Talk:White House Office

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: District of Columbia / Presidents / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

I have created this page, with a view to removing all the information contained here off the

I say that the Chief of Staff's Office (together with Senior Advisors) should be placed first within the section "Current White House Office entities and staff." The Chief of Staff is the head of the White House Office; the Chief of Staff's Office is responsible for coordinating the activities of the entire White House Office (and Executive Office of the President). VanCity99 (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate where you are coming from, but the page it self makes reference both in the introduction and in the infobox that the Office of the Chief of Staff is the head of both the White House Office and the Executive Office of the President. I feel that by altering the article breaks up the style and gives it a slightly disjointed nature. This however is just my opinion, your thoughts are welcome.

talk) 11:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

On the [Executive Office of the President] web page (retrieved on 2010/02/18) The Administration is clearly depicted as distinct from the EOP or the White House Entities. The term White House Entities aopears to have supplanted the term White House Office.

There are three collections of organizations or roles shown on the Administration's web page for the EOP:

• The Administration (including the White House Staff, whereas this article shows these positions in the White House Office)
• Executive Office of the President
• Entities within the White House

There may be a more authoritative source, namely, the [U.S. Government Manual, 2009-2010 Edition]. Under the [Executive Office of the President] section, it shows The White House Office with the titles and names of the key staff. When retrived on 2010/02/19, this manual shows it was last updated on 2009/10/29, so the web page may be more current.

So, while personal preferences for the organizational relationships may be well-founded from the contributors' well-informed subjective frame of reference, the objective organizational structure should be as the current Presidential Administration depicts it in official communications to the public (e.g., through its outreach websites and this publication), unless it is in error or somehow in contradiction to US Law.

The current Presidential Administration's depiction of its own organization structure should be cross-checked against the EOP current fiscal year Congressional Budget Submission (currently, the [Executive Office of the President Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Budget Submission]. This source is recommended, at least for the FY2011 organizational structure, since the budget and structure logically have to be aligned. (An organizational entity must have its own explicit budget or each of its parts must have funding allocated from other organizations.)

The Budget Submission main sections that relate to the organizational structure are:

• Section 5: Office of Administration
• Section 6: National Security Council and Homeland Security Council
• Section 7: Council of Economic Advisors
• Section 8: Office of the Vice President (not shown on the cited EOP web page, above)
• Section 9: Office of Management and Budget
• Section 10: Office of National Drug Control Policy
• Section 12: Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Section 13: Office of the United States Trade Representative
• Section 14: Council on Environmental Quality
• Section 15: Government-Wide Councils
  • Chief Acquisition Officers Council
  • Chief Financial Officers Council
  • Chief Human Capital Officers Council
  • Chief Information Officers Council
  • Performance Improvement Council
  • President's Management Council

---JDAddelston (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this as you may have noticed I have reorganised both the Executive Office of the President and White House Office page based on what has been put on the White House website and in the GPO Government manual. In respect to your grouping above I believe the section "The Administration" refers to the actual people involved in running the offices and not actual classification of the offices, whereas entities of the White House form part of the section within the EOP known as the White House or the White House Office.

talk) 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The White House Office employs roughly 200 staff, and we can't include all of those people on this page. Eligible staff should meet both criteria: (1) Special Assistant to the President or higher rank. (2) Head of a specific White House Office (eg. Legislative Affairs, Management & Administration), or a delegated supervisor with oversight of one or more sub-office components (eg. Press Secretary in Communications, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs in OPL/IGA). Further, all staff listed on the page should have a citation to prove that they actually have that role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.212.103 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP advances a fair point—what do you say, other IP? El_C 22:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would say that if these junior staffers belong anywhere on wikipedia, then it would be on a separate article for White House Office of Legislative Affairs (similar to the existing

White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.212.103 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello 73.132.212.103 this is my Resource https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/22/white-house-director-legislative-affairs-announces-legislative-affairs Every roll is inportnen please. and thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a compromise where you would create a new article for White House Office of Legislative Affairs where you can describe the office mission and history and list the current staff. That compromise would allow you to exercise your idea that "all personnel are important" and would preserve the integrity of the White House Office main page for documenting the organizational structure and key personnel. Alternately, you could consider a page solely to list the full staff of the White House. For reference, look at the pages for the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives -- which show a few key leaders and organization, but do not attempt to list all of the members (as that would be extraneous to the point of those pages). Otherwise this page will become a complete mess in July when the White House salary and staff report is released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.212.103 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't create a new article if you can I would be happy to help you with it and we need to make a page for the press office and it's cerent staff also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the

Until just now, this article listed one "Devin Price" as Communications Director. This seems to have been vandalism. As far as I can tell, the office is currently vacant. john k (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lengthy listing of all staff positions along with the names of all the staffers seems to me a violation of

Yeah I would also like to encourage some trimming of this page. It started out with just the (1) White House offices, (2) office leadership and (2a) (if commissioned) deputy leadership, (3) subordinate divisions, and (4) principal/noteworthy staff who lead important subordinate divisions. I think we should STRIVE to get back to that. All of these "Advisor to the Chief of Staff" and "Assistant to the Counselor" positions don't need to be on here. ALSO, on a techical issue -- the "Office of the National Security Advisor" does not include all of the Senior Directors of the National Security Council. Those are all NSC staffers/detailees. This page is supposed to be for White House Office (WHO.EOP.gov) employees, not NSC.EOP.gov employees. The only NSC employees who should be listed are those who fall within the Office of the National Security Advisor -- which straddles WHO and NSC. I would encourage that all of the Senior Directors (who are extremely noteworthy government officeholders) should be moved to the United States National Security Council page. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]