Steve Bannon’s presence on the NSC “results in a blurring of presidential responsibilities … that is unhealthy for the republic,” says Michael Mullen. (AP) Former NSC member Mullen: Steve Bannon doesn't belong on the National Security Council

President Donald Trump’s elevation of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon to the National Security Council is “unsettling and should be remedied as soon as possible,” a former NSC member wrote Monday.

Retired Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s administrations, penned a New York Times op-ed Monday arguing that Bannon doesn’t belong on the NSC.


Trump signed a memorandum late last month putting Bannon on the NSC and its Principals Committee — a brain trust that no longer regularly includes the director of national intelligence and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For Trump’s part, according to a New York Times report, he wasn’t fully briefed on the memorandum he signed placing Bannon on the NSC.

“In my experience there are very few — if any — meetings of the principals committee at which the input of the military and the intelligence community is not vital,” Mullen said. “With an increasingly belligerent Russia, tensions in the South China Sea and a smoldering Middle East, it makes little sense to minimize the participation of the professionals leading and representing these two groups.”

Mullen challenged the White House to clarify whether the new NSC structure downgrades the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or DNI, insisting it “would send a strong signal that Mr. Trump will still take seriously the military and intelligence community” if the reorganization isn’t a demotion of the highest-ranking military officer and the president’s top intelligence adviser.

“The second much needed adjustment to Mr. Trump’s arrangement of the council is the removal of Mr. Bannon from the principals committee,” he added. “Putting aside for a moment Mr. Bannon’s troubling public positions, which are worrisome enough, institutionalizing his attendance threatens to politicize national security decision making.”

He described security council meetings as a venue for candid discussions that at times “can get heated” and “territorial” but rarely turn political.

“Having Mr. Bannon as a voting member of the principals committee will have a negative influence on what is supposed to be candid, nonpartisan deliberation,” Mullen warned. “I fear that it will have a chilling effect on deliberations and, potentially, diminish the authority and the prerogatives to which Senate-confirmed cabinet officials are entitled. They, unlike Mr. Bannon, are accountable for the advice they give and the policies they execute.”

Bannon’s presence on the NSC “results in a blurring of presidential responsibilities … that is unhealthy for the republic,” Mullen said.

“Every president has the right and the responsibility to shape the security council as he sees fit. But partisan politics has no place at that table,” he concluded. “And neither does Mr. Bannon.”