Last updated 1 month ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The most powerful person in American foreign policy often isn’t who you’d expect. It’s not the Secretary of State, who leads America’s diplomatic corps, or the Secretary of Defense, who commands the world’s largest military.
Instead, it’s an official who needs no Senate confirmation, commands no troops, and runs no embassy: the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, known as the National Security Advisor.
The National Security Advisor’s immense influence doesn’t come from law but from a unique combination of proximity to the president, control over the policy process, and the trust of the commander-in-chief.
An Accident of History
The modern, powerful role of the National Security Advisor was never part of the original design. It emerged as an institutional adaptation to the new and perilous realities confronting the United States after World War II.
Post-War Coordination Crisis
In the years immediately following World War II, American leaders faced a transformed world. The United States had emerged as a global superpower, but the structures of its government were still tailored for an era of relative isolation. The war had exposed severe deficiencies in coordination between the military services and the diplomatic corps.
Inter-service rivalries, particularly between the Army and Navy, had hampered strategic planning, while intelligence was fragmented and poorly integrated into policymaking. As the Cold War with the Soviet Union began to crystallize, it became clear that the ad-hoc arrangements and informal advisory groups that had served President Franklin D. Roosevelt were no longer sufficient.
A new, permanent, and integrated structure was needed to formulate national security policy at the highest level of government.
The 1947 National Security Act
The answer was the landmark National Security Act of 1947, arguably the most significant reorganization of U.S. foreign policy and military establishments in the nation’s history. The Act’s stated intent was to provide “a comprehensive program for the future security of the United States” by establishing integrated policies and procedures across the government.
Its key provisions created the pillars of the modern national security state:
A Unified Military Establishment: The act merged the old War and Navy Departments into a single National Military Establishment, later renamed the Department of Defense, led by a civilian Secretary of Defense. The goal was to impose “authoritative coordination and unified direction” over the armed forces, which now included a newly independent Air Force.
The Central Intelligence Agency: The act established the CIA, growing out of the wartime Office of Strategic Services, to serve as the nation’s primary civilian intelligence-gathering and analysis organization.
The National Security Council: At the apex of this new structure was the National Security Council. The NSC was designed as a statutory forum, chaired by the President, for key Cabinet officials—principally the Secretaries of State and Defense—to meet, deliberate, and provide coordinated advice on the integration of “domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security.”
The Understated Beginning
Crucially, the 1947 Act did not create the position of the National Security Advisor. Instead, it provided for a small staff to support the Council, headed by an “Executive Secretary” appointed by the president. This role was envisioned as purely administrative: a coordinator of paperwork, not a formulator of policy.
President Harry Truman, who signed the Act into law, was deeply suspicious of the NSC, viewing it as a congressional attempt to legislate who could advise him. He initially kept the Council at arm’s length, preferring to rely on his Secretary of State, and the NSC often became a forum for bureaucratic squabbling rather than collegial advice.
The modern, powerful NSA role is a direct consequence of the failure of the 1947 Act’s original vision. The Act intended to foster a cabinet-driven process, but the very structure it created—pitting large, powerful departments with their own institutional cultures and interests against each other—made a neutral, White House-based arbiter almost inevitable.
Truman’s own experience demonstrated that the NSC could easily become a “bureaucratic battleground.” Subsequent presidents, seeking to make timely decisions and assert control over their own foreign policy, naturally began to rely more heavily on a trusted aide within their own office to manage these disputes, distill information, and ensure their own preferences were faithfully executed.
The Rise of Presidential Control
The transformation of the National Security Advisor from a minor administrative functionary to a dominant figure in American foreign policy was an evolutionary process, shaped by the management styles of successive presidents and the escalating demands of the Cold War.
Eisenhower’s Structure
President Dwight Eisenhower, with his extensive military staff experience, was the first to truly institutionalize the NSC system. He established a highly structured process with a Planning Board to vet policy papers and an Operations Coordinating Board to monitor the implementation of decisions.
In 1953, he appointed Robert Cutler as the first Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the formal title that predates the modern NSA. Under Eisenhower, the Special Assistant was a chief administrator, an “honest broker” who managed the formal policy process but was careful not to usurp the role of the formidable Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, as the president’s principal foreign policy adviser.
Kennedy’s Revolution
The pivotal shift occurred under President John F. Kennedy. Disenchanted with large bureaucracies, which he blamed for the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy dismantled Eisenhower’s formal NSC machinery. He preferred a more informal, fast-paced style, relying on ad hoc groups of trusted advisers.
This change dramatically elevated the power of his National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, a former Harvard dean known for his intellect and self-assurance. Bundy and his small, elite staff became the central nervous system of foreign policy, what some observers dubbed a “little State Department.”
They operated out of the newly created White House Situation Room, monitoring intelligence and diplomatic traffic in real time. Bundy controlled the flow of information to the president, managed crises like the Cuban Missile Crisis, and had Kennedy’s ear in a way that the State Department often did not.
The Nixon-Kissinger Peak
The centralization of foreign policy power in the White House reached its zenith under President Richard Nixon and his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger. Nixon, deeply distrustful of the State Department bureaucracy, intended to run foreign policy directly from the White House.
In Kissinger, a brilliant Harvard professor, he found the perfect instrument. Together, they effectively sidelined Secretary of State William Rogers, who was often kept in the dark about major initiatives.
Kissinger expanded the NSC staff and created a committee structure that he personally chaired, giving him total control over the policy process. He became the president’s chief negotiator, conducting secret talks that led to the historic opening to China and the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam War.
For a time, Kissinger even held the titles of National Security Advisor and Secretary of State simultaneously, an unprecedented concentration of power. The Nixon-Kissinger era cemented the NSA’s status as a potential co-equal, or even superior, to the Secretary of State in the foreign policy hierarchy.
Sources of Informal Power
The history of the NSA’s rise reveals that its power is not based on statute but on a unique set of informal advantages inherent to its position in the Executive Office of the President:
Proximity: The NSA’s office is located in the West Wing, just feet from the Oval Office. This grants the advisor daily, sometimes hourly, access to the president—a level of interaction no Cabinet Secretary, located in a separate building miles away, can hope to match.
Process Control: The NSA is the manager of the entire national security decision-making system. They determine the agenda for NSC meetings, control the flow of documents to the president, frame the policy options for debate, and summarize the conclusions of meetings for the official record. This gatekeeping function provides immense power to shape not just the discussion, but the ultimate decision.
Presidential Trust: Ultimately, the NSA’s power is a direct reflection of the president’s confidence. As a member of the president’s personal staff, the NSA’s loyalty is directed solely to the president, not to a vast department, a congressional committee, or an external constituency. They are seen as an unbiased arbiter of departmental disputes and a faithful agent of the president’s will.
The growth of the NSA’s power is also inextricably linked to the expansion of the modern “imperial presidency” and the demands of a 24-hour media environment. As presidents sought more direct, personal control over foreign policy, the slow, deliberative, and often leaky processes of the major departments became less appealing.
The nimble, secretive, and loyal NSC staff, able to manage a crisis, draft a presidential statement, and brief the press with a speed the State Department could not match, became the president’s preferred instrument.
Two Models of Influence
While proximity and process control provide the opportunity for influence, how a National Security Advisor wields that power depends greatly on their personal philosophy and their relationship with the president. Over the decades, two distinct models of advising have emerged, creating a fundamental tension at the heart of the job.
The Honest Broker Model
This model casts the NSA as a fair and impartial process manager. The primary goal is not to advance a personal agenda but to ensure the president hears all relevant viewpoints from the Cabinet departments and agencies.
An honest broker ensures that policy options are fully vetted, that departmental equities are respected, and that the system functions smoothly and transparently for the key players. Their own policy views are subordinate to the task of managing a fair process that delivers the best possible advice to the president.
The Policy Advocate Model
In this model, the NSA acts as a chief strategist and a primary source of foreign policy ideas. They are a forceful advocate for their own strategic vision, working actively to persuade the president and steer the interagency process toward their preferred outcomes.
An advocate NSA often becomes a public face of the administration’s foreign policy, engaging in high-level diplomacy and publicly articulating the president’s strategy.
The Scowcroft Standard
The archetype of the honest broker is Brent Scowcroft, the only person to have served as National Security Advisor to two different presidents, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. The “Scowcroft Model” is defined by a disciplined adherence to the principles of fair process.
Scowcroft believed his job was to run a transparent and inclusive system, maintain the full confidence of his Cabinet colleagues like Secretary of State James Baker, and keep a deliberately low public profile, ensuring that the president was always the principal spokesman for American foreign policy.
His steady, behind-the-scenes management is widely credited with the smooth and successful handling of monumental events, including the peaceful end of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany, and the international coalition-building during the first Gulf War.
Advocate Examples: Kissinger and Brzezinski
In stark contrast to Scowcroft stand two of the most powerful “advocate” NSAs in history.
Henry Kissinger was not merely an advisor but the primary architect and executor of Nixon’s foreign policy. His role went far beyond process management to include direct negotiation and strategic implementation, often to the exclusion of the formal diplomatic bureaucracy.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, serving President Jimmy Carter, was a powerful intellectual and geostrategic thinker who brought a strong, hawkish anti-Soviet ideology to the White House. His advocacy for a foreign policy centered on human rights and confronting Soviet expansionism frequently put him at odds with the more conciliatory Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance.
This public friction between the president’s top two foreign policy advisers created an image of an administration at war with itself, confusing allies and adversaries about who truly spoke for the United States.
Modern Blends
In recent decades, the lines between these two models have often blurred. National Security Advisors like Condoleezza Rice under George W. Bush and Jake Sullivan under Joe Biden have demonstrated that it is possible to be both an effective process manager and a highly visible policy advocate.
They have chaired the interagency committees and managed the flow of information while also serving as key public spokespeople, trusted presidential emissaries, and influential voices in the administration’s most critical foreign policy debates.
| National Security Advisor | President(s) Served | Defining Events/Policies | Noted Advisory Style |
|---|---|---|---|
| McGeorge Bundy | Kennedy, Johnson | Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War escalation | Advocate/”Little State Department” |
| Henry Kissinger | Nixon, Ford | Opening to China, Vietnam Peace Accords, Détente | Dominant Policy Advocate/Operator |
| Zbigniew Brzezinski | Carter | Camp David Accords, Iran Hostage Crisis, Soviet-Afghan War | Hawkish Advocate |
| Brent Scowcroft | Ford, G.H.W. Bush | End of the Cold War, Gulf War | The “Honest Broker” Ideal |
| Condoleezza Rice | G.W. Bush | 9/11 Attacks, War on Terror, Iraq War | Influential Advocate |
| Jake Sullivan | Biden | Russia-Ukraine War, China Competition, Gaza War | Policy Advocate/”Foreign Policy for the Middle Class” |
Institutional Friction
The unique structure of the U.S. national security system creates an environment of inherent competition. At the center of this dynamic is an almost unavoidable institutional friction between the National Security Advisor and the Secretaries of State and Defense.
Structural Conflict
The conflict stems from the different sources of power and accountability for each position. The Secretaries of State and Defense are Senate-confirmed officials who lead vast, Congressionally-funded departments with thousands of employees and clear statutory responsibilities.
They are accountable to both the President and to Congress, which controls their budgets and conducts oversight. The National Security Advisor, by contrast, is a member of the President’s personal staff. They are appointed without Senate confirmation, have no statutory line authority over any department, and their sole allegiance is to the president.
This creates a natural tension between the president’s personal foreign policy team in the White House and the government’s formal, Congressionally-mandated foreign policy and defense machinery.
Historic Rivalries
This rivalry was never more pronounced than during the Nixon administration. President Nixon and NSA Henry Kissinger systematically and deliberately sidelined Secretary of State William Rogers. They used secret “backchannels” for diplomacy, withheld critical information from the State Department, and excluded Rogers from key meetings on China and Vietnam.
Kissinger’s NSC staff became the de facto state department for all major issues, analyzing policy papers and making recommendations directly to Nixon, leaving the official State Department to handle less critical matters.
The Carter administration provides a different but equally illustrative example. The strong and divergent personalities of NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance led to constant and public policy disagreements.
Brzezinski, the hardline anti-Soviet advocate, clashed with Vance, the career diplomat who favored negotiation and détente. This division was visible to the entire world, creating confusion among allies and adversaries about which official truly spoke for American foreign policy.
The unresolved tension ultimately led to Vance’s resignation in protest over the military mission to rescue American hostages in Iran, an operation championed by Brzezinski.
Managing the Dynamic
These historical cases reveal that the critical variable in managing this institutional friction is the president’s own management style. A president like George H.W. Bush, who valued cabinet government and had strong personal relationships with his secretaries, could empower an “honest broker” NSA like Brent Scowcroft to foster a cooperative and effective process.
Conversely, a president like Richard Nixon, who was deeply suspicious of the federal bureaucracy, could empower an “advocate” NSA like Kissinger to centralize power and bypass the departments, maximizing friction.
The effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy is often a direct function of how well this internal dynamic is managed. When the NSA and the Secretary of State are publicly at odds, foreign governments receive mixed signals and are unsure which policy to follow.
This can paralyze diplomacy, as allies hesitate to commit to a course of action that might be reversed by another faction within the U.S. government. Adversaries, in turn, can exploit these divisions to their advantage.
The Confirmation Debate
The immense power wielded by the National Security Advisor, combined with their status as an unconfirmed presidential appointee, has fueled a long-standing debate: should an official with such profound influence on foreign policy be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate?
Arguments for Confirmation
Proponents of requiring Senate confirmation make several key arguments, primarily centered on accountability and the principles of checks and balances.
Accountability: The NSA often exercises power and influence comparable to, or even exceeding, that of Cabinet secretaries. Therefore, proponents argue, they should be subject to the same public vetting process and be available to testify before congressional committees to explain and defend administration policy.
Transparency: A public confirmation hearing would force a nominee to articulate their strategic worldview and policy priorities on the record. This would provide the American public and Congress with a clearer understanding of the person who will be the president’s principal national security confidant.
Congressional Check: Confirmation would give the Senate a formal check on the president’s choice, preventing the appointment of individuals with overly radical or contentious views without a thorough legislative review and debate.
Arguments Against Confirmation
Opponents of confirmation, including most past presidents and NSAs, argue that it would fundamentally and damagingly alter the nature of the position.
Confidential Counsel: The primary argument is that the president is entitled to receive candid, confidential advice from their immediate personal staff. If the NSA were subject to Senate confirmation and could be compelled to testify, the intimate and confidential nature of their relationship with the president would be destroyed.
A president might then seek advice elsewhere, from unconfirmed and unaccountable aides, defeating the purpose of the reform.
Avoiding Politicization: A confirmation battle would inevitably politicize what is intended to be a staff position. It could make it more difficult for the NSA to be perceived as an “honest broker” by Cabinet members and could saddle the president with an advisor chosen more for their confirmability than for their personal chemistry with the commander-in-chief.
Distinct Role: The NSA’s role is different from that of a Cabinet secretary. They do not run a department, manage a budget appropriated by Congress, or implement laws in the same way. Their function is to advise and coordinate for the president, a role that proponents argue should remain firmly within the purview of the executive branch.
The Iran-Contra Catalyst
This debate gained urgency from the Iran-Contra affair in the mid-1980s. During this scandal, members of President Ronald Reagan’s NSC staff, including NSA John Poindexter and his aide Oliver North, engaged in a secret and illegal scheme to sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages, and then illegally diverted the profits to fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.
The affair demonstrated the profound dangers of an “operational” NSC staff that was accountable only to the president. The ensuing investigations and public outcry led to widespread calls for reform, including mandatory Senate confirmation for the NSA, to prevent such an abuse of power from happening again.
Despite the scandal, however, the proposal has never been enacted into law.
21st-Century Challenges
In the 21st century, the nature of threats to U.S. national security has become increasingly complex, diffuse, and transnational. Challenges like terrorism, cyber warfare, global pandemics, and great power competition do not fit neatly into the traditional jurisdictions of the State Department, the Pentagon, or any single intelligence agency.
These cross-cutting threats have made the National Security Advisor’s role as a coordinator, integrator, and gatekeeper more critical than ever.
Coordinating Counter-Terrorism
The attacks of September 11, 2001, triggered the most significant restructuring of the U.S. national security apparatus since 1947. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 created the position of the Director of National Intelligence to oversee the entire intelligence community and established the National Counterterrorism Center to serve as a central hub for analyzing and integrating all terrorism-related intelligence.
Concurrently, the Department of Homeland Security was created, merging 22 separate agencies, and President George W. Bush established the Homeland Security Council to coordinate domestic security efforts.
In this new, complex landscape, the NSA’s role became central to weaving together the threads of foreign intelligence, domestic law enforcement, and homeland defense into a single, cohesive counter-terrorism strategy. The NSA chairs the Principals Committee meetings where the heads of these powerful and often competing agencies hash out policies on everything from drone strikes to terrorist financing to aviation security.
Managing Cyber Warfare
The digital age has introduced new domains of conflict that are inherently interagency in nature. A major cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure is simultaneously a national security threat, a criminal act, and an intelligence challenge.
Responding effectively requires the coordinated action of the National Security Agency, U.S. Cyber Command, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency within DHS, and the FBI. The National Security Advisor and the NSC staff are the designated coordinators for developing a “whole-of-government” response, ensuring that diplomatic, economic, and potential military actions are synchronized.
Artificial Intelligence Strategy
More recently, the rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence has been identified as a transformative national security challenge. As articulated by NSA Jake Sullivan, the U.S. must develop a comprehensive national strategy to harness the benefits of AI for security while mitigating its profound risks, from autonomous weapons to AI-driven disinformation campaigns.
This effort, which involves technology companies, the intelligence community, and the Pentagon, is coordinated at the highest level by the NSC. The creation of a Senate-confirmed National Cyber Director, who serves as the president’s principal advisor on cyber strategy and works in coordination with the NSC, further underscores the need for a centralized, White House-led approach to these complex technological threats.
Global Health Security
The COVID-19 pandemic starkly demonstrated that global health security is national security. A novel pathogen can kill more Americans than a military conflict, devastate the economy, and destabilize societies worldwide.
The U.S. government’s response to such a crisis requires a seamless integration of public health expertise, diplomatic engagement, supply chain management, and intelligence analysis. The NSC has become the central coordinating body for the national response to biological threats and pandemics.
The history of the NSC’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense—created by the Obama administration, dissolved in 2018 under NSA John Bolton, and then reinstated by the Biden administration—serves as a powerful case study in how the NSC’s structure and priorities adapt to evolving threat perceptions.
Great Power Competition
With the post-9/11 focus on counter-terrorism giving way to a new era of strategic competition with China and Russia, the NSA’s role has come full circle, returning to the grand strategy formulation for which the NSC was originally conceived.
The NSA is responsible for overseeing the drafting of the president’s National Security Strategy, the foundational document that outlines the administration’s approach to this global competition.
This requires integrating all instruments of national power—diplomatic alliances, military posture, economic statecraft, technological advantage, and intelligence capabilities—into a coherent, long-term plan.
In an age where economic policy is national security policy and technological leadership is a key battlefield, the NSA’s ability to coordinate across the entire government is more indispensable than at any point in the nation’s history.
The gatekeeper’s role is no longer just to manage the flow of information on discrete crises, but to conduct the entire orchestra of American power on a global stage. The National Security Advisor has evolved from an administrative functionary to the central coordinator of American statecraft, wielding influence that rivals or exceeds that of any Cabinet secretary—all while remaining accountable to no one but the president.
This concentration of power in a single, unconfirmed advisor represents both the promise and peril of the modern presidency. When it works well, it provides presidents with the agility and coordination needed to respond to complex, fast-moving global challenges. When it fails, it can lead to policy disasters that echo through history, from the Bay of Pigs to Iran-Contra.
What remains constant is the NSA’s central role as the ultimate gatekeeper—the person who decides what the most powerful leader in the world sees, hears, and considers before making decisions that shape the fate of nations.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
