Imagine this: The president of the United States is in the Situation Room during a national emergency. At his side should be the national security advisor—his closest, most consistent strategic counsel. But in this case, that advisor is on the other side of the world, representing the US at a summit in Tokyo, shaking hands and posing for press photos as the secretary of state.
Who, then, is in the room with the president?
That’s the question swirling around Washington after Donald Trump announced on Thursday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve concurrently as national security advisor, replacing Mike Waltz, who was effectively fired and reassigned to serve as US ambassador to the United Nations. It’s a stunning consolidation of roles, one not seen since Henry Kissinger held both posts nearly 50 years ago.
And back then, the geopolitical terrain was entirely different. So was the president.
A security nightmare wrapped in a political message
The national security advisor is not just a title. It is a position built around constant proximity to the president, physically and strategically. Unlike the secretary of state, who is often overseas, the NSA typically has an office just steps from the Oval Office and participates in almost every major decision involving defense, diplomacy, and crisis response. They are the president’s daily filter for intelligence and military strategy, not a globe-trotting diplomat.
Putting both jobs in the hands of one person is not just unconventional—it’s borderline unworkable. The demands and responsibilities of these two roles often conflict. The NSA must challenge foreign policy assumptions from within, while the secretary of state must present and defend them abroad. One is an internal advisor, the other an external actor.
So why make this move now?
The Mike Waltz unraveling
Trump’s decision follows a scandal that embarrassed the White House: a Signal chat involving top national security officials, including Waltz, accidentally included The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. The chat revealed discussions about US military action against the Houthis in Yemen, including that Israel provided key intelligence for a recent assassination of a Houthi commander.
The fallout was swift. Waltz, a former Republican congressman from Florida and one of Trump’s few establishment allies in the national security sphere, came under fire for what insiders described as "carelessness with classified material." He is now being shuffled to the UN in what Trump described as a “promotion”—but few are buying it. Waltz’s deputy, Alex Wong, is also reportedly out.
It is the first significant shakeup of Trump’s second-term inner circle, and one that sends a clear message: loyalty and control now trump hierarchy and institutional balance.
Why Secretary of State Marco Rubio?
Rubio, once a fierce Trump critic during the 2016 campaign, has reinvented himself as one of Trump’s most loyal foot soldiers, especially on foreign policy. He has been a vocal hawk on China, Iran, and Latin America, and has deep ties to the conservative Cuban-American base in Florida.
His appointment raises two possibilities: either Trump genuinely trusts Rubio to run both sides of foreign policy himself, or Rubio is a placeholder, and someone else, perhaps real estate mogul and longtime Trump advisor Steve Witkoff, is already serving as the de facto national security consigliere.
Indeed, Witkoff’s name has circulated in Trumpworld as a quiet operator with growing influence, particularly in matters of national security. He’s denied interest in the official role, but sources suggest he has been advising Trump informally since the beginning of the term.
Implications for Israel and beyond
The shakeup could have implications for Israel. Waltz heading to the UN could mean a more assertive pro-Israel voice in an arena often hostile to the Jewish state. Rubio’s elevation also means Israeli officials will be dealing with someone who understands their concerns well and is unlikely to change course on issues like Iran, Hamas, or intelligence cooperation.
But it also raises concerns. A less structured US national security apparatus—especially with two major roles held by one man—means more unpredictability in moments of crisis. And with Israel still engaged in a multi-front regional struggle, the clarity and stability of its closest ally’s foreign policy machinery matter more than ever.
The Bottom line
Trump’s move is bold, but also risky. The merging of two distinct foreign policy roles into one could work for short-term optics, but may prove unsustainable in practice. As history has shown, consolidating power doesn’t always lead to coherence. Sometimes, it leads to chaos.
