Trump has cut more than 50% of the staff at the National Security Council (NSC), the hub that has guided U.S. foreign policy analysis for generations. He has also removed numerous specialists from the intelligence agencies because of their connection to the nearly decade-long investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election. The president accuses these experts of being part of a “deep state” bent on obstructing his agenda, and he argues that his personal relationship with his Russian counterpart could help secure a peace deal in Ukraine. “I think he wants to make a deal with me—you understand—even if it sounds crazy,” Trump told French President Emmanuel Macron at the White House earlier this week.
As Russia intensifies its missile and drone (UAV) strikes against Ukraine, Trump has chosen to rely primarily on himself and a tight circle of loyalists—including friends from the business world—to craft his strategy toward Moscow. His actions fit a broader governing pattern in which the president reshapes the machinery of government to carry out his wishes, rather than inviting officials, experts, and advisers to debate policy or offer independent counsel. Trump describes his recent diplomacy on Ukraine as extremely effective, yet publicly the prospects for a cease-fire or a peace agreement remain distant.
A White House official argues that Trump is producing results through direct leader-to-leader negotiations, instead of the approach used by predecessors who depended on hundreds of researchers and advisers. The official also says that Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, has in fact spent hours speaking with President Putin. From the earliest days of his first term, Trump expressed deep suspicion of the NSC, believing that the nation’s “brain” for security policy was trying to undermine him.
The current “purge” at the NSC was proposed by Robert O’Brien, the former national security adviser, who contends the organization needed reform to better execute the president’s goals. “In President Trump’s first term, when we cut policy staff at the NSC by half—after it had grown unnecessarily under Obama—the NSC became more efficient, stopped leaking, and delivered major policy wins for the president,” O’Brien says. “The second-term reductions have produced similar results,” he adds, citing the summit between Trump and Putin in Alaska and the White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders.
The downsizing accelerated last week when Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced she would revoke the security clearances of 37 current and former officials. At least three of the current officials had worked on Russia-related issues. She then said she would all but shut down the Foreign Malign Influence Center, which Congress created to coordinate intelligence efforts to monitor interference by Russia and other states. Last year, the center held briefings with the media and government officials to warn about foreign threats to U.S. elections. Many Republicans bristled at suggestions that their supporters were influenced by Russia; the Trump administration subsequently began to scale back most monitoring and warning efforts concerning foreign influence operations.
Representative Jim Himes, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, says intelligence professionals are being forced out and those who remain have “received a clear message” about what they should say. He argues that the intelligence community’s capacity for “objective collection and analysis” is being systematically degraded, which “will certainly make our country less safe and less free.” Evelyn N. Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute at Arizona State University, notes that many of the dismissed national-security experts “held extensive intelligence on Russia,” and she warns that the administration is operating without professional input.
Senior Trump administration officials reject claims that the United States is losing top Russia expertise, insisting the dismissals target analysts deemed weak by Gabbard’s assessments. They argue that focusing too narrowly on Moscow while neglecting other foreign-policy challenges would be a mistake. Joel Willett, a former CIA officer and NSC staffer, is among the 37 who lost clearances last week, which means he can no longer work on classified government contracts.
In a social-media post, right-wing conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer claimed she reported Willett because he signed a 2019 letter calling for Trump’s impeachment and because he is considering a Democratic bid for the U.S. Senate seat from Kentucky that Senator Mitch McConnell will vacate. Willett says Loomer’s post is inaccurate. He contends the larger problem is that removing experts on Russia and other national-security issues will make it significantly harder for the U.S. government to advise the president. Willett, who served on the NSC under President Barack Obama, also voiced disappointment that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, serving concurrently as acting national security adviser, has reduced the organization’s size.
“We live in a hyperconnected era with rapidly evolving global threats,” Willett says. “I have always valued having dedicated, professional experts in government, and the president’s ability to consult them for policy recommendations. But what we’re seeing now is an administration that simply does not value expertise, because the president believes he knows best.”
Democratic Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, warns that the administration is losing the very experts the country needs at a critical moment. “Moscow remains one of our most formidable adversaries,” Warner says, accusing Russia of election interference and persistent cyberattacks against the United States. “Just when we need the best experts on the front lines, the administration is removing them for various reasons, stripping their clearances, and making Americans less safe.”
Gabbard’s dismissal list also includes a senior CIA analyst on Russia. At the National Intelligence Council—the office within the DNI that coordinates analytic products—the acting chair and deputy were removed earlier this year. Last week, despite objections from senior officials, Gabbard ordered the firing of a senior data scientist at the National Security Agency (NSA). Former officials say this decision will have far-reaching effects on the NSA’s ability to keep pace with China’s advances in encryption, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence. The scientist was dismissed because he had held a senior intelligence post tracking cyber operations in 2016, when the assessment of Russia’s influence campaign in the U.S. election was drafted.
Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA officer who oversaw covert operations in Europe and Russia, says the administration’s actions have consequences beyond the loss of personnel. “What worries me is the indifference to analytic objectivity,” he says. According to Polymeropoulos, President Trump does not want to hear intelligence reporting on Russian behavior, and Loomer is working to push out national-security officials who have worked on Russia. “The core principle that the intelligence community must speak truth to leadership has been lost amid excessive politicization,” he emphasizes. “These moves will have real consequences.”