Abdulrahman Fathollahi – International Affairs Expert

The appointment of Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, as acting National Security Advisor, the dismissal or resignation of Mike Waltz, and the growing influence of Steve Wit off, Special Envoy for West Asia affairs, reflect Donald Trump’s efforts to consolidate power and align foreign policy under the control of his trusted loyalists. These changes, accompanied by internal tensions and pressure from conservative factions, carry strategic implications for America’s global standing.

Cabinet Reshuffle and Power Consolidation in Rubio’s Hands

Following the recent developments, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, has temporarily assumed the role of National Security Advisor—a position previously held by Mike Waltz. Fox News recently reported that Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, were dismissed, while CBS described the event as a voluntary resignation. Politico also suggested that Steve Witkoff might replace Waltz. These changes, occurring just over 100 days into Donald Trump’s second term, may indicate a more centralized approach to restructuring the foreign policy team.

Rubio’s dual appointment to the State Department and National Security Advisor roles is not unprecedented, but such a concentration of power has not been seen since Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Once Donald Trump’s rival in the 2016 election and mocked as “Little Marco,” Rubio has become a key confidant by aligning with the “America First” policy. Trump praised Rubio on social media: “Marco Rubio is incredible. When I have a problem, I call Marco—he fixes it.” This statement reflects Trump’s trust in Rubio, but the underlying layers of this decision suggest a more complex strategy.

Rubio has overseen a radical restructuring of the State Department, including dissolving the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), cutting 15% of jobs, closing or merging over 100 global offices, and restricting visas for international students. He has also negotiated agreements to transfer migrants accused of crimes to third countries, such as El Salvador. These moves signal a shift toward an insular and hardline foreign policy that aligns with Trump’s priorities. However, simultaneously serving as National Security Advisor—a role that Thomas Wright, a former NSC official, describes as more than a full-time job—poses unprecedented challenges for Rubio.

Trump’s Motivations for the Changes: Loyalty, Control, and Avoiding Chaos

A deeper analysis of these changes reveals Trump’s intent to concentrate power in the hands of individuals who combine personal loyalty, political flexibility, and executive competence. The dismissal or resignation of Waltz, weakened after mistakenly adding a reporter to a Signal group chat of senior national security officials, demonstrates Trump’s intolerance for mistakes. Fox News described Waltz as a prominent foreign policy figure who failed to retain Trump’s complete trust, especially compared to Rubio, who enjoys significant political credibility with a 99-0 Senate confirmation vote and a long record in Florida.

Dan Gelber, Rubio’s former colleague, noted that Rubio is “not one for chaos” and serves as a stabilizing force in a high-tension administration—a key reason for his dual appointment. Trump, who experienced instability after abruptly firing Rex Tillerson during his first term, seeks to minimize cabinet turmoil. Consolidating power under Rubio, who can coordinate between the State Department and the NSC, allows Trump to steer foreign policy with less oversight while ensuring political loyalty.

However, internal pressures, particularly from conservative groups, have added complications. Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump Jr. reported efforts by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies to undermine Steve Witkoff, highlighting ideological rifts within Trump’s camp. The foundation, described as opposing the “America First” movement, appears to influence foreign policy by pressuring officials. These tensions show that Trump faces executive challenges and internal competition in defining the direction of foreign policy.

Strategic Consequences and Redefining U.S. Foreign Policy

Trump’s cabinet reshuffle has profound implications for U.S. foreign policy. Concentrating power in Rubio’s hands—who pursues a pragmatic yet conservative approach—could improve coordination between diplomacy and national security. However, as Wright warned, Rubio’s dual role may lead to inefficiency due to the overwhelming workload. The NSC, which coordinates diplomatic, military, and intelligence operations, requires full-time attention, and merging its functions with the State Department could create gaps in decision-making.

The growing role of Steve Witkoff, who is active in sensitive West Asia negotiations, may replace Waltz, reflecting Trump’s preference for relying on close, informal associates to advance specific agendas. Witkoff’s role resembles Jared Kushner’s in the first term, handling multiple responsibilities and suggesting Trump’s strategy of building a network of trusted figures outside formal structures. While this approach increases flexibility, it may also lead to redundancy and reduced policy transparency.

Strategically, Rubio’s restructuring of the State Department and reduction of global presence signal a retreat from traditional diplomacy in favor of short-term national interests. This shift could strain relations with allies, particularly in Europe and Asia, where U.S. development programs once played a key role in maintaining influence. Additionally, Rubio’s strict immigration policies, facing legal challenges, may escalate tensions with neighboring countries like El Salvador.

Projected Scenarios: From Stability to Instability

Looking ahead, two scenarios are conceivable for Trump’s cabinet. First, power consolidation under Rubio and Witkoff’s complementary roles may bring relative stability to foreign policy. Rubio’s political skill and flexibility could help manage internal tensions and implement the “America First” policy more effectively. Appointing Waltz as UN ambassador might also ease internal friction while keeping his influence on the sidelines.

In the second scenario, Rubio’s excessive workload and pressure from conservative groups, like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, could lead to instability. If Rubio fails to manage his dual roles effectively, executive and decision-making gaps may weaken foreign policy. Moreover, internal rivalries—particularly between “America First” supporters and traditional conservatives—could deepen divisions, limiting Trump’s ability to achieve foreign policy successes.

Conclusion

Overall, the reshuffling of Trump’s cabinet—from Rubio’s appointment as National Security Advisor to Waltz’s dismissal or resignation—reflects efforts to centralize power and reduce chaos in foreign policy. These changes, amid internal tensions and conservative pressures, reveal the underlying layers of Trump’s strategy: loyalty, control, and redefining America’s global role. However, while concentrating power under Rubio and elevating Witkoff may bring short-term stability, it risks long-term inefficiency and instability. Trump’s ability to navigate these challenges will determine America’s position in the international order.