White House Watch: Will There Be a Bolton Purge?

White House chief of staff John Kelly is telling staffers at the National Security Council that their jobs are, for a time, secure as John Bolton transitions into the role as national security adviser. No position is permanently guaranteed, but fears of a purge on the NSC, Kelly has indicated, are unfounded.

Those fears have come out of reports that Bolton, whose predecessor H.R. McMaster held the top NSC spot for more than a year, is looking to “clean house.” Reported Foreign Policy late last week: “Those targeted for removal include officials believed to have been disloyal to President Donald Trump, those who have leaked about the president to the media, his predecessor’s team, and those who came in under Obama.” Of particular interest, allegedly, are the “Obama holdovers” and McMaster loyalists.

Here’s the problem: There are very few members of the staff of around 100 who even qualify for either of these groups. The misleading term “holdovers” suggests these are political appointees from President Obama’s White House, but in reality these staffers are career officials and experts, many of whom are housed in other executive branch departments and agencies who have been detailed to the NSC. Furthermore, several other political appointees on the NSC staff have served in the Trump White House since the beginning of the administration and can’t be counted as strictly or chiefly McMaster partisans.

And among the senior officials at the NSC who were hired on after McMaster, the most prominent is deputy national security adviser, Ricky Waddell, who Foreign Policy says is “likely to be targeted” in a Bolton purge. Nadia Schadlow, who McMaster elevated to deputy national security adviser for strategy following the departure of Dina Powell from the White House, is also allegedly on the chopping block. Such changes at the top wouldn’t be unusual for a new national security adviser—McMaster brought in Waddell to replace his predecessor, K.T. McFarland, a hire of Michael Flynn—but they would hardly constitute a cleaning of the house.

Trump Tweet of the Day

President Trump on Monday ordered dozens of Russian diplomats to leave the United States, America’s most serious retaliatory measure yet for Russia’s alleged poisoning of a former spy and his daughter in England with a nerve agent on March 7.

“Today’s actions make the United States safer by reducing Russia’s ability to spy on Americans and to conduct covert operations that threaten America’s national security,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “With these steps, the United States and our allies and partners make clear to Russia that its actions have consequences.”

The administration, which conducted the expulsion in tandem with Canada and several European countries, continued to insist Monday that “the door to dialogue is open” with Russia. But officials stressed the Kremlin would need to change its aggressive behavior first. On Monday afternoon, deputy press secretary Raj Shah declined to answer whether the Trump administration was considering placing additional sanctions on the Russian government or even on President Vladimir Putin himself. “I wouldn’t close any doors or I wouldn’t preclude any potential action,” Shah said. “But the president doesn’t telegraph his moves.”

Must-Read of the Day—From BuzzFeed: After the 2016 disaster for Hillary Clinton, Democrats (and Republicans, too) don’t seem to be taking the threat of email hacking too seriously in the run-up to this fall’s midterm elections.

President Trump has mostly maintained public silence on Sunday night’s 60 Minutes interview with porn actress Stormy Daniels. He issued a Monday morning tweet obliquely referencing the segment.

At the White House, deputy press secretary Raj Shah shut down questions about the alleged sexual encounter between Daniels and Trump, saying that “the president strongly, clearly, and has consistently denied these underlying claims.”

Shah was pressed about the possibility of whether the president or his campaign violated federal elections laws by way of the $130,000 payment Daniels received from Trump lawyer Michael Cohen 11 days before the 2016 elections. “I can say, categorically, and obviously, the White House didn’t engage in any wrongdoing,” he said. “The campaign or Mr. Cohen can address anything with respect to their actions.”

Asked whether Trump watched the interview, Shah was similarly cagey: “I’m not going to get into what he saw. There are clips of it playing all over in the morning news shows. What I’ll just say is that he’s denied the accusations that she made last night and has been consistent in doing so. She has not.”

2020 Watch—The cover story for this week’s issue comes from my colleague John McCormack, who spent time in New York with Governor John Kasich. The Ohio Republican has been making the media rounds lately to tout a different line on gun control—perhaps as part of a run-up to another presidential bid in 2020:

But the two agreed that an independent bid could be serious under plausible circumstances. “Two major pre-requisites for a non-farcical Kasich campaign are Trump’s job approval stays in the low 40s and Democrats nominate someone like [Bernie] Sanders,” says Trende. “There’s a bunch of weird questions” in this scenario, he adds. For example: “What happens in Connecticut? You can see Sanders getting the liberal and maybe the inner-city vote, and then Trump getting eastern Connecticut where he ran well last time and some of the areas outside of New Haven where the Italians moved, and then Kasich cleaning up in western Connecticut. Who wins that? I don’t know.” “Kasich would need to think of himself as the American Emmanuel Macron,” says Olsen. “ ‘I’m going to run as all flavors of center—from center-right to center-left—and it will be a genuine coalition.’ That could win if there is somebody so far left that the center-left feels they have a better shot with an independent than with a Democrat. It all depends on what the establishment of the Democratic party wants to do.” So you may think a Kasich candidacy would be good or bad, but there’s a decent chance it could matter. Even protest candidates (think of Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader) can shape the dynamics of a race in important ways and potentially tip the election one way or the other.

Song of the Day—“Amarillo By Morning” by George Strait

Related Content