Will Trump be a Titan Worthy of McKinley?

posted by J. Robert Smith at American Thinker 

If you ask people who William McKinley was, most of them will just shrug.

McKinley was president at the turn of the 20th century. Though little remembered, he was one of the most consequential presidents ever. He was also the third president to be assassinated. He has a VIP admirer here in the early 21st century. That’s Donald Trump.

Trump has a single four-year term in office to accomplish epic change. But so did McKinley. Well, actually, his presidency was a term and nine months. He was killed in September 1901.

McKinley’s election in 1896 reinvigorated the flagging Republican majority. That majority grew out of Lincoln’s 1860 election and the subsequent civil war. Trump’s mission isn’t to reinvigorate an existing majority. No, no... His mission is to break the gridlock that has bedeviled politics throughout the first decades of this century. He means to solidify a Republican majority grounded on America First principles.

Breaking the gridlock began last November. Working-class and middle-income voters backed Trump. He’s embarking on a huge national course correction. His success or failure over the next four years will decide the nation’s fate. If Trump fails, the nation lapses back into the mire of the last quarter of a century -- or even worse.

Twenty-five years of unremarkable presidents (including sly Barack Obama) and gridlock culminated in Joe Biden, a dementia patient who was a tool of cynical elites (raise your hand, Barack). Historically, Biden’s administration bottom-dwells along with Jimmy Carter’s and James Buchanan’s presidencies. Just cleaning up the mess left behind by Puppet Joe is challenging enough.

McKinley’s term was remarkable in that he ushered the U.S. onto the world stage. The U.S. began flexing its muscles globally. McKinley annexed Hawaii. That has benefitted American vacationers ever since -- oh, and, yes, it proved to have strategic importance. Hawaii was critical to U.S. success in the war with Japan. It remains critical today in relationship to the PRC and Asia Pacific.

McKinley’s presidency hinged on his campaign theme during the 1896 election. He promised voters a “full dinner pail.” He delivered. He erected tariffs that protected domestic markets. He signed into law the gold standard, to the distress of William Jennings Bryan, who was a “free silver” champ. Gold proved a boon to finance and the economy.

Trump has his own version of a full dinner pail. Yes, tariffs are part of it. Her doesn’t intend to build unbreachable walls to trade and foreign investment. What he aims for is fair trade, along with -- wait for it -- common sense protections. For the better part of this century working- and middle-class Americans have seen wages and living standards deteriorate.

In the nation’s history, no majority coalition has endured without the backing of the Great Middle. From farmers and tradesmen to industrial workers and middle managers to, today, information-age workers and blue-collar folk, a lasting GOP majority happens only with America’s broad middle as the base.

What McKinley and his brain trust -- including the wily Mark Hanna, a master campaign and political operator -- grasped was that the burgeoning industrial age required new and better responses. Trump faces similar challenges. He’s harnessed ubersuccessful entrepreneur Elon Musk -- Vivek Ramaswamy is moving on, per reports -- to dramatically revamp the federal government.

The rapid development of AI and a host of other society-altering changes require a helluva lot of better policies and governance. Uncle Sam needs to be leaner, meaner, and purged of as many corrupt and incompetent players as possible. Accomplishing that is no small feat. Musk is unfazed. DOGE -- the informal Department of Government Efficiency, which is the brainchild of Musk and Ramaswamy, is Trump’s tool.

Of course, D.C. lifers like things just the way they are, thank you.

The Washington Examiner reports, January 13:

According to a new survey shared with Secrets, they not only dislike President-elect Donald Trump, but they are planning to resist his efforts to reform and drain the “swamp.”

The Examiner continues:

Some 80% of government managers who voted for Harris told the survey for Scott Rasmussen’s Napolitan Institute and RMG Research that they would resist Trump when his team takes office on Jan. 20, a week from Monday.

One word for that collection of D.C. backstabbers and passive-aggressive paper-pushers: “Nuts,” as General Anthony McAuliffe said to the Germans. Trump wants a big fight. He wants historic change.

Some commentators have remarked that Trump being cheated out of reelection in 2020 was providential. That seems right. Four years of Biden’s handlers mucking things up was a gift. It provided a stark contrast with Trump’s tenure. You don’t know what you’ve got until you lose it. President Trump even made gains in blue states. Be scared Democrats, very scared.

Four needless years of high costs, a border ripped opened, and metastasizing crime -- all thanks to congressional, big city, and blue state Democrats -- put the hurt on millions of Americans, regardless race, creed, color, and party preference. A Trump-built GOP majority will reflect demographic changes among the Great Middle.

So-called progressives have an unsurprisingly unfavorable view of McKinley. Chris Lehmann at The Nation thinks Trump admires McKinley for a lot of cliché bad reasons.

Trump, claims Lehmann, regards the presidency “as a helpmeet to private business interests.” He slammed McKinley falsely for the same thing.

Never mind that Democrats began crawling into bed with corporate and big tech poohbahs when Barack Obama occupied the White House. Whose presidential campaign raised a billion dollars -- yet still ended with a debt? Most of Kamala Harris’ cash wasn’t raised from moms and pops. By contrast, Trump’s campaign raised about $400 million.

Trump’s America First principles favor U.S. business, with an emphasis on entrepreneurs, small businesses, and independent contractors (a growing cohort). Tariffs, as mentioned, are a means of leveling the playing field. Why keep giving legs up to China, Mexico, and Germany? Unleashing the oil and gas sectors will lower energy costs. That’ll have a strong ripple effect throughout the economy, helping cut grocery, gas, and utility costs.

Trump, claims Lehmann, is an imperialist in McKinley’s mold. Yes, McKinley did usher in America’s role on the world stage. He annexed Hawaii. Hawaii’s acquisition proved pivotal in defeating Japan in the Pacific war. The Spanish American War snagged Cuba and the Philippines.

But Trump is no imperialist. He’s really calling for a revival of the Monroe Doctrine. Acquiring Greenland would greatly benefit national security. The Panama Canal is critical to U.S. commercial and naval transport. Trump will not allow the Canal to fall under PRC control. Canada as the 51st state was Trump’s way of belittling odious Justin Trudeau out of office. Trade imbalances favoring Canada need to be redressed.

Democrats are now the party of neocons, the military-industrial complex, forever wars, and military occupations that are fobbed off as democracy building. Democrats have morphed into the party of big government, big business, big labor, big education, big media, and big nonprofits. What does that add up to? How does big tyranny sound?

McKinley delivered for the workingman and elevated the U.S. to global power status. His presidency was an outsized success. He won so much that GOP dominance was assured for a generation. Donald Trump plans to do the same thing today.

X22, And we Know, and more- Jan 22

 

Pardon Me About Birthright Citizenship

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall

In the giddy hangover of our tumultuous celebration of American liberation, let’s chat about some of the legal aspects of what’s happening and what’s going to happen because there are a lot of bad legal takes out there (follow the essential Twitter accountof the same name), and you don’t want to be repeating the same kind of nonsense that other people do. Let’s be clear about something. I’m not telling you what I think the law should be. I’m telling you how the law actually is. And then I’ll give my opinion, which might be wrong.

Of course, my caveat requires a caveat in an environment where it’s less about precedent than about filling in legal Mad Libs. There are a lot of bad judges out there who either don’t know what the law is or simply don’t care and rule solely by their corrupt communist ideology. What these disgraces say has nothing to do with what the law actually is. They just cloud the issue with their nonsense. Of course, a great example of that is the ridiculous idea that some judges in Colorado could take Donald Trump off the ballot because they decided he was an insurrectionist because of reasons and Orange Man Bad. It took the Supreme Court about five seconds to unanimously dispense with this idiocy, but you see the problem. Like Trump’s bogus conviction in New York for a crime that didn’t exist, a ridiculous ruling persists until the process gets around to punting it through the goalposts of legal oblivion.

Let’s talk about pardons for a second. There’s lots of talk about pardons out there, and a lot of it’s crazy talk. A lot of it is just wrong. The president has the absolute power to pardon federal crimes, but only federal crimes. He can’t pardon state crimes. For federal crimes, it’s an unlimited power. This means that there are no limitations on how a president exercises it. People keep trying to create limitations that don’t exist. “Oh, you can’t pardon a crime that hasn’t been charged.” Of course you can. It’s an unlimited power. It’s not limited to pardoning crimes that have been charged. And that is how it’s been used in practice as well. Ford pardoned Nixon even though he wasn’t charged with any crimes. Carter pardoned the draft dodgers even though they hadn’t been charged with any crimes. A president can pardon for bad reasons, like to protect his scumbag family and scumbag political allies like Liz Cheney. Again, the Constitution doesn’t limit the power to just using it for good reasons or for any reason at all.

Nor is receiving a pardon an admission of a crime. Yes, I know there’s a Supreme Court case out there with some dicta that people have been twisting that way. “Dicta” is a legal term for something a court says in an opinion that does not relate to the resolution of the issue at hand, and dicta is not precedent. It just hints at what the judges might rule if that specific issue ever actually comes before them. Hundred-year-old dicta is worth approximately nothing.

Anyway, the case people were talking about concerned someone effectively rejecting a pardon. Apparently, you can do that. Now, the Constitution says nothing about rejecting a pardon, so why does that concept exist? Because if you accept pardon, it affects your rights. How does it affect your rights? It eliminates your right to decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment because, by definition, you can’t incriminate yourself if you’ve been pardoned. So, by accepting a pardon, you give up the protection of the Fifth Amendment regarding statements about the subject of the pardon. The Constitution does not allow someone to take away your rights without your permission or due process. Accordingly, you can reject a qPost Torching Lib Pastor Who Lectured Him During Prayer Service 

Now, does a pardon necessarily mean that you have admitted guilt of the underlying crime? No, though, people say that all the time. Pardons can be protective. You can protect people from injustice, which is what Joe Biden said he was doing, even though we all know he wasn’t doing that when he pardoned the persecutors and traitors. But pardoning people protectively is a real thing, and it’s a good thing. We should be happy about it. That’s an important power for the president, one that the J6 persecutions have shown is vital. As much as the losers and creeps Joe Biden pardoned are losers and creeps, their acceptance of a pardon is not an admission of guilt as a matter of law. As a matter of reality, in this case, it kind of is. But law and reality are different things. And there’s a lot of talk about how this sets a bad precedent, but I’m glad that President Trump will be able to leave office and protect the people who the Democrats will unfairly persecute should they regain power. 

This part is my opinion – I don’t think we should do anything to change the pardon power. At some point, we must rely on the honor and dignity of the people who hold offices, and in the case of people like Joe Biden, their abuse of the pardon power is an important indicator of just how scuzzy they are.

Donald Trump purported to end birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment by executive order on Day One of Trump 47. There probably would’ve been a bigger meltdown if there hadn’t been about 45 other meltdowns going on simultaneously. In any case, the people who did comment on it were largely huffy because they considered the issue settled. The issue was not settled. There is a non-frivolous argument that the 14th Amendment does not provide for the citizenship of anyone born within the confines of the United States, except a relatively few people like children of foreign diplomats. That’s how the law has been interpreted until this executive order. There are tens of millions of Americans who were born here and have American citizenship right now, even though their parents were here illegally. So, we have both existing precedent and facts on the ground – people who are American citizens Through this process – to contend with.

The issue has to do with who is here in America, subject to American laws, and whether that means illegal aliens, too. I’m not going to jump into that debate because I simply don’t have the space, but if you’re interested, you can go hunt down the arguments both ways. But there are arguments for and againstbirthright citizenship. Don’t listen to people who tell you that there is no argument against the current application of the 14th Amendment. There is an argument. And that argument is going to be made. I’m not sure whether Donald Trump’s going to direct the federal government to deny citizenship to children of illegal aliens, thereby spawning the litigation, or whether opponents will file litigation preemptively. But it is going to go up through the courts and it is going to be heard, and it is going to be analyzed. That’s how things should work. You make arguments, and then judges consider them in the context of precedent and rule accordingly.

Here’s my opinion. Although I haven’t seen the counterargument fully briefed in legal filings, so my opinion is flexible, I tend to think that the current application of the 14th Amendment creating birthright citizenship is probably correct. I don’t have to like that. That’s just my legal analysis, and I can be convinced otherwise and maybe I will be once I see the issue fully briefed. I do see huge practical problems with applying it. How does this affect people who currently have citizenship but would not have it under the new interpretation of the 14th Amendment? Do we apply the new interpretation from now on, or do we reach back and strip them of citizenship? I think denaturalizing current citizens would be unjust, and I am about as anti-illegal alien as you can get without wanting to hunt them for sport.

In any case, we’ll find out. That’s why we have a justice system, and I’d like to see it used to create justice instead of being used against just us.

Guns Don't Kill People. Canada Kills People.

Tom Knighton reporting for Townhall 

Recently, I was reading something interesting from National Review. It looked at some numbers out of Canada that were downright fascinating.

You see, the Great White North has two things many here have long favored – single-payer healthcare and assisted suicide. More people want the former than the latter, thankfully, but enough want both for me to have concerns.

These same people tend to think we should be like Canada on other things, too, such as gun policy. They believe guns kill people.

However, a piece by National Review points out something interesting:

What a debacle. More than 15,000 people died in Canada in one year because they couldn’t access care in the country’s collapsing socialized health-care system. From the Toronto Sun story:

Close to 15,500 people died waiting for health care in Canada between April 1, 2023 until March 31, 2024, according to data compiled by SecondStreet.org via Freedom to Information Act requests across the country. 

However, SecondStreet.org says the exact number of 15,474 is incomplete as Quebec, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador don’t track the problem and Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia only provided data on patients who died while waiting for surgeries – not diagnostic scans.

SecondStreet.org says if it extrapolates the unknown data, then an estimated 28,077 patients died last year on health care waiting lists covering everything from cancer treatment and heart operations to cataract surgery and MRI scans.

Holy cow!

But it gets worse. About the same number of people were euthanized in Canada in 2023. Some asked to be lethally jabbed because they couldn’t access health care in a timely fashion.

So around 30,000 people die waiting for healthcare that never comes or are euthanized by the Canadian government.

In fairness, some of those who die waiting likely would have died no matter what, just as some of those euthanized were likely going to pass away regardless.

However, I'm willing to bet it wasn't all that many, though we'll never know.

Meanwhile, how many Americans were killed with a gun in 2023, which mostly lines up with this time period? 13,529.

The United States has more than eight times the population of Canada, and even massive death and destruction brought about by our gun policy pales in comparison to the number of people the Canadian government managed to kill during that period.

Even if you just counted the euthanizations, the death toll is higher not just on a per capita basis but in raw total numbers as well.

Yet, that number is doubled when you count the deaths that were the result of inaction on the part of the Canadian healthcare system.

"But you didn't count suicides!" someone will argue, but I'm going to reject that right out of the gate. If you're supportive of Canada's MAID system, you don't get to lash out about people taking their own lives here in the US, regardless of what method they use. That's why I'm only counting homicides.

This is truly disturbing, to say the least.

What we do know for certain, though, is that guns don't kill people. Canada kills people.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Taking a Look at the Cultural Shift That Led to Donald Trump’s Return to Leading Our Nation

Brad Slager reporting for RedState 

Monday’s inaugural events delivered a number of emotions for many citizens, and for those independents or anyone right-of-center who pushed for Donald Trump’s reemergence in D.C., it was a day of positive reactions. Excitement, relief, anticipation, elation, inspiration, and any or all others were experienced. 

The crowds and attendees exuded the kind of cathartic happiness that was claimed to exist in the Harris-Walz “Campaign of Joy,” something more than a few pundits declared as unrealistic when portraying conservatives as spiteful and angry antagonists. That projection was made evident when seeing the reactions from the left and press on Monday, as they were the bitter scolds during much of the pageantry. What is compelling to see is the shift in the culture late last year that led to how we arrived at this moment.

For much of the Biden term, there was a rift in this nation that could not be denied, one acknowledged by the incoming Democrat in 2020, who then pledged to repair the fractures in this country. Joe Biden’s insistence at the time was to heal the country and rejoin us as a family – only to then continue to sledgehammer the wedge during his four years, berating and diminishing those who did not follow along with his extremist agenda. The press was perfectly willing to play along, serving as his mouthpiece and labeling those interrupting his agenda.

In those years, I will not say that those on the right were cowed, but with the media playing the dutiful harridans it impeded discourse and open discussion. All of the tired accusations – from racism, the list of  “-phobias,” and charges of  “denialism” – were delivered and designed to shut down opposition. For a time, it had enough traction to push things along. But by late 2024, there was a seismic cultural shift, and suddenly, the tactics were neutered, and those on the right rose with a notable new level of energy and confidence. It delivered Donald Trump back to the White House.

Two significant events occurred in succession and delivered differing but intertwined results that drove this newfound power for the right: the initial presidential debate and the assassination attempt at the Pennsylvania rally. To lay out this shift in the country, we’ll start with the second item. 

The attempt on Trump’s life drove home the fact that the fracture in the nation was not just real but was made manifest. Moreover, the people who were most likely to decry the rift in the country were also those who were pushing the intolerant narratives in suggesting every manner of calamity would descend on the country if he were reelected. What made this worse was the aftermath. Instead of decency and an ethical call condemning such violence, there was equivocation. Immediately, we saw attempts to suggest Trump’s rhetoric inspired this violence and/or his policies and those of the Republicans were driving forces to this attack.

That repugnant reaction followed what happened at the debate. For the first six months of the year, the media were in unison with their coverage of Joe Biden; the two-pronged game plan was to deny his mental condition was failing and then attack those who dared to show his decline was real. It was a complete bastardization of journalism practice – they not only abandoned their duty to the public, they fought against the facts getting out. 

Then, when President Silveralert was live on camera at the debate, displaying all the previously exhibited frailties that were fought against becoming known, the press industry lost most of its influence. Journalists and outlets could no longer claim a high road on news matters, and their influence on the national narratives eroded. Thus, as they tried to lecture us after Donald Trump nearly lost his life, they failed entirely because after the debate, the months — or years — of lying to us were not just exposed, their position as any kind of valid source was blasted into confetti.

The balance of the year showed the media struggling with their normal tactics, the Democrats' reliable messaging of attacks was mostly shooting blanks, and most importantly of all, conservatism found its voice, in large part to the dropping of barricades on Elon Musk's Xitter. The usual efforts from those sources were soundly beaten back, many times, they were mocked, and leading up to the election, the Dems and the press were playing catch-up.

As the media attempted to rewrite the Kamala Harris resume, they were countered with solid facts. The incessant drumbeat of promised evils to be delivered by Trump was deflated by noting he did nothing of the sort when he served as president. They sold Tim Walz and Doug Emhoff as alpha males, and we just laughed. An attempt to generate controversy about Puerto Rico failed to land as it was pointed out they were screeching about a joke. When Jeffrey Goldberg tried to create an October surprise claiming Trump vulgarly insulted a fallen soldier, his effort was debunked within an afternoon.

And Trump parlayed this newfound cultural power shift to his advantage. As the press attempted to scorch him about the claim Kamala never worked at McDonalds he instead put in a shift at the drive-thru. After Joe Biden called Trump supporters “garbage,” the press not only failed to defend him with a lame “he spoke with an apostrophe” defense, but Trump climbed into a customized refuse truck and completely flipped the narrative.

Just ahead of the election, one network executive admitted his concern that their efforts at driving a Trump characterization were failing, and the election result placed that negative reality in the spotlight. The press is facing its self-made obsolescence.

Gone (at least for now) is the way negative coverage would have a lasting impression. No longer are the hit pieces greeted with a shrug. Now we see more vociferous defense and even having the attempts turned into an offensive strike. In recent weeks, networks have buckled under defamation suits. The Democratic Party and the press have become exposed as the snarling dog behind a curtain that turned out to be a spayed Yorkie.

After 2016, they all pledged to rise up and beat down the oppressive scourge of Trump. After Russian collusion, Hunter’s laptop, Biden is “sharp,” and “Kamala is competent,” we find they are unmoored. This time, they have reacted with a whimper, like the lapdog that behaved in rabid fashion when left alone but now is cowering in the corner after getting swatted in the snotbox with a rolled-up Newsweek magazine because it soiled the carpet. 

President Trump Restructures the National Security Council and Removes IC Influence

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

People have asked why we focus so much sunlight and attention toward the network silos that operate the Intelligence Community (IC) and as an outcome the national security focus of government.  The answer is simple, as Mary McCord herself admitted publicly, the IC are the background approver for every weaponized approach of government, including the DOJ.

With that in mind, CTH has painstakingly made the case –with details and receipts– for a process of removing the IC silos from influence over the Office of The President.  The Chief Executive must control all elements of national security policy and implementation.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court recently affirmed the plenary power of the executive branch, and the unitary power of the President in controlling every system within that branch of government.

That ruling (presidential immunity) further bolstered the solution we have continuously proposed. The IC silos must be decoupled from the Executive office definitions of national security, until such a time as the IC institutions can be bought to heel.

The most effective way to confront a rogue, hostile and corrupt IC apparatus is to take away their power.  The best way to remove their power is to use their primary weapon, their silo structure, against them.

Turn each silo into an irrelevant echo-chamber by using the White House National Security Council as their replacement.  Regardless of what triggers the various IC silo embeds try to pull (CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, etc.) let them shoot blanks by removing their power over policy and process.

If the IC is isolated from influence, eventually the Legislative Branch, specifically the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, will realize the ‘Seven Ways from Sunday’ group no longer hold power.  The IC becomes a crew stomping their feet while no one pays attention.

This approach would be affected by restructuring the President’s National Security Council (NSC), the National Security Advisor (NSA Mike Waltz) and working with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI Tulsi Gabbard), in a synergistic process.   The IC become simply information functionaries. The Nat Sec Council then validates and defines the information, creates the definitions of national security interest, and initiates the guidance to President Trump, who ultimately triggers any action.

Until yesterday there were only a few subtle signs that this ‘silo isolation’ approach was being accepted as the most effective optimal solution to the problem within the intelligence apparatus. However, yesterday President Trump signed an Executive Order [SEE HERE] doing exactly the type of restructuring that is needed.

The XO is technical and deep in the weeds, but this is the process that has the greatest likelihood of success.

SUBJECT: Organization of the National Security Council and Subcommittees

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

As President, my highest priority and responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of the United States and its people. The national and homeland security threats facing the United States are complex and rapidly evolving. These issues often do not fit neatly into the categories that single departments and agencies are designed to optimally address, a fact recognized and exploited by our strategic competitors and adversaries in their adoption of whole-of-government and even whole-of-society approaches.

The United States Government’s decision-making structures and processes to address national security challenges must therefore be equally adaptive and comprehensive. They must be able to competently design and execute cooperative and integrated interagency solutions to address these problems, and protect and advance the national interests of the United States. Therefore, to advise and assist me in this endeavor, I hereby direct that my system for national security policy development, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring shall be organized as set forth in this Memorandum. This Memorandum prevails over any prior orders, directives, memoranda, or other Presidential guidance related to the organization of the National Security Council (NSC or Council).

A. The National Security Council and Supporting Staff

1. Functions, Responsibilities, and Chairs.

(a) Functions and Responsibilities. The National Security Act of 1947, as amended (the Act), established the NSC to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security. The Homeland Security Council (HSC) has the distinct purpose of advising the President on matters pertaining to homeland security. The NSC shall convene as the HSC on topic areas agreed to in advance by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor) and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (Homeland Security Advisor). Along with its subordinate committees and staff, the NSC shall be the President’s principal means for coordinating Executive departments and agencies in the development and implementation of national and homeland security policies, strategies, activities, and functions, their integration across departments and agencies within their purview, and for long-term strategic planning.

(b) Chairs. The President will chair the NSC. When the President is absent from a meeting of the Council, he may appoint a Cabinet-level official to chair.

2. NSC Staffing Responsibilities of the National Security Advisor.

(a) Role of the National Security Advisor. The National Security Advisor shall be responsible, as appropriate and at the President’s direction, for determining the agenda for the NSC, ensuring that the necessary papers are prepared, and recording and communicating Council actions and Presidential decisions in a timely manner.

(b) Role of the Homeland Security Advisor. When convened as the HSC, the duties referenced in subsection (2)(a) shall be the responsibility of the Homeland Security Advisor.

3. Designating NSC Members, Attendees, and Invitees.

(a) Membership. The NSC membership consists of the statutory members set forth in section 101(c)(1) of the Act (50 U.S.C. 3021(c)(1)):

The President;
The Vice President;
The Secretary of State;
The Secretary of the Treasury;
The Secretary of Defense;
The Secretary of Energy;
The Director of the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy;
and additional members hereby designated by the President pursuant to section 101(c)(1) of the Act:

The Attorney General;
The Secretary of the Interior;
Chief of Staff to the President (White House Chief of Staff); and
The National Security Advisor.
When the NSC convenes as the HSC, members shall also include:

The Secretary of Homeland Security; and
13) The Homeland Security Advisor.

(b) NSC Meeting Attendees. The National Security Advisor retains the discretion to determine the attendee list for all meetings of the NSC, including by requesting the attendance of any senior official of the Executive Branch. The Homeland Security Advisor retains this same discretion when the NSC convenes as the HSC. This discretion shall be exercised based on the policy relevance of attendees to the issues being considered, the need for secrecy on sensitive matters, staffing requirements, and other considerations.

As regular practice, the National Security Advisor and Homeland Security Advisor shall include as additional non-voting attendees:

The Director of National Intelligence (non-voting advisor);
The Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy National Security Advisor (non-voting advisor and principal notetaker) or, when convening as the HSC, the Deputy Homeland Security Advisor (non-voting advisor and principal notetaker);
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (non-voting advisor); and
The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (non-voting advisor).
(c) NSC Regular Invitees. Unless specifically restricted, these officials are invited to attend any NSC and HSC meeting as non-voting advisors:

The Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President;
The Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy;
The Assistant to the President for Policy; and
The Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs and Legal Counsel to the National Security Advisor.
4. Right to Propose Agenda Items.

Any NSC member attending a meeting in a voting capacity may propose, in advance and in accordance with a timeline set by the National Security Advisor or his designee, agenda items for their consideration.[1] The National Security Advisor will determine whether to include these items on the agenda. The Homeland Security Advisor shall have this same discretion when the Council is convened as the HSC.

5. The National Security Council Staff.

(a) Staff Fusion. There is a single NSC staff within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) that serves both the NSC on national security matters and the HSC when the Council is considering homeland security matters. The staff is headed by a single Executive Secretary, in accordance with section 101(e)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021(e)(1)) and section 905 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 495).

(b) Purpose. The purposes of the National Security Advisor and subordinate staff are to

(i) advise and assist the President in the course of conducting activities that relate to or affect the carrying out of the President’s constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties pertaining to national or homeland security, pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, as amended;[2]

(ii) advise and assist the other members of the NSC (and the NSC when convening as the HSC), and others in the White House;

(iii) help the President plan and set priorities, in accordance with section II of the Message of the President in the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977;

(iv) advise and make recommendations to the President with respect to, and establish, integrated domestic, foreign, and military policies and procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the Government relating to national and homeland security, pursuant to sections 2 and 101(b)(1) of the Act (50 U.S.C. 3002, 3021(b)(1));

(v) coordinate, facilitate, monitor, oversee, and review Administration policies and their implementation with respect to national security, and make resulting recommendations to the President;

(vi) help the President resolve major conflicts among departments and agencies with regard to national security, in accordance with section II of the Message of the President in the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977.

(c) Fair, Balanced, and Thorough Processes. In accordance with sections I and II of the Message of the President in the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, the NSC staff shall ensure that the processes it organizes, coordinates, and manages fairly and thoroughly gather the facts, intelligence, and other relevant information necessary to NSC decisions; fully analyze the issues; consider a full range of views and options; assess the prospects, risks, costs, and implications of each option; and distill these options for the President, other NSC principals, and senior officials participating in the subsidiary committees of the NSC or HSC, in a fair, balanced, and organized way. The National Security Advisor and subordinate NSC staff shall represent the views and differences of NSC principals and other senior officials to the President with accuracy and fidelity.

(d) Policy Development. In accordance with sections I and II of the Message of the President in the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977,[8] the NSC staff shall facilitate the development and refinement of interagency policy options, and develop additional options besides those proposed by departments and agencies as necessary, both to complement, supplement, and enhance their work, and to offer the President and other NSC principals and other senior officials a sufficiently broad menu of operationally feasible options for consideration, deliberation, and decision.

B. The Principals Committee

1. Principals Committee Establishment.

(a) (i) Functions and Responsibilities. The Principals Committee (PC) shall continue to serve as the Cabinet-level senior interagency forum for considering policy issues that affect the national security interests of the United States. The PC shall develop options and recommendations for the President on national security and homeland security matters requiring the President’s attention, and with the Committee’s full consensus shall set priorities, issue policy guidance, and facilitate coordination and integration on national security policy and implementation issues as appropriate that do not require Presidential attention.[9] Issues involving matters that are statutorily authorized for decision by a principal, or delegated to a principal by the President, can be coordinated and decided by the principals without requiring Presidential attention.

(ii) Voting and NSC Referral. Consensus is reached when all voting (i.e., non-advisory) attendees present either vote affirmatively for the same decisional option or formally abstain, and all such votes shall be recorded and minuted. Issues for which the Committee fails to reach consensus shall be referred to the NSC for decision, with a formal nonconcurrence required by at least one non-advisory attendee present for such a referral. Whether an issue requires Presidential attention, and the Committee attendees’ positions on the issue itself, shall be separately polled. If a voting attendee does not concur with the determination that Presidential consideration is not required, the issue shall be referred, along with the results of the PC’s deliberation on the issue itself and its recommendations, to deliberation by the NSC.

(b) Role of the National Security Advisor. The PC shall be convened and chaired by the National Security Advisor. The Chair shall determine the agenda, location, and meeting materials, in consultation with the appropriate attendees.

(c) Substitute Chairs. At his sole discretion, the National Security Advisor may delegate authority to convene and chair or co-chair the PC to an appropriate attendee of the NSC or EOP policy council senior official. The Homeland Security Advisor, who is Chair when the PC considers matters that would be raised to the NSC convening as the HSC, may similarly delegate such duties.

(d) Right to Propose Agenda Items. Any PC member attending in a voting capacity may propose, in advance and in accordance with a timeline set by the Chair, agenda items for consideration by the PC. The Chair will determine which, if any, shall be included.

2. Executive Secretary Responsibilities and Process.

(a) Responsibilities. The Executive Secretary shall ensure that the necessary papers are prepared, serve as executive secretary of the PC, and shall record and communicate accurately, and in a timely manner, the Committee’s conclusions and decisions, what was not decided, and any responsibilities for implementation by departments and agencies or taskings to the Deputies Committee or subsidiary policy coordination committees that have been agreed or assigned, if appropriate.[10] The Executive Secretary shall generally be assisted in these tasks by the senior directors and other NSC staff by the senior directors and other NSC staff.

(b) Dispute Resolution Process. If a PC voting attendee disputes that the conclusions or decisions of the PC were correctly minuted, this must be communicated in writing to the Executive Secretary and the National Security Advisor (and any substitute Chair if appropriate) within three business days, although those officials may allow additional time if exigent or extenuating circumstances require it. If resolution of the dispute cannot be achieved, and any necessary amended report of the PC proceedings was issued within a week of the dispute being communicated, the disputing attendee may appeal the matter to the White House Chief of Staff or, should that official so designate, to the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, whose decision shall be final.

3. Principals Committee Attendees and Invitees.

(a) Principals Committee Attendees.

(i) The National Security Advisor retains the discretion to determine the attendee list for all PC meetings on national security. The Homeland Security Advisor retains this same discretion when chairing the PC. This discretion shall be exercised based on the policy relevance of attendees to the issues being considered, the need for secrecy on sensitive matters, staffing needs, and other considerations. As regular practice, the National Security Advisor and Homeland Security Advisor shall include as additional non-voting attendees:

1) The Director of National Intelligence;

2) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

3) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;

4) The Principal Deputy National Security Advisor;

5) the National Security Advisor to the Vice President; and

6) The Executive Secretary (principal notetaker).

(ii) PC Regular Invitees. Unless specifically restricted, these officials are invited to attend any PC meeting as non-voting advisors:

The Assistant to the President and Counselor to the President;
The Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy;
The Assistant to the President for Policy; and
The Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs and Legal Counsel to the National Security Advisor.
(iii) Staffing Invitees. At the discretion of the Chair, staff members of the NSC or other appropriate EOP policy councils may be invited to attend specific PC meetings to assist the Executive Secretary in the performance of their executive secretary duties.

C. The Deputies Committee

1. Deputies Committee Establishment.

(a) Functions and Responsibilities. The Deputies Committee (DC) shall continue to serve as the senior sub-Cabinet interagency forum for consideration of and, where appropriate, decision making on, policy issues that affect the national security interests of the United States. The DC shall review and monitor the work of the interagency national security process, including the interagency groups established pursuant to section D below. The DC shall work to ensure that issues brought before the NSC, the NSC when convening as the HSC, and the PC have been properly analyzed and prepared for decision. The DC shall also focus significant attention on monitoring the implementation of these policies and decisions and shall conduct periodic reviews of the Administration’s major national security and foreign policy initiatives.

(b) Role of the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor. The DC shall be convened and chaired by the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor. The Chair shall determine the location, agenda, and meeting materials in consultation with the DC attendees.

(c) Substitute Chairs. At his sole discretion, the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor may delegate authority to convene and chair or co-chair the DC to an appropriate regular attendee of the DC or other appropriate EOP official. The Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (Deputy Homeland Security Advisor) shall chair meetings when considering issues that would be raised when the NSC is convened as the HSC. The Deputy Homeland Security Advisor has similar delegatory authority.

(d) Right to Propose Agenda Items. Any DC member attending in a voting capacity may propose, in advance and in accordance with a timeline set by the Chair, agenda items for consideration by the DC. The Chair will determine which, if any, shall be included.

2. Executive Secretary Responsibilities and Process.

(a) General. The Executive Secretary shall ensure that the necessary papers are prepared, and shall record and communicate accurately, and in a timely manner, the Committee’s conclusions and decisions, what was not decided, and any responsibilities for implementation by departments and agencies or taskings to subsidiary policy coordination committees that have been agreed or assigned, if appropriate. The Executive Secretary shall generally be assisted in this task by the senior directors and other NSC staff.

(b) Dispute Resolution Process. If a DC voting attendee disputes that the conclusions or decisions of the DC were correctly minuted, this must be communicated in writing to the Executive Secretary and the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor or the Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, as relevant, within three business days, although those officials may allow additional time if exigent or extenuating circumstances require it. If resolution of the dispute cannot be achieved, and any necessary amended report of the PC proceedings issued within a week of the dispute being communicated, the disputing attendee may appeal the matter to the White House Chief of Staff, or should that official so designate, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, whose decision shall be final.

3. Designating Deputies Committee Regular Attendees and Invitees.

(a) Deputies Committee Attendees. The Principal Deputy National Security Advisor retains the discretion to determine the attendee list for all DC meetings.

The Deputy Homeland Security Advisor retains this same discretion when chairing DC meetings. This discretion shall be exercised based on the policy relevance of attendees to the issues being considered, the need for secrecy on sensitive matters, staffing needs, and other considerations.

As regular practice, the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor shall include as DC attendees:

The Deputy Secretary of State;
The Deputy Secretary of the Treasury;
The Deputy Secretary of Defense;
The Deputy Attorney General;
The Deputy Secretary of Energy;
The Deputy Director of National Intelligence (non-voting advisor);
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (non-voting advisor);
The Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (non-voting advisor);
The Executive Secretary of the NSC (non-voting advisor and principal notetaker); and
The National Security Advisor to the Vice President.
When homeland security issues are on the DC agenda, the DC’s regular attendees will also include:

11) The Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security; and

12) The Deputy Homeland Security Advisor (chair).

(b) DC Regular Invitees. These officials are invited to attend any DC meeting:

The Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and
The Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Policy Strategist.
D. Policy Coordination Committees

Management of the development and implementation of national security policies by multiple Executive departments and agencies typically shall be accomplished by Policy Coordination Committees (PCCs), with participation primarily occurring at the Assistant Secretary level. As the main day-to-day fora for interagency coordination and integration of national security policies, PCCs shall develop and provide policy options and analyses for consideration by higher echelon committees of the national security system. PCCs shall ensure timely responses to, and implementation and monitoring of, decisions, directives, objectives, instructions, inquiries, tasking, and policy guidance of and by the President, National Security Advisor, and the higher-echelon committees of the national security system.

PCCs shall be established at the direction of the National Security Advisor or Homeland Security Advisor, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff or her designee. Members of the NSC staff will chair the PCCs.

PCCs shall review, coordinate, integrate, and monitor the implementation of Presidential decisions in their respective national security and homeland security policy areas. The Chair of each PCC, in consultation with the Executive Secretary, shall invite representatives of departments and agencies to attend meetings of the PCC where appropriate. The Chair of each PCC, with the agreement of the Executive Secretary, may establish subordinate working groups to assist that PCC in the performance of its duties.

Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs) chartered under the aegis of the process established by National Security Memorandum-2 (NSM–2) may continue to be operated as PCCs by the NSC staff until renewed or discontinued by the National Security Advisor.

E. General

(a) The President and the Vice President may attend any meeting of any entity established by or under this directive.

(b) This document is part of a series of National Security Policy Memoranda, which have replaced both National Security Memoranda and National Security Study Memoranda as the instrument for communicating relevant Presidential decisions. This directive shall supersede all other existing Presidential directives and guidance on the organization or support of the NSC and the HSC where they conflict, including National Security Memorandum–2 of February 4, 2021 (Memorandum on Renewing the National Security Council System), which is hereby revoked. This document shall be interpreted in concert with any Presidential directives governing other policy councils and offices in the EOP mentioned herein, and with any Presidential directives signed hereafter that implement this document or those Presidential directives.

[SOURCE]

This process hinges upon the execution of National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.

We will watch closely.