In the midst of Cabinet appointments and congressional argument over a stimulus package, it is not surprising that many moves by President Obama are going largely unnoticed. One such move is the presidential directive to expand the powers of the National Security Council.

The 1947 National Security Act created the National Security Council as the voice to the president for issues relating to national security. The secretaries of state and defense, as well as the president and vice president, are official members, though recent presidents have included the treasury secretary, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA director, to name a few.

President Obama would greatly increase the membership of the NSC to include a broader idea of the national security community. The usual suspects are of course included, but the departments of energy, commerce and treasury would be included as well as law-enforcement agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Many of these organizations would participate on an issue-by-issue basis.

This increase of membership would accompany a drastic increase in jurisdiction and powers. Issues on the Obama administration’s agenda include climate change, energy and cyber security, according to The Washington Post.

These changes, on the whole, seem logical and needed. Including the energy department on issues of energy seems like a good idea. In fact, most of these changes came at the urging of the president’s new national security adviser, James Jones.

However, it is how these changes will culminate in change that is most disturbing. Jones told The Washington Post that he “insisted on being ‘in charge’ and having open and final access to the president on all national security matters.”

In other words, while there is greater membership, it is all funneled through the national security adviser. He even described it as military-like control.

His concern was the “back channels” in the Bush administration that “allowed Cabinet secretaries and the vice president’s office to unilaterally influence and make policy out of view of the others.”

In other words, they were doing their jobs.

The department of defense is supposed to inform the president of defense-related issues. If the issue at hand was a defense issue, why shouldn’t the department have unilaterally spoken to the president?

And why can’t we trust the president to seek additional counsel if he feels like he needs it?

The change seems to mean that the council will include more official voices, but when it comes down to the wire, it is still only one person that the president is talking to.

Only this time, it’s always the same person. How is that change?

Janne is a criminology and criminal justice graduate student and can be reached at janne.gaub@asu.edu.