By: Justin Rubin, Senior Counsel, Legal Affairs Department of the Project on National Security Reform
Last Tuesday, the President announced the merger of the staffs of the National Security Council (NSC) and Homeland Security Council (HSC) within one National Security Staff. The President, however, did not merge the Councils themselves, instead maintaining them as two separate entities. The public discussion, and comments from White House aides, indicate that the President took this step because he could not legally merge the two Councils without a new Congressional enactment. A close legal analysis, however, makes clear that the President has ample authority to merge the two entities without Congressional approval.
The President’s decision comes after a 60-day review of the current structures of the HSC and NSC and whether the integration of those bodies would enhance our nation’s security. Though the President concluded after the review that merging the HSC and NSC staffs would more effectively integrate the instruments of national power, in contrast to many people’s expectations, he decided not to abolish the HSC. In fact, the White House pledged to maintain the HSC "as the principle venue for interagency deliberations on issues that affect the security of the homeland." Though the President’s decision to merge the two staffs is a much-needed and welcome change, maintaining two separate Councils reflects a specific choice to preserve a distinct body for advising the President on threats to the homeland such as terrorism, natural disasters, health-related crises and weapons of mass destruction.
The confusion over the merger’s legality was highlighted by Spencer Hsu’s article in last Wednesday’s Washington Post, attributing to unnamed White House aides two reasons for maintaining the HSC: "Doing so will improve state and local officials' access to the White House and does not require an act of Congress." While the first may be true – it is essential that state and local officials have sufficient access to the White House homeland security coordination body – the second, which implies that the further integration of the Councils requires statutory authorization, is not. The President does have the authority to merge the Councils and his decision not to merge them should be viewed in that light.
The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council were created by the National Security Act of 1947 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, respectively. The acts establish the Councils, set their membership, make them responsible for advising the President on interagency coordination, and create two separate staffs reporting to two separate Executive Secretaries. Merging the two Councils, as the President’s actions demonstrate, requires two unique legal decisions: whether to merge the two Councils’ staff and whether to merge the two Councils, which both currently exist in statute. Contrary to the view expressed in Spencer Hsu’s article and elsewhere, the President has the legal authority to do both.
First, the President has clear legal authority to merge the Council staffs. While the statutes create separate NSC and HSC staffs reporting to statutorily created NSC and HSC Executive Secretaries, the laws do not require that the staffs, or the Executive Secretaries, be different. The President, therefore, can merge the Councils’ staffs into one staff by dual-hatting one individual as both the NSC and HSC Executive Secretary and require that the staff serve as a single unit reporting to that one individual. This requires no legal change.
Second, despite claims that merging the HSC and NSC would require an act of Congress, the President has multiple means to effect a de facto merger of the two Councils without a statutory change. Firstly, the Homeland Security Act gives the President the authority to "convene joint meetings of the Homeland Security Council and the National Security Council with participation by members of either Council or as the President may otherwise direct." 6 U.S.C. 496. This statute gives the President both the authority to call joint meetings and to choose who shall participate in such meetings – a power the President traditionally exercises, but does not statutorily have. As a result, using this authority, the President could merge the two Councils by designating all future NSC and HSC meetings as joint meetings.
A second option for merging the Councils would be to call meetings of only one of them. While the Councils are tasked with advising the President, neither the National Security Act nor the Homeland Security Act requires the President to call meetings of either. This reflects the limits of congressional authority: Congress has no Constitutional authority to require the President to listen to specific individuals’ or Councils’ advice. In fact, even President Truman, who signed the NSC into existence, questioned the constitutionality of the NSC on such grounds. See Cody M. Brown, The National Security Council: A Legal History of the President’s Most Powerful Advisors, Project on National Security Reform 10 (2008). As a result, had President Obama so desired, he could have merged the Councils by placing traditional homeland security issues within the jurisdiction of the NSC and inviting department heads, such as the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Transportation, to relevant meetings of the NSC as he is empowered to do by the National Security Act of 1947. This approach would merely require not calling meetings of the HSC, clearly within the President’s constitutional and statutory authority, and would, in effect, merge the Councils.
It is curious that White House aides would cite the need for Congressional action as a reason for the President’s decision to merge the Council staffs, but not the Councils themselves. The President has ample authority, given to him by the Constitution and the Congress to merge the NSC and HSC. Though we do not know, beyond the statements attributed to White House aides, whether this was a real concern, it should not have been. While many policy and political arguments exist for keeping separate Councils – including enabling state and local officials’ to access the White House, maintaining a forum focused purely on homeland security issues, allowing the President and future presidents greater flexibility in deciding how to use the NSC and the HSC, and, potentially, avoiding a political fight with those in Congress who oppose merger – the need for an act of Congress is not one of them.
Rubin’s views are not necessarily representative of PNSR’s.

Get the Brief via Twitter
Get the Brief via Email