NSEC 501 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY National Security Structure 2025.docx

National Security Structure 1

National Security Council Structure Comparison

Jeremy Phillips

Helms School of Government, Liberty University

National Security Council Structure Comparison

The National Security Council (NSC), established by the National Security Act of 1947

(National Security Act of 1947, 2017), stands as a cornerstone of the U.S. national security

apparatus, designed to coordinate and integrate domestic, foreign, and military policies to

safeguard national interests. However, the precise mechanisms through which the NSC

effectiveness (Dobson, 2016). Indeed, assessing the effectiveness of the NSC presents significant

conceptual and organizational challenges. What constitutes a successful NSC outcome is often

National Security Structure 2

highly subjective, contingent on the specific context, and influenced by a multitude of factors

that are difficult to isolate and measure with precision. These factors may include, but are not

limited to, the prevailing geopolitical landscape, the nature and severity of the threats faced,

the President's overarching foreign policy goals and priorities, the level of interagency

cooperation and coordination, and even the broader political and social climate within the

United States. Additionally, the longterm consequences of NSC decisions may not be

immediately apparent, making it difficult to assess their true impact in the short term. The

concept of a council of advisors echoes throughout the Old Testament. In Exodus 18, Moses,

overwhelmed by the burden of leadership, was instructed by Jethro to delegate authority and

diverse range of perspectives and expertise to inform decision-making. However, the biblical

narrative also cautions against seeking counsel from those who lack integrity or who are

motivated by self-interest.

Comparison

One of the most prominent and frequently discussed discrepancies between the Reagan and

Trump NSCs lies in the degree of centralization of power and the delegation of authority,

reflecting potentially contrasting leadership styles, management philosophies, and approaches

National Security Structure 3

to foreign policy decision-making (Carati & Locatelli, 2023; Dobson, 2016). Reagan, often

characterized as a pragmatic and delegative leader who valued experience and expertise,

seemingly empowered his NSAs to manage the interagency process, shape policy

recommendations, and serve as key intermediaries between the President and the complex

national security bureaucracy (Dobson, 2016). However, it's important to recognize that the

extent to which this delegation of authority was consistently applied across all policy areas, and

the potential trade-offs between centralized control and decentralized initiative, warrant further

analysis. Reagan's reliance on his NSAs sometimes lead to a lack of direct presidential oversight

or a disconnect between policy pronouncements and actual implementation. This was, until

under personal agendas. In contrast, the Trump administration appears to have favored a more

centralized and hierarchical model, with the President exerting greater direct control over

national security policy, often bypassing traditional interagency channels and relying on a

national security initiatives. This potential marginalization of the NSC could be further linked to

reported staff cuts, personnel changes, and a general devaluing of traditional expertise

(Cancian, 2022; Lowenkron, 2025), which may have reduced the Council's overall capacity for

National Security Structure 4

analysis, planning, and coordination, and potentially limited the diversity of perspectives

available to inform policy decisions (Mauk, 2023). The contrast between Reagan’s delegation

and Trump’s centralization reflects a tension between the biblical ideals of distributed

leadership and the need for decisive action. While Jethro’s advice to Moses emphasizes

delegation, the Old Testament also presents examples of strong, centralized leadership, such as

that of King David. The key, perhaps, lies in discerning when delegation is appropriate and when

direct control is necessary. The Bible also warns against the dangers of pride and unchecked

power, emphasizing the importance of humility and accountability in leadership such as

Proverbs 16:18 says: "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall". A centralized

and to seek praise rather than honest counsel.

Contrasting Ideas

Beyond the formal structure and delegation of authority, the composition of senior staff within

the NSC also appears to have differed significantly between the two administrations, reflecting

potentially divergent criteria and priorities in the selection of national security advisors

(Dobson, 2016). While Reagan's NSC often included experienced foreign policy professionals

with extensive experience in diplomacy, intelligence, and military affairs, bringing valuable

expertise, institutional memory, and a nuanced understanding of international relations to the

table (Dobson, 2016), the Trump administration sometimes appeared to prioritize loyalty,

National Security Structure 5

interagency coordination, and the overall credibility of the NSC as a source of objective,

informed, and reliable analysis. The relative lack of traditional foreign policy expertise within

the Trump NSC is thought to have contributed to policy missteps and possible failures that were

not anticipated and lead to unintended consequences. Furthermore, the interagency process

itself seems to have varied significantly between the two administrations, with Reagan's NSC

generally adhering to a more structured, deliberative, and consensus-oriented approach that

sought to ensure that all relevant perspectives were considered before decisions were made

(Dobson, 2016). However, the extent to which this emphasis on consensus may have stifled

dissenting opinions, led to groupthink, or resulted in a diluted compromise approach that failed

contentious process (Mauk, 2023), with decisions sometimes made outside of traditional

channels, without full interagency coordination, and with limited regard for established

procedures, potentially leading to confusion, inefficiency, and a perception of a broken NSC

some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over

you" (NIV, 2011). While loyalty and political alignment are undoubtedly important

considerations, they should not come at the expense of competence and expertise. The

National Security Structure 6

emphasis on challenging established norms could be seen as a reflection of the prophetic

tradition, which often calls for questioning the status quo and challenging injustice. However,

such challenges must be grounded in wisdom, discernment, and a commitment to truth, rather

than simply a desire to disrupt or overturn existing structures. The biblical call for justice and

righteousness demands that those in positions of power use their influence to promote the

well-being of all, not just a select few.

Strengths and Weaknesses

benefited from the deep expertise of its seasoned professionals, a more structured interagency

process, and a commitment to consensus-building, potentially promoting a more unified,

coherent, and wellinformed approach to national security policy (Dobson, 2016). However, as

noted earlier, the emphasis on consensus could have potentially stifled dissenting opinions, and

the structured process might have proven too slow and cumbersome to respond effectively to

rapidly evolving crises. Reagan trusted the process that had been in place for decades, but that

process could also be a limiting factor in rapidly developing situations that required the

Executive to decide in a prompt fashion. Conversely, the Trump administration's direct

presidential control allowed for potentially faster decision-making, a greater responsiveness to

the President's political agenda, and a willingness to challenge established norms and

National Security Structure 7

tendency to disregard dissenting opinions, could have significantly undermined the Council's

effectiveness, increased the risk of policy missteps, and damaged the credibility of U.S. foreign

policy. The strengths and weaknesses of each NSC model can be analyzed through the lens of

biblical wisdom and prudence. The emphasis on expertise and consensus in Reagan's NSC

reflects the biblical value of seeking wise counsel. However, the potential for groupthink

highlights the importance of critical thinking and the willingness to challenge prevailing

assumptions. The Trump administration's emphasis on decisiveness and challenging the status

quo could be seen as a reflection of the biblical call for courage and boldness in the face of

injustice. However, the tendency to disregard dissenting opinions and to prioritize loyalty over

without careful consideration of the potential consequences.

Given these multifaceted considerations, a proposed NSC structure for the current

POTUS should strive to achieve a delicate and nuanced balance between presidential control,

professional expertise, effective interagency coordination, and a commitment to ethical conduct

and responsible governance. While it is understood that the current POTUS generally operates

and makes decisions based off of his experience and understanding of domestic and foreign

policy, a seasoned NSA with extensive experience in both national security policy and

interagency dynamics is arguably indispensable (Dobson, 2016). The potential benefits of

National Security Structure 8

lines of authority must also be addressed. The Principals Committee should remain a central

forum for strategic discussion and decision-making (Rollins, 2025), but its effectiveness will

depend on the President's willingness to foster a culture of open dialogue, intellectual honesty,

and respectful disagreement among his advisors. Empowering the Deputies Committee to

thoroughly examine policy proposals before they reach the Principals Committee seems

essential for promoting informed decision-making, identifying potential challenges and

unintended consequences, and ensuring that all relevant perspectives are fully considered

(Mauk, 2023). The composition of the NSC staff should be carefully managed to ensure a

balanced mix of experienced career professionals and political appointees, with a clear

communication strategy is also crucial for preventing leaks, promoting internal cohesion,

building trust with key stakeholders, and ensuring public accountability (Mauk, 2023). Finally,

regular independent reviews of the NSC's structure, processes, and performance should be

leadership style, and the prevailing political environment. Further research, drawing on a

diverse range of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, is clearly needed to fully

understand the complex dynamics of the NSC and to identify the most effective strategies for

National Security Structure 9

maximizing its contribution to U.S. national security. A proposed NSC structure should be guided

by biblical principles of justice, righteousness, and servant leadership. The emphasis on ethical

conduct and responsible governance reflects the biblical call for leaders to act with integrity and

to prioritize the well-being of those they serve. The call for a clear and transparent

communication strategy reflects the biblical value of honesty and truthfulness. The emphasis on

empowering the Deputies Committee and promoting open dialogue reflects the biblical

principle of shared leadership and the importance of listening to diverse perspectives.

Ultimately, the goal of the NSC should be to promote policies that reflect God's love for all

people and that contribute to a more just and peaceful world. This requires a commitment to

Dobson, A. (2016). Ronald Reagan’s Strategies and Policies: Of Ideology, Pragmatism,

Loyalties, and Management Style. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 27(4), 746–765.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2016.1238705

Carati, A., & Locatelli, A. (2023). All the President’s men. Leadership style, advisory system

and Donald Trump’s mixed record in foreign policy. Global Policy, 14(1), 95–106.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13151 da, V. L., & Dutton, A. (2021). Three approaches

to presidential foreign policymaking in the twenty-first century: The executive, the

magistrate, and the maverick. Peter Lang

Publishing, Incorporated.