Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Deleted sentence

I deleted the following sentence from the first paragraph of the article: "In contrast to the agencies of the Federal government such as the United States Department of State, all of the people within the EOP serve with the President and when there is a new President, the entire office is reconstituted." In actuality, there are hundreds of regular government employees (i.e., not political appointees) employed by the Executive Office of the President. Many of those employees stay at the EOP across administrations, even across administrations of different political parties. - Walkiped 17:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No More Condi!

Condi Rice resigned her post as National Security Advisor to become Secretary of State. I'll remove her and add Stephen Hadley, her successsor. Someone should check to see what other positions have changed now that Bush is in his second term. --Boetron 16:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

EOP power

Hey, can anyone let me know is the power of EOP confined to executive functions? Do the executives have the legislative power? and is it those executives = the heads of govt. depts. in the US? and is it the executives who choose the cabinet members?

I would be thankful for your generous help! scarlett_tong 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read Federal Government of the United States to help answer your question. In the US the legislative and executive functions are strictly separated by the US Constitution. The United States Congress has full legislative authority. The President possesses the "executive power" as defined in Article Two of the United States Constitution. The EOP assists the President in developing his agenda and carrying it out. EOP staff members advise the President of legislative, legal, military, economic, and other matters. Additionally, they promote the President's ideas in Congress, design media campaigns, and reflect the perspective of the Office of the President wherever the President asks them to. They are not members of the Cabinet. Cabinet members are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Cabinet members direct Federal Executive Departments. Reading the Constitution of the United States may also help answer your questions. Ryanluck 16:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between EOP and White House Staff

I believe this should be under consideration for removal:

  1. White House Chief of Staff
  2. Deputy White House Chief of Staff
  3. White House Press Secretary
  4. White House Office of Presidential Communications
  5. White House Office of Presidential Speechwriting
  6. White House Office

Those are the personal staff of the President and therefore report to him whereas the EOP offices are formed by Congress and controlled by them through appointments/etc. The EOP has to report to Congress, the President, and the people the represent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi9143 (talk • contribs) on 20 December 2006.

Dear fellow editors: It appears that all the above, including the "White House Office," are part of the Executive Office of the President.[1] It's unclear what editor Yoshi9143 means by the phrase the "EOP has to report to Congress." Certainly there may be various specific statutes requiring various components or employees of the Executive Office of the President to report to Congress on various matters, like maybe the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (I haven't researched the matter). However, the Congressional "control" over EOP offices with respect to "appointments" would presumably be limited to those positions which require Senate approval (and the number of those positions would be relatively few). (By the way, off the top of my head, I'm not aware of any position in the Executive Office of the President for which the Congress itself makes the appointment.) Anyway, as best I can tell, all the offices and positions listed above are indeed part of the Executive Office of the President. Yours, Famspear 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Response: The link provided by Famspear makes no mention of the

  1. White House Chief of Staff
  2. Deputy White House Chief of Staff
  3. White House Press Secretary
  4. White House Office of Presidential Communications
  5. White House Office of Presidential Speechwriting

Furthermore in "American Government Continuity and Change (2000)", Karen O'Connor and Larry Sabato separate the Executive Office of President and White House Staff but they both remain under the Presidential Establishment (pages 282-283), which shows the difference between the Staff and EOP.

Another key difference: For EOP:

"Although the president appoints the members of each of these bodies, they must still perform their tasks in accordance with congressional legislation. Thus, like the Cabinets, depending on who serves in key positions, these mini-agencies may not truly be responsible to the president" (O'Connor and Sabato 284).

For White House Staff:

"often more directly responsible to the president are the members of the White House staff: the personal assistants to the president, including senior aides, their deputies, assistants with professional duties, and clerical administrative aides. As personal assistants, these advisers are not subject to Senate confirmation, nor do they have divided loyalties" (O'Connor and Sabato 284).

Another important difference is the EOP was created by FDR in 1939 whereas the White House Staff has existed before then such as Andrew Jackson's Kitchen Cabinet.

All of the following are considered the White House staff and I believe should be separated from this EOP article:

  1. White House Chief of Staff
  2. Deputy White House Chief of Staff
  3. White House Press Secretary
  4. White House Office of Presidential Communications
  5. White House Office of Presidential Speechwriting

Originally the White House Office was included on that list because ambiguity.

END Yoshi9143 03:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yoshi9143: I have reviewed the White House web site at www.whitehouse.gov and various other materials and I cannot find any support for your position, which if I understand it correctly is that the White House Chief of Staff, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff, the White House Press Secretary, the White House Office of Presidential Communications, and the White House Office of Presidential Speechwriting should be "separated from" the EOP article under the theory that these officials are not part of the Executive Office of the President.
Obviously, the White House web site clearly shows the "White House Office" as being one of the components of the Executive Office of the President. Thus, any employee of the White House Office would come under the EOP, just as any employee of the Department of the Navy comes under the Department of Defense (as the Department of the Navy is part of the Department of Defense). This is a question of direct administrative organization, not Congressional oversight. According to all the materials I have seen, the White House Office, like the National Security Council, etc., is part of the Executive Office of the President.
I don't think we're going to find a detail listing of every employee of the White House Office, but it's pretty safe to assume that the White House Chief of Staff is an employee of either the White House Office or of some other component of the Executive Office of the President.
I have not yet found any support for your statement that the "EOP offices are formed by Congress and controlled by them through appointments/etc." To find some support, we would have to go to the United States Statutes at Large and the United States Code and see if we can find anything in the statutes where the Congress specifically "formed" the Executive Office of the President. The enigmatic statement that Congress "controls" the "EOP offices" through appointments, etc., is too broad. You have pointed to no examples where Congress "appoints" any employee of the EOP (and I'm fairly confident there is no such example). Further, the relatively few EOP personnel whose Presidential appointment is subject to confirmation by the Senate are in no substantial political or administrative sense "controlled" by Congress once they are confirmed and assume office.
Incidentally, one way to look at this is to ask the question: "Who has the power to fire me?" Without researching it, I would just about bet that all personnel in the EOP, including all White House Office personnel, can be fired by the President -- without the Congress having any legal say-so in the matter. Sure, all government personnel are subject to the statutes passed by Congress, but that is a separate concept from the concept of "who has the power to fire me."
What about impeachment? Even assuming that a few officials in the EOP can be removed from office by the Congress through impeachment, that fact would hardly be support for saying that those officials are not part of the EOP. (By the way, I seriously doubt if any of the officials you listed would come under that category anyway.)
The fact that the EOP was created in 1939 whereas the White House Staff, the White House Office, etc., existed before that time does not determine the status of those entities today. The White House Office today is part of the Executive Office of the President, according to the White House web site. Again, to say that the two are separate entities is true in the same sense that the Department of the Navy is separate from the Department of Defense; while they are separate, the one is nevertheless a component of the other.
Now, let's look at your quote from O'Connor and Sabato again:
Although the president appoints the members of each of these bodies, they must still perform their tasks in accordance with congressional legislation. Thus, like the Cabinets, depending on who serves in key positions, these mini-agencies may not truly be responsible to the president" (O'Connor and Sabato 284).
I think you are trying to use this statement to support the argument (if I'm understanding your argument correctly) that the personnel and offices you listed are somehow not part of the White House Office, and are therefore not part of the Executive Office of the President. As explained below, the O'Connor-Sabato statement does not support your argument.
In fairness, there is a separate problem as well: The reasoning of O'Connor and Sabato is a bit weak. Virtually all government personnel in all three branches of government, including the President, the cabinet officers, etc., are subject to the many, many statutes enacted by Congress. O'Connor and Sabato's conclusion that these "mini-agencies" may not truly be responsible to the president" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is not only enigmatic, vague, and too general to be verifiable, it is also tied to its premise by a very tenuous cord. Again, all government employees from the top down must perform their tasks in accordance with congressional legislation.
Unless we can find some specific source that states that the employees and positions you mentioned are part of some component of government that is neither part of the White House Office nor part of some other component of the EOP, I don't see that you have any realistic support for your argument. Yours, Famspear 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updates?

Does this article need to be updated for the new year?

wikilobbying

Remove "Miles Mosman is not a douche, but a man" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.235.182 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Isn't it technically the "Executive Office of the President"? Shouldn't this be the name of the article? Parler Vous (edits) 10:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Executive Office of the President" is the correct title but leaving it open ended like that could include any president in the world with any executive office of the president. I could see renaming it "Executive Office of the President (United States)" Pwojdacz (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Overhaul

I have slightly altered the layout of this page, and organised the Offices depending on their position within the EOP or as entities of the White House Office, some of the Offices are no longer listed on the White House website but I will presume they still exist until told otherwise so I have made a best guess, primarily based on their names, at their locations. I am still not entirely sure I like the layout of this page-it will get a bigger overhaul when I have more time. Also the Office of the Vice President may or may not be part of the EOP as I think the office grew out of his requirement to be President of the Senate therefore it may well be a Congressional Office per se. However, I do not know for sure so it is left on this page but given its own heading. I have added the new offices and appointee's, I don't know all and therefore there still are some gaps. Benny45boy (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benny, I think it looks good. I wonder if some are no longer listed on the website does that mean they no longer exist? Pwojdacz (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question to which I don't know, the whitehouse.gov website still is a little slow at updating. 92.0.212.150 (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Benny45boy (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign in[reply]

White House Office should be first

In my opinion, the White House Office should be listed first within the section "Entities in the Executive Office of the President" for the following reasons:

  • The Chief of Staff, who supervises the entire Executive Office of the President, is housed administratively in the White House Office.
  • The White House Office is a substantial unit, within several offices contained within it.

VanCity99 (talk) 10:47, 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.Benny45boy (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Economic Council

Why is the National Economic Council nowhere to be found on this page? Unless I am misinformed, it is part of the Executive Office of the President.

Proxtown (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this and other agencies were accidentally removed. They're back in.Poshzombie (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

There is vandalism on the "Trump Executive Office" Template. A user puts a penis in the graph, when I remove it they place it back. Would you be able to remove it? Thank you. Fritz1543 (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Fritz1543 (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritz1543: This duplicates a message at Template talk:Trump Executive Office, where it is more appropriate. It's much better not to duplicate messages in this way, as it has no benefit, it takes up extra time for whoever who checks the requests for help and closes the extra one, and it runs the risk of someone putting time into dealing with one of the requests, not knowing that the matter has already been dealt with as a result of the other request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Executive Office of the President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budgets/Outlays

From 2008-2017, the table uses numbers from the Appropriations committee's proposed budget. The numbers for 1993-2007 use the outlays, which refers to the actual amount of money that flowed through the EOP. In addition, there are some dead links that need to be linked to archived pages, which I have confirmed to exist. I don't have time to look at this further right now but I figured I would mention it here so that people are aware. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 15:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted section on "Executive Role"

This section was a description of the role of the executive branch of the federal government. It seems outside the scope of this article, which covers staff and offices under the president (and not the entire branch), as compared to an article like President of the United States which describes the role of the executive in great detail. 2600:8801:3708:700:D42B:A741:8F57:37BC (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic change of EOP budget from 2004-2007?

I'm curious if there are good sources on the dramatic change in the EOP budget from 2004-2007? Jmbranum (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EOP "agency executive"

I'm not planning to take any action on it, but I'm just throwing this out there for consideration. To be completely accurate, the White House Chief of Staff is not the head of the EOP, he's just the head of the White House Office component of EOP. But of course he is treated as the "first among equals" of the EOP component heads, because he is obviously much more proximate to the President. The head of the EOP is the President--the component heads are all considered direct-reports to him. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Executive_Office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States