Talk:White House Chief of Staff

Official Title

Is 'White House Chief of Staff' the official title? 'White House' tends to be used more in a figurative sense and seems inappropriate for an official title. I would imagine Executive Chief of Staff or Presidential Chief of Staff to be more official-sounding. Kent Wang 22:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WhiteHouse.gov uses President's Chief of Staff in the only direct reference to the title that I found, so take that for what it's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddye (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 January 2005 (UTC)

Presidential succession

Is it true that if (for example) the President should die and the VP refuses to take office the Chief of Staff would become President? Ive heard this often, but never had any real confirmation. If true, it should probably be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.182.193 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2005 (UTC)

Not true at all. The Chief of Staff could never become president. If the VP for some reason refused to become president (which would be very odd since that's what he's there for) then it would fall to the Speaker of the House (see United States presidential line of succession). Ddye 20:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanx:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.182.193 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2005 (UTC)

The confusion may have arisen because during a crisis in the Reagan White House, Alexander Haig famously and erroneously declared himself in charge.Lawikitejana (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Haig was not the Chief of Staff at the time, and had not been for over six years. Haig was the United States Secretary of State at the time, who is in the presidential line of succession, but preceded by the VP, the Speaker of the House, and the president pro tempore of the Senate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with this page?

At least with Firefox, which is what I generally use, this page has all of the text in a narrow line running on the left hand side of the page, taking up about half of the page, and then the infobox at the end of the text, on the right hand side of the page. Zoe 03:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't show like that on my Firefox. john k 15:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm using the Classic skin. Zoe 23:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It shows incorrectly on mine. The right hand side infobox overlaps with the COS infobox at the bottom, and Clinton's name is replaced with a White House logo RickiRich — Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Chiefs list

I'm changing the sentence "Presidents Kennedy and Johnson never did [have a C of S]" because Marvin Watson was Johnson's chief of staff. As evidence, I'd point to the book "Chief of Staff" by Marvin Watson. (The JFK Library Web site explicitly states JFK did not have one.) Nadirsofar 17:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it worth changing the format of the table to show the President as a single cell/block when the President had multiple Chiefs of Staff? See White House counsel for different style formatting. Rocketfella (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with doing so. Of course, if any of the columns are re-sorted, joined adjacent cells will be separate again (until the whole article is reloaded). —ADavidB 22:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization

I think that under standard rules of grammar the phrase chief of staff shouldn't be capitalized in most of its occurrences in this article. Wiki style may be different. Does anyone know the Wiki rule? For sure, the plural phrase "chiefs of staff" should NEVER be capitalized.

Under Turabian, Merriam-Webster, and most newspaper style guides, an office holder's title would generally be capitalized only if it precedes her name, as in Chief of Staff C.J. Cregg.

The US GPO style manual seems to advocate capitalizing it all the time (except plural), but grammar is beyond its Constitutional powers and it's certainly not binding on Wikipedia.

Any thoughts? Nadirsofar 18:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This problem is grossly endemic to Wikipedia. Americans tend to capitalize anything that sounds important, particular job titles. As a professional writer and business consultant, I struggle against this at the level of "Customer Service Representative," so I for one am not about to challenge the vast Wikiocracy that has decided in favor of "Vice President" and "Chief of Staff." As a side note, even animal species are capitalized here. --Tysto 03:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposed

The Assistant to the President of the United States article is a single sentence. The position itself was merged with the White House Chief of Staff position, so it only makes sense that the articles should thusly be merged. --Cparmar — Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Also, Assistant to the President is now a title held by all the snior members of the Executive Office of the President. For example, on the White House salary lists, Karl Rove is "Assistant to the President, Senior Adviser, and Deputy Chief of Staff For Policy". Thus the "Assistant" page should not be merged but simply have its content altered. --Woolgab — Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• The problem with this merge is that there are several Assistants but only one Chief. For instance Donald Rumsfeld was Assistant to Richard Nixon but not Chief. Karl Rove is Assistant to George W. Bush but not Chief. The proposed merge does it wrong. Doing it right would require considerable work on the Deputy White House Chief of Staff stub. Metarhyme 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• The Assistant to the president is the former title of the white house chief of staff job, so it should be merged under the history section of the chief of staff article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.99.139 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge it. Luke C 10:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe two different pages? One with the old definition of Assistant to the President (the position now known as White House Chief of Staff), and one with the new definition, which is a more general title, normally given in conjunction with another one (Press Secretary, Communications Director, etc) Penguin22 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - for those of us studying American politics it is not nice to have several articles that overlap each other. The older article has very little content too, so it can easily me merged into it's own paragraph. DJR (Talk) 14:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The articles Assistant to the President of the United States and White House Chief of Staff should be merged. This is so because they are the same position only the name of the position was changed. It would be a great benefit to others if these two articles were merged into one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.96.110.93 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

new and old Assistants

I was cleaning up a red link in the "Donald Rumsfeld" article when I found this merge discussion. Could there be enough information on the "new" Assistants (sounds like a pop-band) to use the "Assistant to the President of the United States" article space for these new assistants with a top-side "see also" link to the "White House Chief of Staff" article for the "old" Assistants? To that end I roughed out (a true first draft) the following:

Assistant to the President is a junior executive branch position, and a President may have many Assistants. Assistants attend meetings in the head of state's stead. They also prepare exective reports informing the head of state. While it might seem natural that the Vice President of the United States would be a key right-hand man to the President of the United States, this second from the top position is almost always chosen on a purely politial basis — for this reason Assistants are the President's trusted deputies.

--Charles Gaudette 21:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was a good idea, and was working on revising the draft, but then I noticed that the Executive Office of the President of the United States article already includes this good explanation:

Organization

Senior staff within the Executive Office of the President have the title "Assistant to the President". Second-level staff have the title "Deputy Assistant to the President", and third-level staff have the title "Special Assistant to the President". Very few are required to be confirmed by the Senate, although there are a handful of exceptions to this rule (Office of Management and Budget Director, United States Trade Representative, et cetera). However, the core White House Staff do not require approval.

This article also includes a list of current assistants (including the Chief of Staff), deputy assistants and special assistants.

I suggest that we simply change the "Assistant to the President" redirect so that it points to Executive Office of the President of the United States instead of Chief of Staff. I'd also add a sentence to the Chief of Staff article stating that the Chief of Staff still usually holds the "Assistant to the President" rank.

Hickoryhillster 00:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Facts don’t agree

According to the table, Watson served for Johnson’s entire administration. That doesn’t agree with the W. Marvin Watson article, though, which says he became the chief of staff in 1965. Johnson took office in 1963. The Watson article also says he became the postmaster general in 1968, but Johnson’s term didn’t end until 1969. Would it be appropriate to add “vacant” spots above and below Watson’s entry in this table?

I’ve removed any reference to Johnson from the third history paragraph since it doesn’t really seem relevant. Johnson’s administration was called “short” even though it was longer than Carter’s and George Bush’s, and since Watson apparently didn’t serve the entire time Johnson was president, he didn’t really need to be explicitly excluded from the factoid. --Rob Kennedy 23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Emmanuel as Obama's CoS

A note -- I deleted all references to Emanuel as Obama's CoS, since he hasn't yet accepted the job (ref here, which as of this writing contains a disclaimer of no acceptance from Emanuel's spokesman). Undo to revision 249902493 if/when he accepts to undo all three changes I made. --70.90.171.153 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no compelling reason this article should do more than briefly mention Emanuel might be the next CoS for now. The article is about the position, not its future occupants. Until Emanuel ACCEPTS, much less actually performs the duties of the position, I think it's a poor choice for the article to undertake the job better served by news articles in discussing recent developments on the assembling of an upcoming administration. Ventifact (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE. IM JOHN MCCAIN AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.75.171 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You're really funny. Factual accuracy (not recording Emmanuel as CoS until he accepts) is not a political agenda. Emmanuel has now actually accepted the position and is back in the article. Ventifact (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Designate

Since we're adding designate to all of Obama's other cabinet positions, i've put Rahm Emanuel in. This way, if something does change, it'll only say designate.Saberwolf116 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it, there is no need to list it, read WP:Crystal CTJF83Talk 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, but if we have posted Secretary of Health and somesuch, why not chief of staff? If we refer to them as designate, it doesn't neccesarily mean it's a prediction, does it?Saberwolf116 (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any Sec of Health mentioned, I'll remove that too It was removed by another user. Yes, it is a prediction. How do you know Emanuel won't die before then, or be involved in some scandal, and Obama picks someone else? Do you know that Bolton will be alive until Jan 20? The answer to all three, is obviously a no. Therefore we shouldn't list a date for either. CTJF83Talk 07:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, then why do we list this one and this one? Joe Biden or Barack Obama could die or resign. So why don't we designate chief of staff?Saberwolf116 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, I'm tired of reverting everyone all the time. They are a little different also. The country can't change their mind on Obama and Biden. But Obama can changes his on Emanuel. CTJF83Talk 21:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, I give up, You win. But you're still gonna get eaten by a gure>:)Saberwolf116 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, what is a gure? CTJF83Talk 04:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What is it? What is it? HOW DARE YOU!*sends grue on you* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwolf116 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Error in infobox

The infobox at the side says that George Edward Akerson was the first chief of staff, but per his article, he died before 1946, and it also lists him as the first White House Press Secretary. Methinks that User:Aricci526 used the Press Secretary as a template while adding it but didn't change that information. The article lists Steelman as the first Chief of Staff, but since it also lists a 1946 formation with the "Assistant to the President" role the first holder of that job could go in the infobox. I don't know enough about the subject to correct, but I do know that Akerson is wrong. Can this be changed? --Canuckguy (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed by the Senate?

What is the sense in posting this article if the very basic of the office is not listed? It should be listed somewhere in here that the positions is Confirmed by the Senate or not, and under what authority. MPA 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

The post is a White House senior staff which does not require Senate confirmation. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Error in date or president name

The first section, History, states that the title "Chief of STaff" was adopted in 1951 under Eisenhower.

Eisenhower wasn't inaugurated until January of 1953! Truman was still the president in 1951. Either the date is wrong, or the name of the president in office at the time is wrong. GBC (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sworn in?

Does the President's Chief of Staff get sworn in or take any kind of oath? Tom12ga (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

capitalization

This page is located at White House Chief of Staff, but all references to the position in the prose say White House chief of staff. Should the page be moved? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Factually incorrect

This sentence

John R. Steelman, under Harry S. Truman, was the last chief of staff to serve for an entire presidential administration.

Is just flat out wrong. Steelman became COS in Dec of 1946. Truman became President in April of 1945. That's 20 months of Steelman not being COS. 82.203.24.1 (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence so it's more clearly correct. (Steelman was the last chief of staff to be a president's only chief of staff, not counting Kenneth O'Donnell's 'appointments secretary' role during Kennedy's 22 months.) —ADavidB 23:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of "stepping stone" Suggestion

The second paragraph states "The position is considered to be a stepping stone." This should be clarified, I'm not sure what it means. Does anyone have a suggestion? A citation would be great, too. — ʀoyoтϵ 02:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The editor who added it probably intended to state that those who have this role tend to move on to other positions with more responsibility. As you noted, there is no supporting source citation. As the issue is not covered elsewhere in the article, I've removed the "stepping stone" sentence. Anyone with a supporting source is welcome to re-add and clarify the statement. —ADavidB 15:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Vacancy between O'Donnell and Watson

No one is listed between O'Donnell and Watson, but there isn't a vacancy listed on the chart. The period between them was from Nov. 1963 to Feb. 1965, a significant vacancy. Does anyone know if there was a Chief of Staff? If so, who? Closeclouds (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather than an actual "chief of staff", Johnson had an "appointments secretary" who was the de facto holder of the role, as noted with the two identified during his administration. Johnson's article mentions Walter Jenkins as the first equivalent. I don't know why he isn't identified as such here. Perhaps his employment was never formal enough to be identified as more than a "top aide". Jenkins' career ended in scandal, but that shouldn't result in his being hidden. —ADavidB 11:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ron Klain on the list

I don’t think Ron Klain should be placed on the list as he is not currently the White House Chief of Staff. -69 days in office just looks wrong. DanJWilde (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

He is also not the incumbent. DanJWilde (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I've commented out the entry. It can easily be un-commented when Klain holds the office. —ADavidB 12:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. DanJWilde (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Acting COS

The formatting of the Acting Chiefs of Staff (to date, Rouse and Mulvaney) makes sense in the context of this page, but leads to inconsistencies elsewhere that may be best addressed by a change to the numbering of the list here. For example, Pete Rouse's page shows that he was preceded as COS by Rahm Emanuel, and succeeded by Bill Daley. However, Rahm Emanuel's page shows that he was succeeded by Bill Daley; Daley's page shows that he was preceeded by Rahm Emanuel. Likewise, a user who observes that John F. Kelly was succeeded by Mark Meadows may be confused about Mick Mulvaney's tenure as COS.

While the "Acting" designation is an accurate and necessary inclusion, I am not aware of any legal distinction in terms of the powers and/or duties of the role vis-a-vis a non-Acting COS; it seems to be a temporal designation rather than one of responsibility. I suggest a change to the numbering of the list or some other adjustment in order to improve clarity on related pages. Constantsusan (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

coloring?

What do the different colors in the "No." column of the list mean? Why do some rows have a different background color? Shouldn't there be a key given in the article to explain this? -- mikeblas (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I added two sentences at the end of the table to explain the coloring. —ADavidB 10:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)