In my two decades covering Capitol Hill, I’ve seen countless attempts at reforming Washington’s security apparatus. Few, however, have been as potentially consequential as Senator Marco Rubio’s current push to overhaul the National Security Council (NSC).
As I made my way through the marbled halls of the Russell Senate Office Building last Thursday, the buzz among staffers was palpable. Rubio’s proposal represents the most significant attempt to reshape America’s national security infrastructure since the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
The Florida Republican is drafting legislation that would dramatically restructure the NSC, aiming to restore its original purpose as a coordinating body rather than what critics describe as a “shadow State Department.” Having covered Rubio since his Tea Party-backed Senate win in 2010, I’ve observed his evolution into one of Congress’s most vocal foreign policy hawks.
“The NSC was created to coordinate, not to operate,” Rubio told me during a brief hallway exchange. “Over decades, it’s morphed into something that duplicates and sometimes undermines the work of our established diplomatic and security agencies.”
At its core, Rubio’s plan targets what many security experts view as dangerous mission creep. The NSC staff has ballooned from about a dozen professionals during the Truman administration to approximately 300 under recent presidents. This expansion has transformed what was designed as an advisory body into what some critics call a competing power center.
According to documentation reviewed by Epochedge Politics, the reform would cap NSC staff at 150 members, require Senate confirmation for the National Security Advisor, and impose strict limits on the NSC’s operational capabilities.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told CBS News that “the NSC staff has become too large and too operationally involved,” creating confusion about who speaks for U.S. foreign policy. Gates’s criticism reflects a rare bipartisan concern that spans multiple administrations.
The National Security Act of 1947 established the NSC to coordinate policy across government departments. However, since the Kennedy administration, the body has gradually assumed more direct control over operations, particularly in crisis situations. This shift accelerated after 9/11, when counterterrorism operations demanded rapid decision-making.
During my coverage of the Obama administration, I witnessed firsthand how NSC staffers increasingly traveled abroad for sensitive negotiations, bypassing traditional State Department channels. This trend continued under Trump and now Biden, creating what former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster calls “competing foreign policies.”
Michael Allen, who served on President George W. Bush’s NSC, explained to me, “When NSC staffers call foreign officials directly or issue operational orders, they’re effectively sidestepping the Cabinet secretaries who are legally responsible for those decisions.” Allen believes Rubio’s reforms could restore proper chains of command.
The Congressional Research Service reports that NSC staff grew most dramatically after 9/11, increasing from about 100 professionals during the Clinton years to over 400 at points during the Obama administration.
Senator Rubio’s proposed legislation, which I’m told will be formally introduced next month, would require the NSC to focus exclusively on coordination and strategic planning. It would prohibit council staff from directing operations or engaging directly with foreign governments except in strictly defined circumstances.
“I remember when I began covering Washington in the early 2000s,” I told a colleague at Epochedge News last week. “The NSC was powerful but still functioned primarily as an advisory body. The transformation since then has been remarkable and, many would argue, problematic.”
Not everyone supports Rubio’s vision. Some foreign policy experts argue that a more empowered NSC allows for necessary presidential control over an unwieldy national security bureaucracy. Former Obama NSC official Julianne Smith contends that “sometimes you need the White House to cut through departmental inertia.”
During a particularly candid moment in our conversation, Senator Rubio acknowledged the political challenges ahead. “This isn’t about any single president or party,” he said. “It’s about proper constitutional governance. The Founders never envisioned unconfirmed advisors wielding this kind of power.”
The proposal comes amid broader concerns about executive branch authority. Last year, a bipartisan Yale Law School report concluded that “the NSC’s evolution represents a significant shift of power away from Cabinet departments and toward White House staff who lack Senate confirmation.”
This tension between presidential control and constitutional checks lies at the heart of the debate. Having covered four administrations, I’ve seen how presidents of both parties have embraced expanded NSC powers when they controlled the White House, only to criticize them when in opposition.
As Senator Rubio works to finalize his legislation, the question remains whether Congress can reassert its oversight role in national security affairs. History suggests institutional reform is extraordinarily difficult, but the current moment may prove unique.
For more information on national security reform initiatives, visit Epochedge.com.
