Project on National Security Reform

Project on National Security Reform
Name	Project on National Security Reform
Formation	2007
Type	Nonprofit
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.
Leaders	Legacy Leadership Council

Project on National Security Reform

The Project on National Security Reform was an American nonprofit public policy initiative established to assess and recommend changes to United States national security institutions and processes. Founded by a coalition of former officials, academics, and think tank analysts, the Project sought to influence debates involving the United States Department of Defense, United States Department of State, United States Department of Homeland Security, Central Intelligence Agency, and other interagency actors. Its work intersected with legislative reforms, executive initiatives, and academic studies concerning the post-9/11 security environment.

Background and Formation

The initiative was launched in the wake of debates sparked by the September 11 attacks, the Iraq War, and the broader War on Terror. Prominent founders and supporters included former officials from the National Security Council (United States), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as scholars from Harvard Kennedy School, Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Early sponsors and partners comprised organizations such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bipartisan Policy Center. Congressional engagement involved staff from the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mission and Objectives

The Project advocated for comprehensive reform of the United States national security architecture to improve coordination among entities like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. Its stated objectives included enhancing strategic planning similar to reforms debated after the Goldwater–Nichols Act, streamlining authorities in the style of proposals linked to the Hart–Rudman Commission, and modernizing processes shaped by lessons from the 9/11 Commission Report. The Project promoted statutory and organizational changes to strengthen civilian leadership roles represented in institutions such as the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the United States Civil Service Commission legacy structures.

Key Reports and Recommendations

The organization issued a major comprehensive report that proposed changes to structures comparable to the creation of an empowered National Security Council (United States) staff, revised authorities akin to those in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and clearer roles between the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence. Recommendations addressed interagency budgeting practices influenced by debates over the National Security Act of 1947 and urged adoption of planning mechanisms similar to those in the Quadrennial Defense Review and the National Defense Strategy. The Project also published white papers on topics related to counterterrorism, intelligence reform, and civil-military relations, citing precedents from the Vandenberg Resolution era and comparative examples from the United Kingdom and NATO.

Organizational Structure and Leadership

Governance included a board of directors and an advisory council composed of former senior officials from the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security. Senior fellows and staff were drawn from institutions like RAND Corporation, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for a New American Security. Notable participants included retired officers from the United States Air Force, United States Army, United States Navy, and United States Marine Corps, as well as diplomats with backgrounds linked to the Foreign Service Institute and the United States Agency for International Development.

Impact and Influence on U.S. Policy

The Project’s proposals were cited in Congressional hearings before committees such as the United States Senate Armed Services Committee and the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and informed discussions among administrations occupying The White House during the late 2000s and early 2010s. Elements of its recommendations resonated with legislative efforts touching the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and with executive actions tied to the Presidential Policy Directive series. The Project engaged with foreign policy debates involving actors such as the United Nations Security Council, European Union institutions, and coalition partners in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Criticism and Controversies

Critics questioned the Project’s advocacy for centralized authorities, drawing parallels to debates over the Goldwater–Nichols Act and concerns raised by civil libertarians referencing cases like Korematsu v. United States about executive power. Some commentators from media outlets and partisan think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation and Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments argued the proposals risked bureaucratic expansion and duplication of authorities found in historical reforms after the Pearl Harbor attack. Others raised concerns about the influence of defense contractors and lobbying entities with ties to procurement debates involving companies referenced in hearings before the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Category:United States national security policy organizations