Bannon’s removal from NSC signals shifting fortunes

WASHINGTON — For the first 10 weeks of United States President Donald Trump’s administration, no adviser loomed larger in the public imagination than Mr Stephen Bannon, the former chairman of Breitbart News who considers himself a “virulently anti-establishment” revolutionary out to destroy the “administrative state”.

But, behind the scenes, said White House officials, the ideologist who enjoyed the President’s confidence became increasingly embattled as other advisers, including Mr Trump’s daughter and son-in-law, complained about setbacks on healthcare and immigration.

Lately, Mr Bannon has been conspicuously absent from some meetings. And now he has lost his seat at the national security table.

In a move that was widely seen as a sign of changing fortunes, Mr Trump removed Mr Bannon, his chief strategist, from the National Security Council’s (NSC) Cabinet-level “Principals Committee” on Wednesday.

The shift was orchestrated by Lieutenant-General H R McMaster, Mr Trump’s National Security Adviser, who insisted on purging a political adviser from the Situation Room, where decisions about war and peace are made. Mr Bannon resisted the move, even threatening at one point to quit if it went forward, according to a White House official who, like others, insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Mr Bannon’s camp denied that he had threatened to resign and spent the day spreading the word that the shift was a natural evolution, not a signal of any diminution of his outsize influence.

His allies said privately that Mr Bannon had been put on the principals committee to keep an eye on Mr Trump’s first national security adviser Michael Flynn, who lasted just 24 days before being forced out for misleading Vice-President Mike Pence and other White House officials about what he had discussed with Russia’s ambassador.

With Mr Flynn gone, said these allies, there was no need for Mr Bannon to remain, but they noted that he had kept his security clearance.

“Susan Rice operationalised the NSC during the last administration,” said Mr Bannon in a statement, referring to former US President Barack Obama’s last national security adviser. “I was put on the NSC with General Flynn to ensure that it was de-operationalised. General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function.”

Mr Bannon did not explain what he meant by “operationalised” or how his presence on the committee had ensured it would not be.

Either way, it was one more drama in a White House consumed with palace intrigue, where officials jockey for the ear of the president, angle for authority and seek to place blame for political defeats.

Even as Mr Bannon lost a national security credential, Mr Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law and senior adviser, seems to be acting as a shadow secretary of state, visiting Iraq and taking on China, Mexico and Middle East portfolios.

Mr Bannon’s myriad enemies, both inside and outside the White House, celebrated what they saw as a defeat for his brand of firebrand politics.

“He didn’t belong on the principals committee to begin with — doesn’t really belong in the White House at all,” said Mr Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “I hope that this is a sign that McMaster is taking control of the National Security Council.”

Mr Karl Rove, who as senior adviser to former US president George W Bush was not allowed to join national security meetings, said Mr Bannon’s removal was a move back to a better process.

“It was wrong for him to be added in the first place, and it was right to take him off,” he said.

Still, Mr Bannon, who has been under attack from outside the administration since the early days of the transition, is a crafty survivor and insiders warned that it would be a mistake to underestimate him.

From the start, Lt-Gen McMaster intended to revamp the NSC organisation that he inherited from Mr Flynn.

The Principals Committee, which is led by the national security adviser and includes the vice-president, secretary of state, defence secretary and others, is the primary policymaking body deciding questions that do not rise to the level of the president and framing those that do.

The original organisation approved by Mr Trump not only gave Mr Bannon formal membership on the committee, but also downgraded the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of national intelligence to occasional participants as issues demanded.

In addition to removing Mr Bannon, the new order issued by Mr Trump restored the joint chiefs chairman and intelligence director and added the energy secretary, CIA director and United Nations ambassador. It also put the Homeland Security Council under Lt-Gen McMaster rather than making it a separate entity, as Mr Trump’s original order had done.

For the first two months of Trump’s presidency, Mr Bannon occupied an unassailable perch at the president’s side — ramming through key elements of his eclectic and hard-edge populist agenda, including two executive orders on freezing immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries.

But blunders by Mr Bannon’s team — especially the first immigration order, which was rejected by multiple courts — have undermined his position. His take-no-prisoners style was not a winning strategy on Capitol Hill.

Moreover, Mr Bannon’s Svengali-style reputation has chafed on a president who sees himself as the West Wing’s only leading man. Yet there is a risk for Mr Trump in appearing to minimise Mr Bannon, a hero to the nationalist, anti-immigration base that helped drive Mr Trump to an Electoral College victory.

With his approval ratings at historic lows for so early in a presidency, Mr Trump is counting on the same people who see Mr Bannon as their champion — just as Mr Bannon is counting on Mr Trump to retain his place in the White House inner circle. THE NEW YORK TIMES