The Interagency Process
|
Whether it aims to meet an acute national security threat or to advance a long-standing objective, a successful foreign policymaking process starts with the clear articulation of U.S. interests and goals. Policymakers and their advisors then formulate viable policy options to meet those goals and conduct a clear-eyed review of each option’s strengths and weaknesses. After a thorough assessment of the risks and benefits, the process is complete when a decision is made, the rationale behind it is clearly explained, and the policy is implemented with periodic appraisal to ensure it is meeting the intended goals.
Due to the complexity of global politics and economics, foreign policy is challenging at the best of times. Frequently, however, the policymaking environment is far from ideal. Information can be unreliable or incomplete, an adversary’s intentions unclear, and a decision’s consequences unknowable. Leaders often face a menu on which every option is imperfect. Compounding this uncertainty is the intricacy of the U.S. government’s foreign policy machinery, in which numerous agencies—each with its own institutional interests and biases—seek to influence how policy is decided and carried out. In these circumstances, it takes considerable effort to run a process capable of producing sound policy decisions. |
|
|
The National Security Council (NSC) plays a critical role in this effort. According to the White House, the NSC exists to serve as the “president’s principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials.” Its mission is to help the president effectively use a variety of instruments, whether military, diplomatic, or otherwise, to forge policies that advance U.S. national security objectives.
The NSC was created by the National Security Act of 1947, which reorganized agencies and processes related to intelligence, foreign policy, and the military. The act defined the NSC as an interagency body intended to “advise the president with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security.” Following World War II, in an age of expanded American interests and responsibilities, the NSC was expected to provide a forum where the heads of federal departments and agencies could cooperate to develop and recommend to the president policies that would advance U.S. aims. The NSC and its staff were also meant to evenhandedly manage the policymaking process so that the president could receive a full spectrum of advice and opinion from the departments and agencies involved in national security. |
|
The National Security Act did not say how policy decisions were to be reached. This has allowed an evolution of the policymaking process according to the preferences of each president and the international threats and challenges of the day. As foreign policy scholars such as Margaret G. Hermann, Thomas Preston, and David Mitchell have noted, a variety of factors influence how policy is made. These include not only the forces of domestic and international politics but also the personalities and inclinations of the president and other individuals. Variables such as who attends NSC meetings, how frequently meetings occur, the amount and format of information passed to the president, the importance of consensus, and the relative dominance of the NSC versus other government institutions have changed over the decades.
During this time the NSC has evolved into a system comprising various interagency committees and a large staff to prepare analysis and coordinate policymaking and implementation. The NSC is at the center of the “interagency process,” the process through which relevant government agencies address foreign policy issues and help the president make and execute policy choices.
The following sections explain the components of today’s NSC system.
I. The National Security Advisor
One of the president’s top aides, the national security advisor (APNSA), sits at the heart of the NSC structure. They manage the NSC staff and chair the Principals Committee (PC), as outlined below, though at the direction of the APNSA the homeland security advisor can also chair the PC.
The APNSA occupies a unique role, as Ivo H. Daalder and I. M. Destler explain in In the Shadow of the Oval Office: “Nowhere in U.S. law is there a provision establishing the position of the assistant to the president for national security affairs. The job is the creation of presidents, and its occupants are responsible to them alone.” In that capacity, as Alan Whittaker and colleagues note, the APNSA “is responsible for ensuring that the President has all the necessary information, that a full range of policy options have been identified, that the prospects and risks of each option have been evaluated, that legal and funding considerations have been addressed, that potential difficulties in implementation have been identified, and that all NSC principals have been included in the policy development and recommendation process.”
Ideally, the APNSA’s role is twofold: to offer advice to the president and to coordinate and manage policymaking. Daalder and Destler quote Brent Scowcroft, who served as APNSA for Presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush: “It’s always more exciting to be the adviser, but if you are not the honest broker, you don’t have the confidence of the other members of the NSC. If you don’t have their confidence, then the system doesn’t work. . . .” Scowcroft’s successors, Daalder and Destler write, “each sought to balance the role of adviser to the president and honest broker of the process, drawing on Scowcroft’s excellent example.” Because the APNSA has direct access to the president and is not expected to represent the agenda of any specific department, they are in a unique position to drive strategic and tactical foreign policy decisions, manage the interagency actors who have a stake in an issue, and mitigate conflict throughout the decision-making process. Finally, as Gabriel Marcella describes, the APNSA also “monitors the actions taken by the executive departments in implementing the President’s national security policies [and] determines whether these actions are consistent with Presidential decisions and whether, over time, the underlying policies continue to serve U.S. interests.”
II. The National Security Council Staff
The NSC staff comprises individuals who sit in the Executive Office of the President, which is a collection of agencies that support the president, the vice president, and their administration. NSC staff members are generally organized into directorates that focus on particular regions or functional issues. The staff fluctuates in size and organization with each new administration; in recent years, it has numbered between 110 and 175 people but has been as large as about 400 members. Some staff members are hired directly by the White House while many are seconded for a given period from other government departments or agencies.
The NSC staff provides issue expertise for the enormous variety of national security policy matters considered by the various committees (described below) and the president. It manages numerous responsibilities, from preparing speeches, memos, and discussion papers to handling congressional foreign policy inquiries. Staff members work extensively with colleagues handling similar topics or regions across the agencies of government. They analyze both acute and long-standing issues and help determine the priority these issues should occupy on the interagency agenda.
III. Committee Structure
The core institutions of policy deliberation and policymaking in the NSC structure are a series of committees. These range from the presidential- and cabinet-level to working-level staff, and they fall into four major categories:
Sometimes these committees also include representatives from other parts of the White House staff. For example, White House domestic policy advisors can participate in committees handling issues that straddle foreign and domestic policy. Officials from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can be present for discussions with major budgetary implications. Committees that consider complex or controversial legal issues can include attorneys from the White House Counsel’s office.
This committee structure tackles both immediate crises, such as an outbreak of conflict or a pandemic, and enduring issues, such as climate change. In the normal course of events, IPCs conduct analysis on an issue, gather views on the issue and its importance from various departments, formulate and evaluate policy options, and determine what resources and steps would be required to carry out those options. IPCs generally meet weekly but convene more or less often depending on the urgency or complexity of the issue.
The Deputies Committee (DC), meanwhile, manages the interagency process up and down. It decides which IPCs to establish and gives them specific assignments, making sure that the president’s agenda is fulfilled and that the government is prepared to confront its foreign policy challenges. The DC also considers information submitted by the IPCs, ensuring that it is relevant, complete, and clear. As Mark Wilcox writes, the DC “remains a lynchpin in the national security policy and execution process. When military and civilian personnel carry out the tasks of defense, diplomacy, and development on the ground, chances are the DC had a hand in the process.” The DC meets frequently, up to several times per day in the heat of a crisis.
The Principals Committee (PC) is the highest-level setting, aside from the NSC itself, for debating national security issues. Its regular members are the NSA; the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, energy, and homeland security; the attorney general; the director of the Office of Management and Budget; the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations; the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development; and the chief of staff to the president. The director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participate in the PC as well. In addition to these regular members, the NSA can also invite other members as needed, such as the director of the Office of Science and Technology or the secretary of Health and Human Services. As Whittaker and colleagues clarify, “[T]he PC for all practical purposes is the membership of the NSC without the President and Vice President.”
Formal NSC meetings, with the president serving as chair, occur whenever the president sees fit. They are used to consider issues that require the president’s personal attention and a direct presidential decision. After listening to and questioning the other members of the NSC, the president can make an immediate decision or request that further information or options be prepared and considered.
The goal of this committee structure is to foster interagency consensus on policy options or highlight where and why consensus cannot be reached. Should officials at one level agree on a policy response, the issue would not need to go to more senior officials for a decision. This reserves the president’s time, and that of the principals, for the knottiest and most sensitive debates.
However, when a crisis erupts, it sometimes leaves no opportunity for issues to follow the typical path up from the PCCs. In these cases, NSC staff members and officials in government departments and agencies generally draft papers drawing on their own expertise, available intelligence, and any contingency plans that already exist. Policy options are then debated and decided at the appropriate level, depending on the nature and severity of the crisis. The policymaking process can also deviate from the model described here based on the preferences of each president. This reinforces the reality that the NSC structure ultimately has a constituency of one: the occupant of the Oval Office. They have the right and the ability to employ whatever process leads to the most effective foreign policy.
During this time the NSC has evolved into a system comprising various interagency committees and a large staff to prepare analysis and coordinate policymaking and implementation. The NSC is at the center of the “interagency process,” the process through which relevant government agencies address foreign policy issues and help the president make and execute policy choices.
The following sections explain the components of today’s NSC system.
I. The National Security Advisor
One of the president’s top aides, the national security advisor (APNSA), sits at the heart of the NSC structure. They manage the NSC staff and chair the Principals Committee (PC), as outlined below, though at the direction of the APNSA the homeland security advisor can also chair the PC.
The APNSA occupies a unique role, as Ivo H. Daalder and I. M. Destler explain in In the Shadow of the Oval Office: “Nowhere in U.S. law is there a provision establishing the position of the assistant to the president for national security affairs. The job is the creation of presidents, and its occupants are responsible to them alone.” In that capacity, as Alan Whittaker and colleagues note, the APNSA “is responsible for ensuring that the President has all the necessary information, that a full range of policy options have been identified, that the prospects and risks of each option have been evaluated, that legal and funding considerations have been addressed, that potential difficulties in implementation have been identified, and that all NSC principals have been included in the policy development and recommendation process.”
Ideally, the APNSA’s role is twofold: to offer advice to the president and to coordinate and manage policymaking. Daalder and Destler quote Brent Scowcroft, who served as APNSA for Presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush: “It’s always more exciting to be the adviser, but if you are not the honest broker, you don’t have the confidence of the other members of the NSC. If you don’t have their confidence, then the system doesn’t work. . . .” Scowcroft’s successors, Daalder and Destler write, “each sought to balance the role of adviser to the president and honest broker of the process, drawing on Scowcroft’s excellent example.” Because the APNSA has direct access to the president and is not expected to represent the agenda of any specific department, they are in a unique position to drive strategic and tactical foreign policy decisions, manage the interagency actors who have a stake in an issue, and mitigate conflict throughout the decision-making process. Finally, as Gabriel Marcella describes, the APNSA also “monitors the actions taken by the executive departments in implementing the President’s national security policies [and] determines whether these actions are consistent with Presidential decisions and whether, over time, the underlying policies continue to serve U.S. interests.”
II. The National Security Council Staff
The NSC staff comprises individuals who sit in the Executive Office of the President, which is a collection of agencies that support the president, the vice president, and their administration. NSC staff members are generally organized into directorates that focus on particular regions or functional issues. The staff fluctuates in size and organization with each new administration; in recent years, it has numbered between 110 and 175 people but has been as large as about 400 members. Some staff members are hired directly by the White House while many are seconded for a given period from other government departments or agencies.
The NSC staff provides issue expertise for the enormous variety of national security policy matters considered by the various committees (described below) and the president. It manages numerous responsibilities, from preparing speeches, memos, and discussion papers to handling congressional foreign policy inquiries. Staff members work extensively with colleagues handling similar topics or regions across the agencies of government. They analyze both acute and long-standing issues and help determine the priority these issues should occupy on the interagency agenda.
III. Committee Structure
The core institutions of policy deliberation and policymaking in the NSC structure are a series of committees. These range from the presidential- and cabinet-level to working-level staff, and they fall into four major categories:
- The highest-level committee is the National Security Council itself. Formal NSC meetings are chaired by the president and include individuals named by the National Security Act of 1947, as well as other senior officials whom the president invites.
- The Principals Committee (PC) comprises cabinet-level officials who head major government departments concerned with national security, such as the secretary of state and secretary of defense. The APNSA traditionally serves as chair.
- The Deputies Committee (DC), as its name suggests, includes the deputy leaders of the government departments represented on the Principals Committee. It is chaired by the deputy APNSA.
- Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs) cover a range of regional areas and functional issues. Each committee includes officials at the working level who specialize in the relevant area or issue at one of the departments or agencies in the interagency system. These committees are generally chaired by a senior director on the NSC staff. They are the home of much of the day-to-day work needed to formulate and implement foreign policy across the U.S. government. These committees have also been called other names, such as Policy Coordination Committees.
Sometimes these committees also include representatives from other parts of the White House staff. For example, White House domestic policy advisors can participate in committees handling issues that straddle foreign and domestic policy. Officials from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can be present for discussions with major budgetary implications. Committees that consider complex or controversial legal issues can include attorneys from the White House Counsel’s office.
This committee structure tackles both immediate crises, such as an outbreak of conflict or a pandemic, and enduring issues, such as climate change. In the normal course of events, IPCs conduct analysis on an issue, gather views on the issue and its importance from various departments, formulate and evaluate policy options, and determine what resources and steps would be required to carry out those options. IPCs generally meet weekly but convene more or less often depending on the urgency or complexity of the issue.
The Deputies Committee (DC), meanwhile, manages the interagency process up and down. It decides which IPCs to establish and gives them specific assignments, making sure that the president’s agenda is fulfilled and that the government is prepared to confront its foreign policy challenges. The DC also considers information submitted by the IPCs, ensuring that it is relevant, complete, and clear. As Mark Wilcox writes, the DC “remains a lynchpin in the national security policy and execution process. When military and civilian personnel carry out the tasks of defense, diplomacy, and development on the ground, chances are the DC had a hand in the process.” The DC meets frequently, up to several times per day in the heat of a crisis.
The Principals Committee (PC) is the highest-level setting, aside from the NSC itself, for debating national security issues. Its regular members are the NSA; the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, energy, and homeland security; the attorney general; the director of the Office of Management and Budget; the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations; the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development; and the chief of staff to the president. The director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participate in the PC as well. In addition to these regular members, the NSA can also invite other members as needed, such as the director of the Office of Science and Technology or the secretary of Health and Human Services. As Whittaker and colleagues clarify, “[T]he PC for all practical purposes is the membership of the NSC without the President and Vice President.”
Formal NSC meetings, with the president serving as chair, occur whenever the president sees fit. They are used to consider issues that require the president’s personal attention and a direct presidential decision. After listening to and questioning the other members of the NSC, the president can make an immediate decision or request that further information or options be prepared and considered.
The goal of this committee structure is to foster interagency consensus on policy options or highlight where and why consensus cannot be reached. Should officials at one level agree on a policy response, the issue would not need to go to more senior officials for a decision. This reserves the president’s time, and that of the principals, for the knottiest and most sensitive debates.
However, when a crisis erupts, it sometimes leaves no opportunity for issues to follow the typical path up from the PCCs. In these cases, NSC staff members and officials in government departments and agencies generally draft papers drawing on their own expertise, available intelligence, and any contingency plans that already exist. Policy options are then debated and decided at the appropriate level, depending on the nature and severity of the crisis. The policymaking process can also deviate from the model described here based on the preferences of each president. This reinforces the reality that the NSC structure ultimately has a constituency of one: the occupant of the Oval Office. They have the right and the ability to employ whatever process leads to the most effective foreign policy.
|
Presidential Decisions
When the president makes a policy decision, it can take the form of a verbal instruction recorded in a document by the NSC staff and shared with relevant departments and agencies. The president can also issue formal decisions in documents that lay out their administration’s policy and explain its rationale and goals. These documents have gone by different names under different presidents. President Joe Biden issues national security memoranda and national security study memoranda, which replace the national security presidential memoranda issued by President Donald J. Trump. The president can also issue an executive order (EO). Whereas national security directives are generally directed internally to federal departments and are often classified, EOs are a more formal and public declaration of policy. In the past, presidents have issued EOs for such purposes as facilitating sanctions against foreign individuals and establishing new offices in government departments to carry out foreign policy aims. For federal agencies, both national security directives and executive orders carry the full force and effect of law. |
|