Presented as a reform to modernize and streamline Greece’s security strategy, the new body in fact consolidates unprecedented authority within the Prime Minister’s Office, sidestepping long-established institutional checks.
The new body is intended to modernize and centralize the country’s national security strategy, with responsibilities that include drafting and updating Greece’s National Security Strategy, assessing risks—particularly hybrid threats and cybersecurity—facilitating international cooperation, and ensuring the implementation of decisions by the Government Council for Foreign Affairs and Defence (KYSEA), Greece’s top defense and foreign policy body.
According to the government, the Secretariat will operate through three specialized units: a Directorate of Strategic Planning, an independent department for KYSEA-related affairs, and a department focused on assessing threats to national security, hybrid warfare, and national resilience. The structure is presented as a response to evolving global security dynamics, especially in light of increasing cyber threats and geopolitical instability in the Eastern Mediterranean.
However, the initiative has drawn criticism from defense experts and constitutional scholars in Greece, who argue that the move raises serious questions about institutional coherence and democratic oversight. At the heart of the controversy is the argument that the new Secretariat creates a parallel power structure to KYSEA, which already serves as Greece’s constitutionally mandated top security body. KYSEA is currently supported operationally by the ministries of Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Citizen Protection, as well as by key agencies such as the National Intelligence Service (EYP) and the Hellenic National Defence General Staff (GEETHA). Critics warn that establishing a separate body under the direct control of the Prime Minister risks creating overlap and competition between institutions, potentially disrupting coordination on national security matters.
Beyond issues of institutional redundancy, concerns have also been raised about the level of power and influence concentrated in the Prime Minister’s Office. The new Secretariat will not be subject to direct parliamentary or independent oversight, raising fears about accountability and transparency. Observers caution that placing such broad strategic functions within a politically controlled executive body runs counter to European and international norms, where similar functions are typically assigned to clearly defined ministries or interagency councils with established oversight mechanisms.
Some critics describe the move as an example of “administrative inflation,” arguing that instead of strengthening existing institutions through cooperation and role clarity, the government has chosen to create a new, parallel bureaucracy. They question whether the new structure will truly enhance Greece’s national security capabilities or simply add complexity and cost without clear benefits.
The decision also reflects a broader trend toward the centralization of power within the Prime Minister’s Office, something that has drawn increasing scrutiny during Mitsotakis’s tenure. While the government insists that the Secretariat will improve Greece’s ability to respond to modern security challenges, the absence of institutional safeguards has fueled debate about the long-term implications for democratic governance. If the new body fails to deliver measurable results, critics argue, the political cost will fall squarely on the Prime Minister himself.
