Global Climate Change Policy (NSC) — Student

Fictional, set in the present day. Developed countries, including the United States, have been releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. In recent decades, rapid economic growth in major developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil has led to significant increases in their own greenhouse gas emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the federal government, have concluded that the warming observed in recent decades is a consequence of human activity. The effects of this global warming or climate change pose risks not only to the environment, but also to the security and livelihoods of people in the United States and around the world, both now and in the future. Various international responses are possible, but the questions of how to cut emissions and prepare for climate consequences, and who should bear the costs of doing so, have few simple answers. The U.S. government has convened a National Security Council (NSC) meeting to consider what goal to pursue at an upcoming international climate summit that the president plans to attend. NSC members will need to weigh the options, bearing in mind the potential impact of climate change, the potential effects of proposed measures to limit or prevent it, and the need to secure international support for the U.S. approach from both developed and developing countries.

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.

Developed or industrialized countries, including the United States, have been releasing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for more than a century. These gases are released by burning fossil fuels for power, heat, transport, and industrial activity. Recently, rapid economic growth in major developing countries such as Brazil, China, and India has led to significant increases in their greenhouse gas emissions as well. Greenhouse gases trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere causing a phenomenon known as global warming, which leads to changes in the planet’s climate.

Climate change poses risks not only to the environment but also to the security and livelihood of people in the United States and around the world. These effects include rising sea levels, greater heat extremes, more intense precipitation events, deeper droughts, stronger storms, and bigger wildfires. If current trends continue, growing plentiful and affordable food for a rising global population could become more difficult. Populations in low-lying areas—including many of the world’s major cities—could be forced to move. In addition, more extreme weather could threaten the health of billions of people.

Rising greenhouse gas emissions could be addressed through policy at both domestic and international levels. However, if countries with significant emissions fail to act, the overall level of warming will increase. Multiple international agreements on climate change have been developed over the years. The most notable of these is the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement aims to prevent global warming above 2°C by the end of the century. Given the grave risks, the Paris Agreement urges countries to strive to contain global warming below 1.5°C. However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will not be easy. Modern economies depend on fossil fuels. Alternative sources such as solar and wind energy are growing. However, alternative sources  cannot fully replace fossil fuels yet. Moreover, currently available measures to increase energy efficiency are costly and time-consuming. Climate change  is a difficult issue for policymakers. The questions of how to cut emissions and prepare for climate repercussions, and who should bear the costs of doing so, have few simple answers.

Hypothetical Decision Point

A major international climate summit is approaching. At the UN climate summit in Paris in 2015, world leaders pledged to reduce or limit their countries’ emissions and to monitor progress toward these goals. However, a new scientific report warns that governments will need to make urgent and unprecedented changes beyond their commitments under the Paris Agreement to avoid serious and potentially irreversible environmental consequences. Despite this alarming information, countries have taken relatively few additional steps toward meeting ambitious targets and in some cases have even retreated from their climate commitments to the Paris Agreement. 

Most heads of governments, including the president of the United States, are attending the upcoming summit. All eyes are on Washington to see if the United States will present a new U.S. negotiating strategy in light of the report. The president has called a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) to decide if and how the United States will propose creating a more robust climate agreement that can prevent the most devastating consequences of climate change. NSC members will need to consider the potential results of climate change as well as the potential effects of proposed measures to mitigate it. Members will also need to consider the need to secure international support for the U.S. approach from both developed and developing countries.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases heat the planet through a process known as the greenhouse effect. When sunlight reaches the earth, it heats the surface. Some of that heat is released back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap some of that heat rather than allowing it to escape back into space, which warms the atmosphere further. Most greenhouse gases are released during the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. 

Although the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has changed naturally in the past, the changes being observed now are much faster and much bigger [PDF] than previous changes. Carbon dioxide levels are now substantially higher than at any other point in millions of years. Careful analysis of the sources of carbon found in the atmosphere indicates that this rise is due to human activity. 

As global temperatures rise, experts warn that extreme weather events including droughts and forest fires will occur more frequently. Consequently, major ecosystems will be threatened. Over the past decade, oceans have warmed faster than expected, and drought and monsoon cycles have intensified. In recent years, global average temperatures have continued to reach ever-higher records. Climate-related wildfires have raged in Australia, the Amazon Rainforest, the Arctic, and California. In the United States alone, climate change contributed to twenty-eight separate disasters in 2023. These disasters included hurricanes, wildfires, and extreme storms that amounted to billions of dollars in damage. Some projections show that rising sea levels could flood populated coastal areas in the United States in the coming decades. Precise forecasts are difficult to make, but researchers estimate that, worldwide, climate change could force up to one billion people from their homes by 2050 if global temperatures are not moderated.

The over 190 countries that joined the 2015 Paris Agreement have agreed that in order to avoid catastrophic harm from climate change, temperature increases by 2100 should be kept below a maximum of 2°C, and preferably below 1.5°C relative to global average temperatures at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Yet little agreement exists on how to achieve this goal. Many policymakers question whether even a 2°C goal can be met.

Many countries are concerned that making the major, rapid reductions required to meet the targets in the Paris Agreement will be expensive, politically controversial, or both. Moreover, countries disagree as to who should bear the most responsibility for achieving that target. Governments of developing countries point out that developed countries bear the most cumulative responsibility for climate change mitigation. This is because developed countries have been emitting at high levels for the longest time. (For example, the United States is the largest overall emitter historically and the second-largest currently.) Governments of developed countries, on the other hand, note that emissions from developing countries are rising fast, and the majority of future emissions are likely to come from the developing world. (Indeed, China has already surpassed the United States and Europe in CO2 emissions.) 

Despite these challenges, addressing climate change has been a prominent international concern since the 1980s. In 1992, the United States and 164 other countries signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The goal of this framework was to stabilize greenhouse gases at a level that would prevent dangerous changes in the climate. The convention did not set specific targets for countries. Instead, it established the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” among countries, placing higher expectations on developed countries. Those countries pledged to voluntarily reduce emissions and make regular reports on their progress. These reports showed little progress in subsequent years toward meeting the voluntary reductions. 

The UNFCCC also established a Conference of the Parties (COP), which called treaty signatories to an annual meeting to discuss the agreement’s implementation and make any changes they thought necessary. In 1997, the parties agreed on a change in the agreement. This was known as the Kyoto Protocol, which mandated that thirty-seven industrialized countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The protocol had limited results: developing countries faced no required emissions cuts, and the United States, the largest greenhouse gas emitter among developed countries, never ratified the treaty. The treaty failed to decrease reliance on fossil fuels and brought about only modest cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Despite its limitations the Kyoto Protocol laid the framework for other, more robust climate agreements, including the Paris accord.

In December 2015, the UNFCCC convened a major summit in Paris. The goal was to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. Over the course of 2015, countries were asked to submit pledges to the UNFCCC, known as intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). (Now that the deal has come into force, these are referred to as nationally determined contributions [NDCs].) These documents were requested from all member countries, rich and poor. These documents outlined what each country intended to do to reduce its current emissions or limit future emissions growth. Most pledges involved reducing CO2 emissions. Some NDCs also addressed issues such as adopting renewable energy sources, reducing coal use or storing related emissions underground through a process known as carbon capture and sequestration, and preserving or restoring forests. Independent assessments of the pledges found that, collectively, they would reduce emissions significantly if fulfilled, but not by enough to reach the 2°C target recommended by the IPCC. 

At the summit, negotiators also debated whether and how to monitor countries’ progress toward fulfilling their pledges and how to make pledges more stringent over time. Policymakers also discussed whether and how to provide financial support to help poor countries adapt to the changing climate and reduce their own emissions. The final agreement called on countries to make new emissions reduction pledges every five years, beginning in 2023, with the hope that they would increase their reduction targets each time. Wealthy countries also pledged additional money to help poor, vulnerable countries adapt to the effects of climate change. The degree to which the agreement is successful in mitigating climate change will only be seen over time. However,  most analysts agree that the Paris summit produced the most important global climate agreement since the Kyoto Protocol. 

The Paris Agreement came into force in 2016. In 2017, however, then-President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement. In response, China, India, the European Union, and many other signatories reaffirmed their commitments. The United States’ withdrawal from the agreement became effective in late 2020. However, shortly after the inauguration of President Joe Biden in January 2021, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement. 

Though the commitments that countries made under the Paris Agreement have resulted in some emissions reduction, pledges that countries made still amount to less than what is needed to achieve the agreement’s goals. Furthermore, most countries are not actually on track to meet the commitments they made in Paris. If current trends continue, climate models predict that temperatures will more likely rise by 2.7°C. Such a rise in temperature would increase  the risk of catastrophic harm from climate change.

Several countries have made historic investments in green initiatives in recent years. The 2022 U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, for instance, included $370 billion for climate-related projects, making it the largest climate investment in the country’s history. European countries, most notably France and Germany, have made large-scale investments in climate initiatives as well. Still the vast majority of countries continue to lag behind on climate spending, making pledges more difficult to fulfill.

Although climate change has been a prominent political issue since the 1980s, the U.S. government has failed to adopt comprehensive climate change legislation. Congress’s most recent attempt to pass a comprehensive bill was in 2009. In the absence of congressional action, President Barack Obama sought to address climate change through executive action by implementing stricter fuel efficiency standards, and through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by releasing a new set of standards for existing power plants with the 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP). The Trump administration sought to roll back many Obama administration climate regulations, including the CCP and fuel efficiency standards, claiming that they impeded economic growth. President Biden, on the other hand, has pledged to remove carbon emissions from the electricity sector by 2035 and to be on a path for net-zero emissions by 2050. He has also directed federal agencies to review and reinstate over one hundred regulations that had been weakened or removed during the Trump administration. 

President Biden has designated climate change a U.S. priority for national security and foreign policy. The Biden administration created a new executive branch position dedicated entirely to climate policy—the special presidential envoy for climate. Biden appointed former Secretary of State John Kerry to fill the position and join National Security Council meetings when relevant. These actions signal to the world that the United States aims to not only strengthen its climate ambitions but revitalize its position of global leadership on climate. 

However, the United States has lagged among developed nations in establishing comprehensive national climate policies. Despite the Biden administration’s stated position, the United States has not adopted legislation on greenhouse gas emissions reductions as doing so would require approval from a divided Congress. Canada, France and the United Kingdom have already passed legislation on net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Germany currently relies on renewable energy sources for over 45 percent of its electricity. Denmark plans to source 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050. Iceland already does so. The relative lack of American achievement in this area makes it difficult for the United States to lead calls for concerted international action in multilateral negotiations. Finding a way to achieve significant, sustainable emissions reductions at home could give the United States greater credibility in negotiations abroad.

The task of the NSC is to determine the strategic goal of the United States at the upcoming summit. The decision requires attention to both environmental and economic concerns. It also requires awareness of the interests of domestic U.S. political groups as well as those of the other countries at the summit.

Three potential strategic goals have been presented to the NSC for decision: 

Renegotiate the Paris Agreement, requiring high-emitting countries to contribute to assistance programs to help countries reach stricter emissions targets.

By providing climate-related assistance to developing countries, the Paris Agreement could encourage countries to reach and increase their emissions targets while investing in climate adaptation. Without aid to climate-related initiatives in poorer countries, many signatories are less likely to agree to stricter emissions targets which could  halt the most devastating consequences of climate change. 

This option could entail renegotiating the agreement with a component that requires high-emitting member states to provide financial, technological, or professional assistance to poorer countries. This support would help poorer countries mitigate their emissions, develop or adopt new technology, or adapt to climate change. The United States and other signatories could adopt the goal of building one or more of these initiatives into the Paris Agreement.

Climate-related assistance is subject to debate. Advocates often argue that it is morally necessary because many poor countries have done little to contribute to climate change. Likewise, poor countries are likely to suffer some of its worst effects. Although this option provides the greatest possibility of immediate action on reaching stricter emissions targets and protecting global stability, gaining support for the agreement could be difficult because it puts the responsibility and cost of programs on high-emitting countries. 

Renegotiate the Paris Agreement, implementing market-based measures to mitigate climate change. 

Though virtually all legislation addressing climate change in the past has failed in Congress, market-based approaches have been considered and hold some political support. These approaches could form the basis of U.S. proposals for a renegotiated Paris Agreement. Two main options are discussed in this regard:

Either variation has a high chance of mitigating climate change but also has many obstacles. Although both options could reduce emissions, whether these measures could cut emissions to the extent that experts say is needed remains unclear. For this reason, many countries could support a market-based approach because it provides a path toward maintaining industries that rely on carbon emissions for a longer period of time. Both cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes are also politically controversial in many countries. In the United States some industries fear that these policies could decrease demand for their products. Likewise, consumers worry about possible higher prices. NSC members should therefore weigh the difficulties of achieving this goal against the estimated severity of the threats from climate change. 

Prioritize domestic climate measures and lead by example, keeping the Paris Agreement as is.

The Paris Agreement does not require parties to take any specific action to reduce emissions. Instead, countries make voluntary pledges that increase in ambition over time. The NSC could decide to continue this approach using the requirements and arrangements agreed to in Paris. This strategy would offer continuity and stability for other countries and U.S. industry. However, it could also mean that neither the 1.5°C or 2°C goal of the Paris Agreement is met. This would expose the entire globe to worsening climate consequences and irreversible environmental change. These changes could increase the national security risks for the country.   

If the United States decides to pursue domestic initiatives rather than renegotiate the Paris Agreement, it could seek to advance its innovations in climate change mechanisms and technology. Doing so could help regain international trust in U.S. domestic climate commitments. 

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?

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.