissinger’s contributions, the current global landscape is more complex.
Some national security veterans argue that assigning Rubio both roles highlights the weakness of both positions under Trump, as well as the thin talent pool he has. There’s also the question of how long Rubio can effectively manage both positions, especially given the extensive travel demands placed on the secretary of State.
“The national security adviser is supposed to be running the process, getting options from the various agencies, funneling information to the president and the decisions back down. The secretary of State is supposed to be outward-facing and actually executing on the decisions,” said one former senior U.S. diplomat, whom I granted anonymity over concerns of retaliation from the Trump team. “In a real Cabinet, with the world on fire and all of these trade deals and ceasefire negotiations, the only way for one person to do both is if that person doesn’t actually matter, and they are really just a gofer for the big guy shooting from the hip.”
Some former officials have suggested that the real national security power behind Trump is Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff and the chief architect of his anti-immigration policies.
I would not be surprised if Miller plays a significant role. He is a fervent Trump supporter who, as I’ve documented before, is adept at manipulating the bureaucracy to suit his objectives. His influence in the now-infamous Signal chat was pivotal in persuading other Cabinet members that Trump was on board with bomb plans directed at Houthi rebels.
Nevertheless, Miller’s primary focus is on limiting immigration. He is not known for having substantial expertise in foreign affairs; many of his immigration policies have arguably contradicted the president’s foreign policy goals.
Others are seen as ascending in power. One person pointed me to Michael Anton, a former National Security Council spokesperson now leading the Policy Planning section at the State Department, as a quiet but effective operator. Ric Grenell, a Trump envoy with a wide-ranging portfolio whose missions have included securing the release of Americans detained in Venezuela, is another figure whose influence could expand.
For specialists in international affairs, particularly those who now populate Washington’s think tanks, there are growing concerns about the risks associated with a confusing national security hierarchy.
While many U.S. diplomats and others have bristled at the National Security Council’s past dominance, there’s still an understanding of the essential roles that body and the national security adviser play.
Crucially, the NSC oversees the interagency process—the coordinated decision-making series that involves collaboration among various agencies. A well-functioning process means that diplomats and military leaders are not caught off guard by announcements that affect their operations. It ensures that foreign leaders understand the U.S. position on issues like uranium enrichment in Iran or global tariffs.
“A fundamental problem with American foreign policy right now is there’s no mechanism or institutional capability to execute,” said Adam Ereli, a former U.S. ambassador to Bahrain under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “There’s no interagency process, there’s no leadership structure that is functioning in any of the foreign policy Cabinet departments. There is no trust in staff.”
Waltz entered the role of national security adviser already weakened by skepticism from the GOP MAGA wing that viewed him as overly interventionist. The staffing challenges further undermined his authority; some of this was due to interference from others, but Waltz arguably weakened his power base by ousting several career government employees at the NSC to signal his loyalty to Trump. The Signal scandal diminished his position further. Like the rest of the country, Waltz also had to navigate Trump’s erratic style.
Now, Trump is nominating Waltz for the position of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. There, Waltz will encounter another institution familiar with weakness.
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
