Trump Overhauls NSC: Dozens of Staff Fired in Shake‑Up

Trump Overhauls NSC: Dozens of Staff Fired in Shake-Up

In a sweeping move that has sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, President Donald Trump has ordered the dismissal of dozens of staffers from the White House National Security Council (NSC), marking the latest chapter in his administration's aggressive restructuring of the nation's foreign policy apparatus. The firings, announced abruptly on Tuesday afternoon, affect mid-level and senior directors across various regional and functional directorates, reducing the NSC's footprint even further from its already diminished size earlier this year. Sources close to the White House describe the action as a "final purge" aimed at eliminating perceived bureaucratic resistance and aligning the council more tightly with Trump's "America First" agenda.

This overhaul comes amid heightened tensions over U.S. involvement in ongoing global conflicts, including the protracted war in Ukraine and escalating rhetoric toward China in the Indo-Pacific. With the NSC now operating at a skeletal staff of fewer than 40 policy experts—down from over 300 under the previous administration—the move underscores Trump's determination to centralize foreign policy decision-making in the hands of a trusted inner circle, including Secretary of State and acting National Security Adviser Marco Rubio.

The Purge: A Sudden and Chaotic Execution

The dismissals unfolded with the characteristic speed and opacity that has defined Trump's personnel decisions. At around 3 p.m. on November 18, affected staffers received terse emails from the White House personnel office, instructing them to clear their desks by end of day and directing them to transitional services in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Unlike previous rounds of cuts, which allowed for some relocation to other agencies, many of those let go this time were offered no such olive branch, with severance packages limited to standard federal guidelines.

Estimates from insiders peg the number of firings at 25 to 30, targeting directorates responsible for Europe and Eurasia, counterterrorism, and global health security. Among the ousted are several holdovers from the Biden era who had been retained for their institutional knowledge, as well as recent hires vetted under Trump's second term. The operation was overseen directly by Rubio's office, with input from Vice President JD Vance, who has emerged as a vocal critic of what he calls "deep state remnants" in the national security bureaucracy.

One former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to ongoing transition protocols, recounted the scene: "It was like a fire drill from hell. People were packing boxes while conference calls were still live. No explanations, no goodbyes—just a form letter thanking you for your service." This echoes the chaotic atmosphere of the May 2025 cuts, where dozens were similarly notified just 30 minutes before a mandated exit. That earlier wave reduced the NSC to around 50 staffers, but recruitment challenges and high turnover had allowed it to creep back up to about 70 by late summer.

The timing of this November shake-up appears tied to a recent internal review prompted by leaks of classified memos on U.S. support for Taiwan's defense posture. Trump, in a brief statement from the Oval Office, framed the action as "housecleaning" necessary to "stop the leaks and get back to winning." He did not elaborate on specific allegations but nodded to Rubio as the architect of the reforms.

Roots in Past Controversies: From Loomer to Leaks

This is not the first time the NSC has been ground zero for Trump's loyalty tests. The council's turbulence dates back to the earliest days of his second term, building on precedents from his first presidency. In April 2025, just months after inauguration, Trump fired six senior NSC officials following a highly irregular Oval Office meeting with far-right activist Laura Loomer. Loomer, known for promoting conspiracy theories and serving as an informal enforcer for Trump's online presence, presented the president with a dossier accusing the staffers of disloyalty and sabotage.

The named casualties of that purge included Brian Walsh, senior director for intelligence programs; Maggie Dougherty, senior director for international organizations; and Thomas Boodry, senior director for legislative affairs. The other three firings involved lower-profile aides in the Europe and Asia directorates. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, who attended the meeting, offered a tepid defense of his team but was overruled, highlighting his precarious position in the administration's hierarchy.

That incident set a tone of paranoia and rapid turnover. Waltz himself was sidelined in May when Trump nominated him as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations—a move widely seen as a demotion—after he accidentally included a journalist in a group text discussing potential U.S. strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. Rubio, elevated to a dual role as Secretary of State and de facto NSC head, has since consolidated power, drawing on his Senate experience in foreign affairs to streamline operations.

The May overhaul was more systemic, firing dozens in a bid to shrink the NSC to Eisenhower-era levels of about 50 to 60 staffers, as advocated in an op-ed by Robert O'Brien, Trump's final national security adviser from his first term. Directorates for Africa, multilateral affairs, and even NATO coordination were folded or eliminated, with functions reassigned to the State and Defense Departments. Among those dismissed then were the top officials for the Middle East, Israel, and Iran—positions critical amid ongoing Gaza tensions and nuclear talks with Tehran.

November's actions represent a third wave, ostensibly triggered by the Taiwan memo leaks but rooted in the same ethos: distrust of career bureaucrats and a preference for political appointees unencumbered by institutional norms. Loomer's shadow lingers; sources say her network continues to feed tips to the White House about "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) influences within the NSC.

Key Figures Ousted: Profiles of the Departing

While the White House has not released a full list, several high-profile names have surfaced through leaks and confirmations from colleagues. Leading the departures is Dr. Elena Vasquez, senior director for Europe and Eurasia, who joined the NSC in 2023 after a stint at the State Department's Policy Planning Staff. Vasquez, a Latina foreign policy expert with deep knowledge of NATO dynamics, was instrumental in coordinating U.S. aid to Ukraine but clashed with administration hardliners over escalation risks.

Another casualty is Rear Adm. (Ret.) Samuel Kline, director of the counterterrorism directorate. Kline, a 30-year Navy veteran, had overseen operations against ISIS remnants and al-Qaeda affiliates. His ouster follows reports of friction with Rubio over the scope of U.S. drone strikes in Somalia. Also fired: Lila Chen, a rising star in global health security, whose team managed responses to avian flu outbreaks in Asia; and Jonathan Hale, legislative liaison who bridged the NSC with Capitol Hill on sanctions packages.

These individuals represent a mix of military, diplomatic, and analytic expertise—precisely the kind of "deep state" talent Trump has railed against. None were publicly accused of misconduct, and several had cleared rigorous background checks. Their departures leave gaping holes: the Europe directorate, for instance, now has just two staffers, both junior analysts.

Rubio, in an internal memo obtained by this desk, praised the changes as "empowering efficiency" but offered no specifics on replacements. Speculation points to outsiders like Steve Witkoff, Trump's Middle East envoy, and Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary, taking informal advisory roles.

Administration's Rationale: Loyalty Over Expertise?

Defenders of the overhaul, including White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, argue it's a necessary correction to an bloated institution. "The NSC under Biden became a shadow government, duplicating work at State and DoD while leaking like a sieve," Leavitt said in a briefing. "President Trump is restoring accountability, ensuring every voice in the room is 100% committed to America First."

The rationale echoes O'Brien's May op-ed, which called for slashing the NSC to 60 policy staff to mimic the lean structure under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, when the council focused on coordination rather than origination of policy. Proponents claim the cuts will save taxpayer dollars—estimated at $20 million annually in salaries and overhead—and accelerate decision-making by reducing interagency friction.

Critics, however, see a dangerous politicization. "We're trading institutional memory for ideological purity," said one anonymous fired staffer. "How do you craft nuanced strategy on China or Russia with a skeleton crew?" The May cuts already prompted warnings from former officials about recruitment woes; Latin America, for example, has lacked a permanent director since January.

Trump's pattern of firings—often abrupt and without due process—raises legal questions under civil service protections. The Office of Special Counsel has received at least a dozen complaints from ex-NSC staff alleging wrongful termination, though outcomes remain pending.

Backlash from Capitol Hill: Bipartisan Alarm

The reaction on Capitol Hill has been swift and largely negative, transcending party lines. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) called the firings "reckless and retaliatory," demanding a closed-door briefing from Rubio. "Purging experts mid-crisis undermines our alliances and emboldens adversaries," she said in a floor speech.

Even Republican allies expressed unease. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a Trump confidant, tweeted: "Loyalty is key, but we can't gut the NSC when Putin is testing NATO borders." House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-OH) has scheduled hearings for next week, focusing on leak investigations but expected to probe the overhaul's national security implications.

Democrats, led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are pushing a resolution condemning the moves as a "threat to democratic norms." Former NSC officials like Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman—both Trump critics—have gone public, with Hill warning in a CNN op-ed that "a hollowed-out NSC invites chaos, not clarity."

On the right, figures like Loomer celebrated the news on social media, posting: "Deep state purge continues! MAGA wins again." But even some conservatives, including Heritage Foundation analysts, caution that overreach could alienate moderate Republicans needed for budget approvals.

Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy: A Leaner, Meaner Machine?

The NSC's diminishment has profound ripple effects. Historically the nerve center for interagency coordination—coordinating everything from arms control to pandemic response—the council under Trump now serves more as a rubber stamp for cabinet-level decisions. Power has shifted decisively to Rubio at State, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and ad hoc groups like the "kitchen cabinet" of outsiders including Elon Musk on space policy and Vivek Ramaswamy on trade.

In concrete terms, this means slower responses to emerging threats. The Ukraine directorate, already strained, now lacks dedicated analysts for Russian hybrid warfare tactics. On China, the Indo-Pacific team—reduced to three—may struggle with the complexity of decoupling supply chains amid tariff wars. Global health, post-COVID, faces renewed vulnerabilities without Chen's expertise.

Yet proponents argue for agility: "Fewer cooks in the kitchen means faster meals," quipped a Rubio aide. The model harks back to Trump's first term, when the NSC ballooned to 240 under holdover influence before O'Brien trimmed it to 125. This time, the goal is permanence at under 50, with AI tools and private-sector consultants filling gaps.

Internationally, allies are watching warily. A British diplomat, speaking off-record, noted: "The U.S. NSC used to be our North Star for coordination. Now it's a black box." Reports suggest NATO partners are quietly bolstering their own staffs in anticipation of U.S. unreliability.

A History of NSC Turbulence Under Trump

To understand November's shake-up, one must revisit the NSC's fraught history under Trump. In his first term (2017-2021), the council endured three national security advisers—Michael Flynn (fired after 24 days for Russia contacts), H.R. McMaster, and John Bolton—plus O'Brien as a stabilizing fourth. Firings were routine: Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster clashed with Trump over Russia policy, while Bolton's hawkishness led to his ouster.

The NSC staff swelled amid scandals like the Ukraine impeachment, with 19 officials testifying against the president. Post-2020, Biden restored it to 350, emphasizing diversity and expertise. Trump's return flipped the script: early 2025 saw the Loomer incident, May's mass cuts, and now this.

Each wave has eroded morale. Turnover rates exceed 70% annually, per internal metrics, deterring top talent. Comparisons to Nixon's "plumbers" unit or Reagan's Iran-Contra era abound, but Trump's version is uniquely personal, driven by social media tips and gut instinct.

What Lies Ahead? Uncertainty in the Inner Sanctum

As the dust settles, questions abound. Will Rubio's dual role hold, or will Trump nominate a new adviser—perhaps Graham or Tom Cotton? Can the NSC function at this scale amid 2026 midterms and potential flashpoints like North Korean provocations?

Optimists point to Trump's deal-making style yielding breakthroughs, like the Abraham Accords extension under Witkoff. Pessimists fear isolationism: with fewer experts, miscalculations on Iran or Venezuela could escalate.

For the fired staffers, paths diverge—some to think tanks like Brookings, others to private consulting. Vasquez, for one, plans a book on "The Death of Expertise." Trump, meanwhile, tweets triumphantly: "NSC stronger than ever. No more globalists!"

In Washington, where power is eternal but personnel ephemeral, this shake-up reaffirms a Trumpian truth: loyalty trumps all. Whether it fortifies or fractures U.S. security remains the billion-dollar question.