In a purge reminiscent of a reality show elimination round, the White House has fired three National Security Council staffers after Laura Loomer's dramatic plea for Trump to oust the 'disloyal' among them.

The dismissals of Brian Walsh, Thomas Boodry, and David Feith underscore a troubling trend of loyalty tests within the National Security Council, as Loomer’s intervention reflects not just a shift in personnel but a shift towards vetting based more on political allegiance than national security expertise. Following an earlier mass exodus of staff, this latest round suggests that Trump's inner circle continues to prioritize loyalty over experience, raising eyebrows about the future of national security amidst such reality-show-esque drama.

The incident unfolded following Loomer's meeting in the Oval Office, a gathering that seemed more suited for a strategy session of a high-stakes game than a meeting of minds devoted to national safety. In attendance were not only Loomer, whose reputation for stirring the pot precedes her, but also key players like Trump's chief of staff Susie Wiles, Vice President JD Vance, and head of personnel Sergio Gor. The gathering resembled something of a political game night – only instead of Monopoly, they were playing the increasingly high-stakes game of Who's Loyal Enough to Stay.

During her time with the president, Loomer took it upon herself to present opposition research on NSC staffers she deemed disloyal. Her efforts targeted not only the three who were subsequently shown the door but also raised eyebrows regarding Alex Wong, the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor. Loomer appears to have taken her role as national security vigilante to the next level, suggesting that anyone who doesn’t sport a MAGA cap might not be trusted with America’s secrets. Perhaps next, they will institute a loyalty oath that involves a terrifying game of Taboo.

Concerns about disloyalty are particularly interesting in the context of already having witnessed the White House's previous toss-a-thon where over 150 NSC staffers were dismissed just after Trump's inauguration. That initial purge was framed as aligning the council with Trump’s political agenda, so one can only guess that this current wave of firings might be about sharpening the focus on loyalty rather than expertise. Perhaps a future job description for NSC positions will read, 'must be fluent in both national security lingo and the latest Twitter trends'.

Meanwhile, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has come under scrutiny for his enthusiastic use of the messaging app Signal — a tool favored by those wishing to keep sensitive discussions away from prying eyes. Whether Waltz is trying to protect national secrets or simply trying to avoid being accidentally added to a group chat with Loomer and her 'disloyalty lists' is yet to be determined. In the intricate world of intelligence and national security, one can only wonder how much of that information now hinges on who gets drunk at the White House Christmas party and tweets out too many secrets.

Loomer’s commitment to supporting Trump’s agenda further complicates the question of qualifications required for the NSC's members. In a recent statement, she emphasized the necessity of robust vetting procedures — a concept that might draw some laughter if it weren't for its sincere resonance in a council that could be run with nothing short of a magical employee loyalty quiz. Perhaps future vetting would involve a round of 'Who's loyalty do you trust more?' to keep the camaraderie spirit high, without risking any politically incorrect staffing decisions.

The New York Times broke the story on this unsolicited reorganization of national security talent, uncovering a cycle where loyalty is the highest virtue in a milieu usually governed by expertise and experience. As the dust settles from the staffers’ departures, it becomes increasingly unclear who exactly will be left to protect national interests — or whether loyalty to the Trump brand has become a prerequisite for national security competence. What ensues from here remains to be seen, but if this trend continues, we might just find ourselves on the edge of our seats, waiting for the next round of eliminations from the National Security Council—gripped by both concern for our safety and a peculiar curiosity for the political theatrics at play.