Asylum Seekers at the U.S. Southern Border in 2019 (NSC) — Student

Set in 2019. The Central American region commonly known as the Northern Triangle—comprising El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—has experienced growing displacement in the past decade due to chronic violence, political corruption, and a lack of economic opportunity. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), between 2011 and 2016, the number of people from the Northern Triangle who sought refuge in surrounding countries increased by 2,249 percent, and is expected to continue to grow. Increasingly, migrants from the region are making the arduous journey through Mexico to the U.S. southern border to seek both new economic opportunities and protections from violence and persecution. The president has called a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC to determine how to approach a growing number of asylum claims. Members will need to consider the economic, security, social, and political needs of the United States as they provide advice, while taking into account humanitarian and legal concerns as well as the potential effects of U.S. immigration policy on the rest of the world. As they counsel the president, NSC members will need to consider the interplay between short- and long-term options and determine how to prioritize finite U.S. resources in order to most effectively alleviate the strain on the asylum system.

The United States plays a critical role in establishing and maintaining international order. This is particularly true in an increasingly globalized world. The range of foreign policy issues that require its attention is vast. The United States must consider foreign policy issues from conflicts in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Syria to tensions with Iran and North Korea; from long-standing alliances to complex, evolving relationships with Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa. Issues on the agenda range from the stability of global finance to the promotion of economic opportunity in low-income countries; and from climate to health to nuclear proliferation to terrorism. The United States has a vested interest in myriad world affairs. Further, issues such as immigration, trade, cybersecurity, climate change, and global health underscore the fading distinction between domestic and international matters.

Regardless of the scale of the problem, a successful foreign policy–making process starts by defining interests and goals. Policymakers and their advisors then formulate policy options to meet those goals and consider each option’s strengths and weaknesses. This process is challenging. In the best of times information can be unreliable or incomplete or an adversary’s intentions can be unclear. Often a decision’s consequences can be unknowable. Leaders frequently have to choose from a list on which every option is imperfect. Adding to this uncertainty is the complexity of the U.S. government’s foreign policy machinery. Numerous agencies—each with its own interests and biases—seek to influence how policy is decided and carried out. It takes considerable effort to run a process capable of producing sound policy decisions.

The National Security Council (NSC) plays a critical role in this effort. Its mission is to help the president effectively use a variety of instruments—military, diplomatic, or otherwise—to forge policies that advance U.S. national security goals.

The NSC was created by the National Security Act of 1947. This act defined the NSC as an interagency body intended to “advise the president with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security.” The period after World War II was an age of expanded American interests and responsibilities. The NSC was expected to provide a place where the heads of federal departments and agencies could cooperate to develop recommendations for policies that would advance U.S. aims. The NSC and its staff were also meant to manage the policymaking process. This ensured that the president would receive a full range of advice and opinion from the departments and agencies involved in national security.

The NSC has evolved significantly over the years. The NSC has adapted to the preferences of successive presidents and the challenges they faced. Variables such as the attendees, the frequency of meetings, the manner in which information is passed to the president, the importance of consensus, and the relative dominance of the NSC over other government institutions have changed over the decades.

The NSC has evolved to comprise various interagency committees and a large staff to prepare analysis and coordinate policymaking and implementation. The NSC is at the center of the interagency process. This process is one through which relevant government agencies address foreign policy issues and help the president make and execute policy choices.

I. National Security Advisor

The national security advisor (formally assistant to the president for national security affairs) is at the heart of the NSC structure. The national security advisor’s role is twofold: to offer advice to the president and to coordinate and manage policymaking. Because they have direct access to the president and do not represent a cabinet department, national security advisors are in a unique position. From this neutral perch they drive foreign policy decisions, manage the actors involved, and mitigate conflict throughout the decision-making process.

II. National Security Council Staff

The NSC staff consists of individuals from a collection of agencies that support the president, the vice president, and the administration. NSC staff members are generally organized into directorates that focus on regions or issues. The size and organization of the staff vary with each administration.

The NSC staff provides expertise for the variety of national security policy matters under consideration. It manages numerous responsibilities, including preparing speeches, memos, and discussion papers and handling inquiries from Congress on foreign policy issues. Staff members analyze both immediate and long-standing issues and help prioritize  the agenda.

III. Committee Structure

Committees are at the core of policy deliberation and policymaking in the NSC. They fall into four categories:

This committee structure tackles both immediate crises such as an outbreak of conflict and enduring issues such as climate change. IPCs conduct analysis on an issue, gather views on it and its importance from various departments, formulate and evaluate policy options, and determine what resources and steps would be required to carry out those options. The Deputies Committee manages the interagency process up and down. It decides what IPCs to establish. and gives them specific assignments. It also considers information submitted by the IPCs before relaying it to the Principals Committee or the full NSC.

The Principals Committee is the highest-level setting, aside from the NSC itself, for debating national security issues. It consists of the heads of the NSC’s component agencies. The Principals Committee is essentially all the members of the NSC except the president and vice president. Formal NSC meetings, which the president chairs, occur whenever the president sees fit. They consider issues that require the president’s personal attention and a direct presidential decision.

The goal of this committee structure is to foster consensus on policy options or highlight where and why consensus cannot be reached. If officials at one level agree on an issue, it does not need to go to senior officials for a decision. This practice reserves the president’s time and that of members of the Principals Committee for the most complicated and sensitive debates.

When a crisis erupts issues sometimes do not follow the usual path up from the IPCs. In these cases, NSC staff members and officials in government departments and agencies generally draft papers drawing on their expertise, available intelligence, and any existing contingency plans. Policy options are then debated and decided at the appropriate level. The policymaking process can also deviate from this model based on the preferences of each president.

For the purposes of this NSC simulation, you will role-play the NSC meeting with the assumption that the committees described have already done their jobs. Any critical information has already been passed to the highest-level decision-makers.

Presidential Decisions

When the president makes a policy decision, it can take the form of a verbal instruction recorded and shared with relevant departments and agencies. The president can also issue formal decisions in documents that lay out the administration’s policy and explain its rationale and goals. These documents have gone by different names under different presidents. President Joe Biden issues national security memoranda and national security study memoranda. President Donald Trump issued national security presidential memoranda.

The president can also issue an executive order (EO). EOs are a more formal and public declaration of policy. In contrast, national security directives are generally directed internally to federal departments and are often classified. In the past, presidents have issued EOs for such purposes as facilitating sanctions against foreign individuals and establishing new offices in government departments to carry out foreign policy aims. For federal agencies, both national security directives and executive orders carry the full force of law.

Although many executive branch departments and agencies are involved in foreign policy, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community form the core of the foreign policy bureaucracy. The Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice often play crucial roles as well.

Department of State

The Department of State conducts the United States’ relations with other countries and international organizations. It maintains U.S. diplomatic presence abroad. The Department of State also issues visas for foreigners to enter the country, aids U.S. citizens overseas, and manages other programs to promote American interests. The secretary of state is the president’s principal foreign affairs advisor and has a keen understanding of the United States’ international relations. They are also well informed on the relationships between foreign countries, and the behavior and interests of their governments.

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense carries out U.S. defense policy and maintains U.S. military forces. It includes the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, as well as an array of agencies related to defense. The department employs more than two million military and civilian personnel and operates military bases around the world. The secretary of defense is the head of the department and the president’s principal defense policy advisor. They also stay up-to-date on the security situation in foreign countries and the possibilities and implications of U.S. military involvement. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the highest-ranking member of the U.S. armed forces and the president’s top military advisor.

Intelligence Community

The U.S. intelligence community consists of eighteen agencies and organizations, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which gather and analyze intelligence. Each of these agencies has its own mission; for example, the NSA focuses on signals intelligence (information gathered from communications and other electronic signals) and the Defense Intelligence Agency on military information. The director of national intelligence is the president’s principal advisor on intelligence issues. They oversee this network of agencies with the aim of ensuring that they work together and deliver the best possible information to U.S. policymakers.

Department of the Treasury

The Department of the Treasury carries out policy on issues related to the U.S. and global economies and financial systems. The secretary of the treasury serves as one of the president’s chief economic advisors and is responsible for addressing a range of economic concerns. The Treasury’s ten bureaus, which include the U.S. Mint and the Internal Revenue Service, do much of the department’s work, which ranges from collecting tax to printing currency and executing economic sanctions.

Department of Homeland Security

Created soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security works to counter and respond to risks to American security. It focuses on issues such as terrorism prevention, border security and immigration, disaster response, and cybersecurity. Familiar agencies within the department include U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. The secretary of homeland security oversees the department and advises the president on relevant issues.

Department of Justice

The Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes possible violations of federal law. The Department of Justice represents the U.S. government in legal matters and works more broadly to prevent and respond to crime. Agencies such as the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration are part of the department, as are divisions focusing on particular areas of law, such as national security and civil rights. Leading the department is the attorney general, who offers legal advice to the president and the heads of other departments.

Migration from Central America has long been debated in the United States. The Central American region commonly known as the Northern Triangle is made up of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. This region has experienced growing displacement since the 1990s due to chronic violence, political corruption, climate change, and a lack of economic opportunity. Increasingly, migrants from the region are making the arduous journey through Mexico to the U.S. southern border. These migrants seek both economic opportunities and protection from violence and persecution.

Under U.S. and international law, individuals fleeing dangers in their home country are entitled to certain rights and legal protections. Migrants who want to immigrate to the United States can receive these protections by applying in advance for legal protection as refugees. However, not everyone is able to do so. Migrants can also receive protections by traveling to the United States and claiming asylum at the border. Being granted asylum allows an individual to legally live in the United States, but it involves a long and complicated process. Although most countries agree on the rights and protections that asylum seekers are entitled to, no international organization oversees asylum claims. Instead, governments are left to determine whether the various reasons driving individuals to migrate qualify them for asylum. This setup allows countries to make arbitrary decisions or bypass asylum norms entirely. Distinguishing between those with credible fears—who are entitled to asylum—and those seeking economic opportunity—who are not—can be an extremely difficult task. Meanwhile, the number of asylum seekers arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border is growing. For the period 2015–2019, the number of people migrating from Central America grew tenfold, with most headed for the United States.

Policymakers considering asylum policy need to weigh both economic and security issues. This includes considering the security risks individuals entering the country could pose. Furthermore, it requires crafting a policy to govern those awaiting a decision in their asylum cases as well as weighing the economic costs and benefits of absorbing an influx of migrants. On top of these considerations, an intensifying political debate over immigration policy means that any policy concerning asylum seekers faces potential political backlash. Public attention on and debate about immigration has intensified. As displacement has reached record highs globally immigration policies are crucial to the U.S. economy, national security, and global stability. 

Decision Point–Set in 2019

The Department of Homeland Security has recently reported that over the coming months, a surge of migrants—more than double the average in recent years—will arrive at the southern border seeking asylum. The asylum seekers are mostly—though not exclusively—from Northern Triangle countries. U.S. media reports have begun calling the U.S. border “out of control.” Several hard-line anti-immigration groups have begun holding rallies protesting perceived U.S. leniency on immigration. The president has called a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) and has asked members to consider the economic, security, social, and political needs of the United States. The president has asked NSC members to  provide advice, taking into account humanitarian and legal concerns as well as the potential effects of U.S. immigration policy on the rest of the world. NSC members will need to consider both short- and long-term options to manage flows of asylum seekers. NSC members also need to determine how to prioritize limited U.S. resources in order to most effectively reduce the strain on the asylum system. 

People migrate for many reasons, and these reasons shape their legal rights. Some migrants seek economic opportunity, while others travel to reunite with family members who have migrated. Many migrants are forced to leave their homes because of conflict, persecution, or natural disaster. These reasons often overlap, presenting a challenge to policymakers. A migrant is anyone who has decided to leave their home country, either temporarily or permanently, for any reason. If a migrant has left their home country for economic reasons, such as to look for work opportunities, they are known as an economic migrant. If a migrant has left their home country because of war, violence, or persecution, they are known under international law as a refugee and are entitled to different rights than economic migrants. Under U.S. law, people who leave their homes because of war, violence, or persecution are categorized even more precisely. U.S. law uses the term refugee to describe someone who fears war, violence, or persecution and has applied for entry to the United States before arriving at the border. Someone who has already fled their home country for these reasons and applies for entry when they reach the U.S. border is known as an asylum seeker. Other countries use the terms refugee and asylum seeker differently.

Migrants are also classified based on whether they entered the country they are in with or without authorization. Unauthorized immigrants are often referred to as “undocumented” because they do not have a valid visa or, often, even a valid ID. Due to their lack of identification, undocumented immigrants  often cannot access public services such as health care or education. Undocumented immigrants are also not allowed to work under U.S. law. As a result, they face more risk of labor exploitation and sex trafficking because others can threaten to report them to the authorities for being unauthorized.

International attitudes toward migration, refugees, and asylum largely took shape in the wake of World War II. In the aftermath of the war, an estimated twenty million people were displaced in Europe alone. After the war, the newly formed United Nations declared that anyone had the right to seek asylum in other countries if they feared persecution in their own. The United Nations adopted treaties establishing the rights of refugees and the responsibilities of nations toward them. One of the most important of these responsibilities is the fundamental principle of non-refoulement, which forbids a country from returning refugees to a country in which they would likely be in danger. Crucially, these treaties require countries to provide asylum to those who have entered without authorization but are found to meet the established definition of a refugee. The United States officially adopted the UN definition of refugee in 1980 with the Refugee Act. This established an annual refugee admissions cap that the president can adjust from year to year, and standardized asylum processes. 

International arrangements established to aid refugees have proven helpful but ultimately inadequate to deal with the amount of different people in the world who are forced to move away from their home region. The UN definition of a refugee provides only a general basis for determining refugee status, leaving the interpretation of what persecution means largely up to individual governments. Governments willing to accept refugees could be reluctant to accept and provide for large numbers of these migrants. Moreover, determining a migrant’s status can be challenging because many people migrate both for economic reasons and because they fear war, violence, or persecution. Migrants from the Northern Triangle are no exception; most make the difficult journey north for a variety of reasons, and often more than one. 

Much of the current increase in immigration to the United States is rooted in worsening economic and security conditions in the countries of migrants’ origin—particularly those in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The Northern Triangle countries are among the poorest in the Western Hemisphere. They suffer from intense economic inequality and violence. Homicide rates in the Northern Triangle are among the world’s highest. Throughout the 2010s, a large majority of those crossing the U.S.-Mexico border from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have reported fleeing extortion or physical threats from gangs. Children are particularly vulnerable, as they often face a choice between recruitment into the local gang or death. In 2019, El Salvador and Honduras had Latin America’s highest rates of femicide (murders of women and girls). The region’s governments suffer from high levels of corruption and lack institutions and social services that could effectively combat these problems. In addition, changing climate conditions increase the likelihood of droughts and other natural disasters, further driving migration from the region. 

All of these reasons lead many people to leave their home countries in search of increased safety or greater opportunity. Those making the journey north face a long and perilous route. Many migrants hire coyotes (smugglers) for assistance during their journey, putting themselves at risk of abuse and violence. Kidnapping and death—from accidents, violence, injury, and illness—are also major threats. Recent immigration trends show that more unaccompanied children and families are migrating from the Northern Triangle, resulting in more women and girls than ever making the dangerous journey.

Upon arriving in the United States, asylum seekers need to turn themselves over to U.S. officials and make an asylum declaration. The next step is an interview to determine whether the asylum seeker faces a “credible fear of persecution” if they return to their home country. Those who do not pass the interview can be deported in a matter of days. Although 90 percent of asylum seekers pass the credible fear interview, doing so only allows them to proceed to the next step in the process: making their case in immigration court. Asylum seekers can wait years for their cases to be heard, as U.S. immigration courts face a chronic backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases. As migrants wait, their futures remain uncertain. During this time, they need to house and support themselves as well as complete paperwork to secure employment authorization. A successful court hearing leads to permanent residency, the right to work, and a path to citizenship. A denial can be appealed, entailing another multiyear wait. If the appeal is denied, asylum seekers then need to decide whether to leave the United States or attempt to remain without authorization.

As the backlog of those awaiting asylum determinations grows, so does displacement from the Northern Triangle. According to the UNHCR, between 2011 and 2016 the number of people from the Northern Triangle who sought refuge in surrounding countries rose 2,249 percent and is expected to continue to grow. Managing migration flows is therefore an increasingly urgent challenge for policymakers.

The United States has economic, humanitarian, and security interests in managing flows of asylum seekers from Northern Triangle countries. The United States is among the largest providers of humanitarian aid globally. It has also sought to strengthen human rights norms around the world. Given the conditions that many Northern Triangle migrants are fleeing, as well as the dangers migrants face on their journeys. The United States has clear humanitarian incentives to provide support and protection for migrants. Likewise, the United States also has an incentive to address the root issues causing this increase in migration. 

Economic considerations also need to be part of the analysis. Supporters of tighter restrictions argue that migrants from Central America often claim asylum to disguise their economic motives. Many also express concern that immigrants could displace American workers and strain U.S. resources. Those in favor of a more accepting admissions policy, however, argue that the economic benefits of allowing asylum seekers—both skilled and unskilled—into the country far outweigh the costs. Most economists agree that increases in the labor force from immigration stimulate the economy. 

Any asylum policy also needs to consider national security. Advocates for restrictive policies argue that allowing asylum seekers to enter the United States carries national security risks. These, they argue, include mistakenly allowing entry to members of transnational gangs, drug cartels, or terrorist organizations. Opponents counter that most immigrants are carefully investigated (although unauthorized immigrants are not), and likely do not pose a threat. Many analysts also argue that security concerns are overblown out of racial bias. Although data is limited, several studies have suggested that immigrant populations do not pose a greater criminal threat than the native-born population. 

Finally, policymakers need to consider the potential for political and popular backlash that a large inflow of asylum seekers could cause. Given that immigration policy in the United States is often subject to intense political debate, a large inflow of asylum seekers could further motivate nationalist anti-immigration groups.

NSC members could consider several policy options to address the influx of asylum seekers from Central America, keeping in mind the political, economic, and security implications of each. These options can be pursued in combination or individually.

An Open-Door Policy 

The United States has at times opened the door to specific groups of asylum seekers. It has also provided Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for those who cannot return to their country of origin due to armed conflict or natural disaster. Haitians, Hondurans, and Salvadorans have all received TPS in the past. NSC members could adopt a similar open-door policy toward the coming influx of Northern Triangle migrants by offering them TPS or passing a specific law.

This approach would require a decision about which countries to include and how many asylum seekers to admit. NSC members would also need to decide whether to provide temporary or permanent protection to those arriving and how to process them in a timely fashion. 

Though an open-door policy would provide the greatest humanitarian protection to those arriving at the Southern border, it carries several risks:

Asylum Reform

The years-long backlog in the asylum system puts pressure on both the U.S. government and asylum seekers. The government could commit resources to hire additional immigration judges in order to work through the backlog quickly. The government could also provide legal counsel to some or all asylum seekers (unlike in criminal court, immigration court has no right to counsel) to both speed the system and better protect asylum seekers’ rights. To stop the backlog from growing further, the government could also allow immigration agencies greater leeway to decide asylum cases without referring them to courts. 

Asylum reform would help to clear the current backlog of asylum claims in the United States more quickly. However, this option has potential drawbacks: 

Enlisting Mexican and Regional Support to Stop the Flow

As long as the United States permits asylum seekers to enter the country and file their claims, their numbers are likely to grow. The asylum determination process is a lengthy one, and many asylum seekers live for two or more years in the United States before their cases are resolved. In addition, many who are rejected for asylum do not return home but remain in the United States without authorization. The United States could require Central Americans and others arriving in Mexico to request asylum there instead or to remain in Mexico while their claims are processed in the United States.

This policy would likely reduce the flow sharply but entails several risks:

Regional Aid and Refugee Processing 

NSC members could address the root causes of migration by providing support to Northern Triangle countries. This approach would involve using U.S. foreign aid to  provide relief from extreme poverty and climate change. The United States could also provide police, military, and legal advisors, to strengthen governments and combat corruption. For those still seeking asylum, the United States could work with stable neighboring countries such as Costa Rica and with the United Nations to set up refugee camps and processing facilities closer to the Northern Triangle countries. The United States could support efforts to process Northern Triangle refugees closer to home by committing to accept a significant number of these processed refugees.

This policy would reduce the incentive for Central Americans to attempt the long and dangerous journey to the United States. However, policymakers need to consider several drawbacks: 

Print these custom placards for use during your simulation. If you need to edit them, make a copy to your Google Drive.

All National Security Council (NSC) members except the president will write a position memo before the role-play. You can find more details about writing position memos under Student Resources. The president will write a presidential directive after the role-play. More details about that are also under Student Resources.

What is a memorandum?

The surge in asylum seekers outlined in this case is representative of the increasingly urgent conditions on the U.S. southern border. Then president Donald Trump advocated for stronger anti-immigration policies, including a promise to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and efforts to restrict the entry of refugees and asylum seekers. These policies came at a time of significantly increasing immigration; the number of people migrating from Central America grew tenfold between 2015 and 2019 and continues to rise today. 

In January 2019, the administration announced a new policy, informally known as Remain in Mexico. Under this policy, asylum seekers were required to wait in Mexico for a period of forty-five days before their credible fear interview.  Asylum seekers were then returned to Mexico to await their date in immigration court. The U.S. government also signed “asylum cooperation agreements” with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, allowing the United States to reject asylum claims of migrants who passed through one of these countries without applying for asylum there. These agreements resemble other agreements known as safe third country agreements. These agreements  dictate that an asylum seeker should apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach (rather than keep going to a preferred destination). 

These policies received criticism both domestically and internationally. The border towns in Mexico where most migrants were forced to wait are known for trafficking, smuggling, and extraction. Similarly, Northern Triangle countries are generally unsafe for asylum seekers. The Remain in Mexico policy and other Safe Third Country agreements therefore raised questions about whether they violated the principle of non-refoulement.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted further restrictions on immigration. In March, citing efforts to combat the spread of disease, the Trump administration announced that it would deny entry to noncitizens attempting to cross the border. The administration further began automatically expelling migrants who had made unauthorized crossings into the United States, effectively shutting down the asylum system. 

Upon taking office in January 2021, President Joe Biden expressed a desire to significantly alter U.S. immigration policy. Biden used executive action to roll back many of Trump’s immigration policies, which the administration deemed inhumane. This has included suspending construction of a border wall, increasing the refugee limit, and extending TPS to migrants fleeing Myanmar and Venezuela. 

However, some Trump-era asylum policies remained in place. For instance, Biden continued Trump’s policy of expelling migrants making unauthorized crossings during the pandemic until 2023. Although the Biden administration initially suspended the Remain in Mexico policy, legal challenges delayed the administration’s efforts to dismantle the program for years.

These policies have unfolded amid an increasingly urgent situation at the U.S. southern border. Border crossings have reached record highs in recent years. Over 2022 and 2023, U.S. agencies encountered nearly five million migrants at the border. Compounding the issue, political deadlock over migration policy has deepened. Issues like aid to Ukraine have intensified debates over the prioritization of limited U.S. resources. As debate continues while urgency grows, it is clear that policymakers will need to continue considering U.S. asylum policies for years to come.

After the debate and deliberation close, the president will announce his or her decision, to be later finalized in the form of a written presidential directive. If time permits, you will participate in a debrief following the president’s announcement.

Be active in this debrief. The role-play might seem to be the most challenging part of the experience, but the debrief is equally important. It will reinforce what you learned during the role-play exercise and refine your analytical skills. It will also force you to step out of your role and to view the case from a personal perspective. You will have the opportunity to discuss any challenges you encountered as you worked through the discussion with your peers and how you felt about the final presidential decision.

The debrief will close with a reflection on the complexities and challenges of crafting foreign policy. This should help clarify your understanding of what you learned and answer any lingering questions. This exercise will also assist you in completing your final assignment, a written reflection.

The following questions are proposed to guide the discussion in the in-class debrief. This is not an exhaustive list and may vary depending on how your role-play exercise unfolded. If your class or group does not hold a debrief, these questions will nonetheless help you reflect on the role-play and write your policy review memo: 

The written reflection is your final assignment in the simulation. In the debrief discussion after the role-play, you and your peers went beyond the role you played and thought about the issue from a variety of perspectives. Now that the National Security Council discussion and debrief are behind you, you can consider whether you personally support your recommended policy given the full spectrum of arguments and considerations that arose. Shedding your institutional role and writing from a personal point of view, you will craft a policy review memo that outlines and reflects on the policy options discussed, incorporating and critiquing the president’s decision where appropriate.

If you played the role of president in the simulation, your memo should still reflect your personal opinion. You can comment on the course of action you ordered as president, further justify it, write more extensively on the options you dismissed, or suggest and support alternate options.

No matter which role you played originally, take into account all you have learned. Your instructor or facilitator will want to see whether and how your understanding of the issue and of the policymaking process has evolved from that expressed in your position memo.

More details about the written reflection are available under Student Resources.

Essential Resources

Additional Resources

Research and Preparation

Sources

Note: If you are assigned the role of president, you will not write a position memo. Instead, you will write a two-page presidential directive (PD) at the conclusion of the role-play. You will address the PD, which will follow a memo format, to the NSC members and inform them of your final decision regarding the policy option or options to be implemented (see below).

If your teacher has chosen to assign you the role of general advisor to the president, you will not need to write the position memo from a particular institutional position. Instead, you will have the flexibility to approach the issue from your own perspective, incorporating a comprehensive assessment of the crisis into your argument.

Click here to see a sample of a position memo.

The format of the presidential directive is simpler than that of a position memo. A directive contains a record of the policy option or options that the president has chosen as well as the accompanying orders to various parts of the government with details on how to carry out these decisions.

Click here to see a sample presidential directive.

During the simulated NSC meeting, you will meet to debate and discuss U.S. policy options in response to the issues outlined in the case. Consistent with the NSC’s mission to advise the president, you should raise the issues that are most important for the president to consider. This will enable them to make the most informed decision on policy options. Though you may or may not agree with this decision, your responsibility as an NSC member is to provide the best possible analysis and advice from the perspective of your role.

Role-play Guidelines

Guidelines

Click here to see a full example of a written reflection.