Statement on National Security Staff Firings
Trump Implementing the "Vindman Rule"
Yesterday, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, announced a sweeping directive to terminate all national security staffers loaned from other departments and agencies who serve in apolitical, non-partisan senior staff roles. Waltz framed this decision as a means to eliminate Biden-era appointees and enforce absolute alignment with Trump’s policy agenda. Notably, Waltz justified this move by referencing my role in exposing Trump’s abuse of power, which led to his first impeachment. Using my actions as a rationale, Waltz aims to purge scores of professionals from the Department of Defense, Department of State, CIA, and other agencies—not because of their conduct, but due to a demand for blind allegiance to Trump. This approach sends a stark and troubling message: in a second Trump administration, only political loyalists will be permitted to serve on the NSC.
To set the record straight, I served as an apolitical detailee and a faithful Army officer implementing President Trump’s national security agenda, as outlined in the National Security Strategy he approved. My actions did not conflict with Trump’s stated national security policy. My reporting of corruption—my refusal to remain silent as Trump engaged in criminal activity, undermined free and fair elections by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, to steal the 2020 election—and my refusal to betray my oath to the U.S. Constitution are why I was fired. These are the same reasons professional staff are about to be purged, and apolitical staff will be barred from the NSC.
On the surface, it is reasonable for a president to seek a loyal and trusted teams faithful to their agenda. However, absolute loyalty should not be the exclusive qualification, overriding competence, experience, and fidelity to a constitutional oath. An NSC staffed with “team members who are 100% aligned with the president’s agenda” will not only diminish the NSC’s capabilities but also erode continuity in policy. Worse, it will create an environment where dissenting views, even those grounded in experience and ethical responsibility, are stifled.
The so-called “Vindman Rule” sets a dangerous precedent by ensuring that only political loyalists can serve on the NSC, advise the president, and interact with the president and top decision-makers. Such an approach will have a chilling effect on senior policy staff across the government. Talented professionals, wary of being dismissed for principled stances or offering objective advice, will either self-censor or forgo service altogether. This undermines the very purpose of the NSC: to provide the president with the best possible advice as well as the coordinating team to advance U.S. national security interests.
The implications of this loyalty-above-competence model are dire. By purging the NSC of apolitical, experienced professionals, Trump and Waltz are hollowing out the institutional expertise required to navigate complex global challenges. This will create a policy apparatus incapable of discerning sound policies from reckless impulses—or worse, one that actively disregards legal and ethical obligations to implement Trump’s personal whims. Consider the implications: Would Department of Defense detailees still counsel against invading Greenland or Canada or feed those foolhardy thoughts to curry favor? Would FBI detailees agree to engage in political reprisals against Trump’s enemies to serve in the NSC? These are not far-fetched concerns but real dangers inherent in the precedent Waltz establishes.
This announcement also presages broader plans by the Trump administration to fire tens of thousands of senior apolitical government officials and replace them with Trump loyalists. By prioritizing loyalty above all else, the Trump administration will significantly undermine the foundations of good governance, jeopardize U.S. national security, and weaken U.S. democracy.