Inside Trump’s Tight-Knit National Security Circle — How a Small Team Shapes Big Foreign-Policy Decisions

Inside a Compact, Informal Foreign-Policy Engine

President Donald Trump has concentrated some of the administration's most consequential foreign-policy work in the hands of an unusually small, closely knit group of advisers. Tasked with issues ranging from Russia and Ukraine to Israel-Gaza and a possible strike on Venezuela, the team operates largely outside traditional diplomatic channels.

Who’s In The Room

The informal roster described by current and former officials includes real-estate executive Steve Witkoff; Marco Rubio (identified by sources as the administration's national security adviser); Vice President J.D. Vance; Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth; and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Several aides and outside figures — including Jared Kushner — have been tapped to help shape proposals and negotiations.

Ad Hoc Decision-Making

Officials say meetings are often convened at the president's impulse, decisions are made quickly, and there is little formal hierarchy beyond Trump himself. "It all is just up to the president," one White House source said, describing a loose distribution of responsibilities rather than a conventional chain of command.

"Trump wants peace deals and he wants the credit. The details he's less worried about," a former administration official said.

Outside Partners And Drafted Plans

Witkoff and Kushner have been prominent in drafting high-profile proposals. Officials say they collaborated on a 28-point plan for a Russia-Ukraine settlement that was ultimately rejected. Other drafts, including an earlier Gaza proposal, reportedly involved significant input from outside partners such as Qatar and, in the case of the Russia-Ukraine plan, a Kremlin-affiliated aide.

Concerns About Coordination And Expertise

Critics warn that multiple independent negotiators can produce inconsistent messaging and risky outcomes. Richard Haass, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said it's safer to have a single coordinator who aligns what is told to different parties and manages trade-offs. "With so many cooks in the kitchen, there's no way to ensure that what is being said to Ukraine as opposed to what is being said to Europe as opposed to what is being said to Russia fits together," Haass said.

Some career diplomats and foreign-policy veterans also question the reliance on private dealmakers without traditional diplomatic experience. Yet the administration defends the approach as deliberately lean: fewer layers of bureaucracy, fewer leaks, and decision-makers the president trusts.

Weakened NSC Infrastructure

Officials and diplomats note changes to the National Security Council's structure: the NSC communications shop was merged with the White House press office, staff levels were cut, and some NSC committees were disbanded. Former NSC officials warn this undermines the council's role in convening subject-matter experts and testing legal, strategic and risk considerations before issues reach the president.

"Legal issues on proposed military actions, for example, would normally be debated in NSC-convened meetings before being brought to the president," a former senior NSC official said. "That kind of vetting appears diminished under the current set-up."

Access, Surprise And Diplomatic Friction

The informal structure has granted unusually direct access to foreign leaders who maintain personal ties with the president and his inner circle — notably officials from Israel and Gulf countries. But many governments and career diplomats say the lack of institutional channels to the White House has led to surprise and frustration.

"We’ve been caught by surprise a lot," said a European diplomat in Washington. "When you don’t have a clear line to the White House, it’s harder to get information and harder to make sure they understand our point of view."

Assessment

Proponents argue the compact team delivers speed and secrecy; critics say it sacrifices process, coherence and the range of expert advice that traditionally informs U.S. foreign policy. As initiatives such as the 28-point Russia-Ukraine plan and ad hoc Gaza proposals illustrate, the choice to centralize power in a small circle of trusted dealmakers carries risks as well as the potential for rapid outcomes.