How National Security Presidential Memoranda Work

Last updated 3 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

A National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) is a formal, written directive issued by the President to manage and govern executive branch policies on national security matters.

These powerful instruments serve as primary tools for presidents to announce official U.S. policy, establish strategies, and delegate specific tasks to federal departments and agencies.

During the Trump administration, these directives were specifically designated as NSPMs. The scope of topics covered is exceptionally broad, reflecting the multifaceted nature of modern national security. They can address foreign relations with specific countries, outline military strategy, establish frameworks for cyber operations, set policy on arms transfers, and tackle emerging transnational threats like biodefense and research security.

When founded upon the President’s constitutional or statutory authority, an NSPM carries the force of law upon executive branch departments and agencies. It functions as a command from the nation’s chief executive and commander in chief, directing the machinery of government to act in accordance with stated goals.

Constitutional and Legal Foundations

The authority of presidents to issue directives like NSPMs isn’t explicitly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, this power is understood to derive from powers vested in the President by Article II, which has been subject to interpretation and debate since the nation’s founding.

Primary Constitutional Sources

The Commander in Chief Clause: Article II, Section 2 designates the President as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” Proponents of strong executive authority argue this clause grants the President prime responsibility for conducting U.S. foreign relations and inherent authority to deploy military forces and take other actions deemed necessary to maintain national security and defense.

This perspective holds that in a modern, interconnected world, an attack on a distant ally can directly impinge on U.S. national security, thereby empowering the President to act decisively and unilaterally.

The Executive Power and “Take Care” Clauses: Article II also vests “the executive Power” in the President and includes the charge that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” These clauses are broadly interpreted as providing the President with authority necessary to manage the executive branch, direct its officials, and implement laws passed by Congress.

In addition to these constitutional sources, Congress can explicitly or implicitly delegate authority to the President through legislation. When a President issues an NSPM pursuant to specific power granted by statute, that directive rests on the combined authority of both legislative and executive branches.

A crucial legal analysis from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel clarifies that there’s no substantive difference in legal effectiveness between presidential directives (like NSPMs) and more well-known Executive Orders. The analysis concludes that it’s the substance of presidential action that is determinative, not the form or title of the document conveying it.

Furthermore, these directives remain in force across presidential transitions unless they’re explicitly revoked or superseded by subsequent Presidents.

The Separation of Powers Challenge

The very existence and routine use of NSPMs and their historical equivalents highlight a fundamental and unresolved tension within the U.S. constitutional system: the separation of powers in national security. The Constitution’s text is sparse on the precise division of war and foreign policy powers between the President and Congress, creating what legal scholars have long recognized as a gray area.

In his influential concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson described a “zone of twilight” where the President may act in the absence of clear congressional grant or denial of authority.

National security directives are the primary vehicles through which presidents operate within this twilight zone. Each one issued without explicit statutory backing represents an assertion of inherent executive authority to act swiftly and decisively, a claim that has often gone without significant challenge from other branches.

This dynamic has contributed to a steady accretion of presidential power in foreign and military affairs, particularly since the beginning of the Cold War.

Historical Evolution: A Tool with Many Names

The modern system of presidential national security directives is a product of the post-World War II era. The National Security Act of 1947, landmark legislation, created the National Security Council to advise the President and better coordinate the diplomatic, military, and intelligence components of U.S. foreign policy.

Since that time, every presidential administration has developed its own system and nomenclature for issuing formal policy guidance through the NSC.

Truman and Eisenhower Administrations (1947-1961)

The earliest directives took the form of formal “NSC policy papers,” which combined analysis with policy recommendations, and numbered “NSC Actions,” which recorded decisions made during Council meetings. A famous example is NSC 68, which established the foundational U.S. policy of containment during the Cold War.

From 1947 through the Ford administration, a series known as National Security Council Intelligence Directives (NSCID) was also used to manage the intelligence community.

Kennedy and Johnson Administrations (1961-1969)

President John F. Kennedy’s administration reorganized the NSC and introduced a more streamlined system called National Security Action Memoranda (NSAMs). These documents were used for a wide range of issues, from managing the Cuban Missile Crisis to approving embassy construction. President Lyndon B. Johnson continued the NSAM series.

Nixon and Ford Administrations (1969-1977)

This era saw the creation of a highly structured, dual-track system that became the model for subsequent presidencies:

National Security Study Memoranda (NSSMs) were issued to commission detailed studies of policy issues from across the government. After review and deliberation, the President’s final decision was announced in a National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM).

Carter to Present

While the names have changed with nearly every new occupant of the White House, the basic model of issuing directives for both study and decision has remained consistent. The evolution of these naming conventions provides a clear historical map of this key presidential tool.

How NSPMs Are Created and Implemented

The creation of a National Security Presidential Memorandum is the final step in a highly structured and rigorous interagency process designed to provide the President with well-vetted policy options. This process is managed and coordinated by the National Security Council and its staff, which serves as the President’s principal arm for integrating the diverse elements of national power.

The system is hierarchical, ensuring that issues are thoroughly debated and refined at lower levels before being presented to the President for final decision.

The Three-Tier Committee Structure

Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs): Known as Policy Coordination Committees in some administrations, these are the day-to-day workhorses of the NSC system. Composed of senior civil servants and political appointees at the Assistant Secretary level from relevant agencies, IPCs are responsible for initial analysis of national security issues.

They conduct studies, develop initial policy papers, and work to identify areas of consensus and disagreement among agencies. They are the first line for managing implementation of policies once decisions are made.

The Deputies Committee (DC): This is the senior sub-Cabinet forum, chaired by the Deputy National Security Advisor and attended by second-in-command from key departments (e.g., the Deputy Secretary of State, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy).

The DC’s role is to review the work of IPCs, resolve interagency disputes that couldn’t be settled at the working level, and ensure that policy papers and options are fully prepared for consideration by Cabinet secretaries.

The Principals Committee (PC): As the senior Cabinet-level interagency forum, the PC is the final stop before an issue goes to the President. Chaired by the National Security Advisor, its regular members include the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, and Energy, along with other senior officials like the Director of National Intelligence and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who serve as statutory advisors.

The PC debates the refined options sent up from the DC and develops final recommendations for the President.

From Decision to Implementation

After deliberation within this structure, the President makes a decision. The National Security Advisor and NSC staff are then responsible for memorializing that decision in a formal written directive—an NSPM or its equivalent.

This signed document is then distributed to heads of relevant departments and agencies, assigning specific tasks, responsibilities, and often deadlines for implementation. The NSC’s committee structure then shifts to a monitoring role, ensuring the President’s directives are carried out as intended.

This elaborate, multi-tiered process serves as a conflict resolution machine. Each government department brings its own unique perspective, institutional culture, legal authorities, and budgetary interests to the table. State may prioritize diplomacy, while Defense focuses on military readiness and Treasury on economic stability.

The NSC process is designed to force these competing equities into structured dialogue, identify points of friction, and forge consensus policy whenever possible. When consensus isn’t achievable, the system’s purpose is to clearly articulate points of disagreement and distinct options available, allowing the President to serve as the ultimate arbiter.

An NSPM, therefore, is rarely a simple top-down decree. More often, it represents the codified outcome of a fierce bureaucratic battle or carefully negotiated interagency compromise, making it a far more robust and thoroughly vetted document than it might first appear.

NSPMs in Practice: Key Examples

To understand the real-world impact of these directives, it’s useful to examine specific unclassified examples that illustrate their purpose, implementation, and reach.

NSPM-33: U.S. Research Security

Issued in January 2021, National Security Presidential Memorandum-33, “United States Government-Supported Research and Development National Security Policy,” addressed growing concerns about foreign government interference and intellectual property theft within the American research enterprise.

Purpose and Policy: The central goal of NSPM-33 was to strengthen protections for U.S. taxpayer-funded research while maintaining an open, collaborative environment. It directed all federal research funding agencies (like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health) to establish and standardize their disclosure requirements for researchers.

This was intended to make transparent any potential conflicts of interest or commitment arising from affiliations with foreign institutions or talent recruitment programs.

Implementation and Impact: The directive had direct and significant impact on the nation’s universities and research institutions. It mandated that any institution receiving more than $50 million annually in federal research funding must certify that it has implemented a comprehensive research security program.

These programs are required to include four key elements: cybersecurity, foreign travel security, export control training, and research security training for personnel. This NSPM demonstrates how national security directives can extend deep into domestic civil society, shaping the administrative processes of higher education.

Notably, the policy was endorsed and its implementation continued by the subsequent Biden administration, highlighting its bipartisan support and the potential for policy continuity across administrations.

NSPM-13: U.S. Cyber Operations Policy

Issued in 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum-13, “United States Cyber Operations Policy,” is a prime example of a classic, highly classified national security directive. While the full text remains secret, its existence and general purpose have been publicly acknowledged by government officials and reported in the press.

Purpose and Policy: NSPM-13 replaced a more restrictive Obama-era directive, Presidential Policy Directive 20 (PPD-20). According to reports and official statements, NSPM-13 was designed to streamline the approval process for conducting U.S. military cyber operations.

It reportedly delegated greater authority to the Secretary of Defense and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command to authorize and conduct time-sensitive operations in cyberspace without lengthy, high-level interagency approval processes for every action.

Implementation and Impact: This policy shift enabled a more assertive military strategy in cyberspace known as “defending forward,” which involves actively engaging and contesting adversary cyber activity at its source, before it reaches U.S. networks.

This directive is significant because it illustrates how NSPMs are used to set the secret “rules of engagement” for U.S. armed forces in a critical 21st-century warfighting domain, shaping military doctrine and operations far from public view.

NSM-22: Critical Infrastructure Security

In April 2024, the Biden administration issued National Security Memorandum-22, “Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience,” demonstrating the continued use and evolution of this presidential tool.

Purpose and Policy: NSM-22 replaced a decade-old policy, aiming to modernize the U.S. government’s approach to protecting the nation’s 16 designated critical infrastructure sectors. These sectors include essential services like energy, communications, transportation, and water systems.

The memorandum explicitly recognized a broader range of threats beyond terrorism, including sophisticated cyberattacks from nation-states like China and Russia, the growing impact of climate change, and supply chain vulnerabilities.

Implementation and Impact: The directive empowers the Department of Homeland Security and its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to lead a whole-of-government effort to manage risk. It emphasizes partnership with the private sector, which owns and operates the majority of critical infrastructure, and elevates the importance of establishing and enforcing minimum security and resilience requirements, moving away from a purely voluntary approach.

This NSM shows how the modern definition of national security has expanded to explicitly include economic security, public health, and resilience to non-military threats, and how these directives are used to organize the entire federal government to tackle such complex, cross-cutting challenges.

NSPM vs. Executive Order: Understanding the Differences

While National Security Presidential Memoranda, Executive Orders, and Presidential Proclamations are all forms of presidential directives, they differ in their typical usage, transparency, and process. Understanding these distinctions is key to deciphering the President’s “power of the pen.”

The most critical point, confirmed by the Department of Justice, is that there’s no substantive difference in their legal effect. The legal force of any presidential directive stems from its underlying constitutional or statutory authority, not its title. A directive styled as a memorandum can be just as powerful and legally binding on the executive branch as one styled as an Executive Order.

The primary differences lie in procedure and convention:

Key Distinctions

Publication and Transparency: This is the most significant distinction. Executive Orders and Proclamations that have “general applicability and legal effect” are required by law to be published in the Federal Register, the daily journal of the federal government. This makes them public, numbered, and easily trackable.

In contrast, national security directives like NSPMs are generally not required to be published. They’re typically intended for internal government audiences, are often classified, and may only become public years later, if at all.

Scope and Audience: The different titles often signal the directive’s intended purpose and audience. Executive Orders are generally used for directing and governing the actions of government officials and agencies on a wide range of administrative and policy matters. They’re the primary tool for managing federal government operations.

National Security Directives are narrowly focused on foreign, military, and intelligence policy. They’re directed specifically to the National Security Council and senior leaders of the national security community.

Proclamations are typically used for ceremonial purposes (e.g., declaring national holidays) or for making public announcements of policy on matters like international trade or the creation of national monuments.

Process and Prestige: Executive Orders are considered a more prestigious and formal type of directive. Their preparation and internal review process is governed by specific executive orders, which adds to their formality. Presidential memoranda, including NSPMs, have less established issuance processes, giving the White House more flexibility.

The Secrecy Debate: Transparency vs. National Security

The use of National Security Presidential Memoranda and their historical predecessors lies at the heart of a long-standing debate over the balance between national security, government secrecy, and democratic accountability. This tension is a defining feature of the American system of government, pitting the executive branch’s perceived need for confidentiality against the legislative branch’s oversight responsibilities and the public’s right to know.

The Challenge of Secret Law

A primary source of this tension is the inherent secrecy of many national security directives. Unlike Executive Orders, which are published for all to see, a significant number of NSPMs are classified and withheld not only from the public but often from Congress as well.

This practice effectively creates a body of “secret law” that governs some of the nation’s most critical activities, from military operations to intelligence gathering. For example, during the George W. Bush administration, the titles of only about half of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued were publicly identified, and the actual substance of most remained unknown outside the executive branch.

This lack of transparency presents a formidable challenge to congressional oversight. Congress is tasked with appropriating funds, authorizing programs, and overseeing the executive branch, yet it often lacks access to the very directives that shape the policies it’s meant to supervise.

The National Security Advisor, who oversees the NSC process, doesn’t routinely testify before Congress on substantive matters, further widening the information gap between the two branches.

Arguments for and Against Secrecy

This dynamic fuels concerns about executive overreach. Non-partisan watchdog organizations like the Project on Government Oversight and Brennan Center for Justice argue that the overuse of secret directives allows the executive branch to amass excessive power and act unilaterally, circumventing the legislative process and public debate.

This is particularly concerning when directives authorize significant actions such as covert operations, broad surveillance programs, or the use of military force, all of which can have profound implications for civil liberties and the constitutional balance of powers.

The executive branch, across administrations, has consistently justified this level of secrecy based on the compelling need to protect sensitive national security information. The arguments center on the necessity of safeguarding intelligence sources and methods, military operational plans, and diplomatic negotiations from foreign adversaries.

The President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief is often invoked as the basis for the power to classify and control access to information deemed vital to the nation’s defense.

Judicial Deference

The courts, for their part, have historically been reluctant to intervene in these disputes, often deferring to the President’s judgment in matters of national security and foreign policy or dismissing cases on procedural grounds, thus leaving the political branches to resolve the conflict.

This history reveals a recurring cycle. A national crisis—the Cold War, the 9/11 attacks—prompts the executive branch to expand its use of secret directives to confront the new threat. Over time, details of these secret actions may come to light through media leaks, whistleblowers, or declassification, often sparking public and congressional backlash against perceived executive overreach.

This reaction leads to calls for greater transparency and stronger oversight. Yet, the fundamental tools of executive secrecy and the constitutional arguments supporting them remain intact, allowing the cycle to begin anew with the next crisis.

This suggests that the tension between executive secrecy and democratic accountability isn’t a problem with a final solution, but rather an enduring and defining feature of the American political system. It’s a continuous negotiation over the boundaries of power, one that must be actively managed by all three branches of government, the press, and an engaged citizenry.

The Continuing Evolution

National Security Presidential Memoranda represent one of the most powerful and enduring tools of presidential authority in the modern era. From their origins in the post-World War II reorganization of American national security to their current role in addressing 21st-century challenges like cyber warfare, climate security, and technological competition, these directives have proven remarkably adaptable.

Each administration puts its own stamp on these instruments, changing their names and procedures while maintaining their essential function: translating presidential decisions into concrete government action. Whether addressing the rise of new threats, managing relationships with allies and adversaries, or coordinating the vast machinery of the executive branch, NSPMs and their equivalents remain central to how America conducts its national security policy.

The ongoing debate over their use—balancing the need for decisive executive action against the requirements of democratic accountability—reflects deeper questions about presidential power, congressional oversight, and the public’s right to understand how their government operates in their name.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.