You’ve probably seen the headlines spinning across your feed for years. High-stakes drama in the West Wing, sudden tweets at noon, and yet another official packing their desk. It became a bit of a pattern. Whenever Trump fired national security staffers or advisors, the news cycle went into a complete meltdown. But honestly, if you look past the cable news shouting matches, there’s a much weirder, more complex story about how power actually worked in those rooms.
It wasn't just about "you’re fired." It was about a fundamental clash between a president who trusted his gut and a "Deep State" system he felt was actively trying to steer the ship in the wrong direction.
The National Security Advisor Carousel
Basically, the National Security Advisor is supposed to be the person who whispers the world's secrets into the President's ear. Under Trump, that seat was a bit like a game of musical chairs played at 200 mph.
First, you had Michael Flynn. He lasted about 24 days. That’s it. He was gone before the moving boxes were even fully unpacked because of the whole situation involving conversations with the Russian ambassador and, more importantly, misleading Vice President Mike Pence about them. It was a messy start that set the tone for the next four years.
📖 Related: North Las Vegas Police Activity Today: What Most People Get Wrong
Then came H.R. McMaster. He was a three-star general, very "by the book," and he reportedly drove Trump nuts with long, detailed briefings. Trump wanted the "bottom line," and McMaster wanted to give him the 50-page strategy. They just didn't click. By early 2018, the tension was thick enough to cut with a knife, and McMaster was out.
The John Bolton Explosion
If McMaster was a clash of style, John Bolton was a clash of worldviews. You probably remember Bolton—the guy with the famous mustache and the even more famous hawkish views.
Trump actually liked Bolton’s performances on TV, but once they were in the same room? Total disaster. Bolton wanted to be aggressive with Iran and North Korea. Trump, surprisingly to many, was leaning more toward "America First" isolationism and making deals.
When Trump fired national security advisor Bolton in September 2019, the two couldn't even agree on how he left. Trump said he asked for a resignation; Bolton tweeted that he offered it first. It was the ultimate "breakup by text" moment in American diplomacy.
💡 You might also like: Why unsolved murders in nyc still haunt the five boroughs
Beyond the Big Names: The 2020 and 2025 Purges
Most people focus on the advisors, but the real shaking of the foundations happened in the agencies. Take Christopher Krebs, for example. He was the head of CISA—the agency in charge of election cybersecurity.
After the 2020 election, Krebs released a statement saying it was the "most secure in American history."
Trump fired him via tweet almost immediately.
Fast forward to 2025 and 2026, and we're seeing a whole new version of this. It's not just about policy anymore; it’s about a concept called "Schedule F" and a massive push for loyalty. Recent reports from April 2025 showed Trump firing half a dozen National Security Council (NSC) staffers after outside activists like Laura Loomer allegedly presented "opposition research" claiming they were disloyal.
Think about that for a second. External influencers having more sway over who keeps a top-secret job than the actual National Security Advisor (who at the time was Mike Waltz). It’s a total flip of how Washington used to run.
Why This Actually Matters for You
It’s easy to dismiss this as "inside baseball" or political theater. But when the person in charge of counterterrorism or nuclear policy gets axed because they aren't "loyal" enough, the institutional memory of the government takes a massive hit.
The Partnership for Public Service has been tracking this, and the numbers are kind of wild. By late 2025, the Department of Defense alone lost over 61,000 employees. When you lose that much expertise that fast, things break.
- Security Gaps: New people take months to get up to speed on complex threats like Houthi drone strikes or Chinese cyber-espionage.
- Morale: Career professionals who aren't political start looking for the exit, leaving the "B-team" in charge of critical systems.
- Predictability: Allies like the UK or Japan don't know who to call because the person they talked to last week was fired on Tuesday.
What You Should Keep an Eye On
If you're trying to figure out where this goes next, stop looking at the names on the TV and start looking at the "loyalty tests" being implemented in the civil service. The shift from "expert-led" to "loyalty-led" is the biggest change in national security since the Cold War.
Honestly, the best thing you can do is stay informed through non-partisan trackers. Groups like CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) and the Partnership for Public Service keep live lists of who is being moved and why.
Next Steps for You:
- Check the "Federal Harms Tracker": It's a real tool that shows exactly how many vacancies exist in key security agencies right now.
- Verify the Source: When you see a "national security" firing, check if it was a political appointee or a career scientist. There's a huge difference.
- Watch the NSC structure: See if the National Security Council is getting smaller or being replaced by "advisors" who don't have official government titles.
The world is getting more dangerous, not less. Whether you love the "drain the swamp" mentality or hate it, the reality is that the people currently sitting in those chairs are the ones holding the keys to the kingdom. Keeping tabs on who is actually left in the room is the only way to know how safe the country really is.