Presidents are faced with incredibly difficult decisions, especially those in the national security realm. There is an established process for how these decisions are framed and made in the National Security Council but how closely is this model followed. Who really has the access to the president to influence his decisions and how is the established framework utilized? In looking at three cases and three different presidencies this paper analyzes how presidents build their decision making teams and how those teams work within in the national security framework it also makes a historical comparison to a pre-Goldwater-Nichols Act decision to determine its influence. This research indicates that in the media scrutinized environment presidents' face today, they struggle to make decisions while public opinion is being shaped around them. Those on the National Security Council have tremendous influence on the decision but can biases can be formed if their viewpoint is perceived to be tainted in the eyes of the president. In the three cases analyzed here it became apparent influence was not entirely based on position and quality of prior advice shaped the amount of influence on the president. The cases also demonstrate the lasting impact of Goldwater-Nichols and its impact of streamlining military advice.