The report is coming from Axios, so take it with a grain of salt. It could also be the White House testing the waters for DC reaction to the possibility. The outlet is saying White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller is a top candidate for consideration to fill the National Security Advisor role to President Trump [SEE HERE].
Stephen Miller already runs the White House Homeland Security group, inside the executive office. He has been an excellent organizer and spokesperson for DHS deportation operations, and the Homeland Security Council runs very smooth under his direction.
That said, from my perspective, the key qualification for Stephen Miller is that he DOES NOT carry the infection of time spent inside the Intelligence Community silos. Miller’s autonomic outlook is not contextualized to believe everything the IC says. This is critical.
An effective National Security Advisor in the modern era (post Patriot Act) needs to look at all intelligence with cynicism, accepting that weaponized political perspective permeates the entire silo that might be providing the information. The NSA cannot trust anyone in the IC, yet the NSA must be trustworthy to President Trump.
Remember, the Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) is an assembler of pre-existing intelligence, the DNI does not create intelligence. The Director of the National Security Agency is under the DNI and operates as the librarian for data, from which other silos gather intelligence. The Director of the NSA does not create intelligence.
It is the Pentagon, the State Dept., the FBI, the DOJ-NSD and the CIA who create most of the intelligence that flows to the President. The National Security Advisor needs to be the filter between manipulated DoD, DoS, FBI and CIA information.
The Nat Sec Advisor needs to be able to question the assembled briefing material, review the raw data if needed, hop on a plane and go to the source of the intelligence to discover if it is real or false. The Nat Sec Advisor then engages with his/her peers (foreign directors of intelligence), evaluates against the information from U.S. officials, and then informs the President of the best determined facts available. The Nat Sec Advisor is incredibly important.
The policy of the President is framed, in part, by the information he receives from the National Security Advisor. Unfortunately, in the game of political silos, this is also why the IC manipulate the information given to the Nat Sec Advisor in order to shape the policy of the President. This is why the discernment skill is so important for the position.
Stephen Miller has that discernment skill and likely the right about of skepticism to be a very useful National Security Advisor; plus, Miller has the added benefit of also being trustworthy as he is currently trusted by President Trump.
If the report is accurate, Stephen Miller would be a great move.
President Trump has NEVER had a genuine, authentic and trustworthy National Security Advisor.
Miller would likely be the first, and the only NSA who would carry a MAGA perspective. However, that said, this is also the reason why the Intelligence Community would be structurally aligned against Miller assuming the role (including both HPSCI and SSCI adversaries). Stephen Miller would be the first NSA to exist outside their traditional control mechanisms.
The people deep inside the CIA, FBI, Pentagon and State Dept. silos would likely not appreciate Stephen Miller; however, President Trump would likely benefit greatly.
I think Stephen Miller is a great choice.
