Talk:Cabinet of the United States

message: I've always found it odd that in many places in the US you have elections for the judiciary and yet cabinet positions are appointed by the President. Seems arse about face to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintguy (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 January 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The Federal system does not have elected judges. One can say that when the President is re/elected, you re/elect the Cabinet as well. --hoshie — Preceding undated comment added 05:18, 11 June 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add that it was an explicit goal of the Founders to have a much stronger presidency than they saw in Parliamentary systems, which is why they rejected the "Cabinet as a committee of Parliament" model.  (And I'd note that in Parliamentary systems, you don't vote for the Prime Minister or the Cabinet.) --Tb 22:34, 15 July 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time, the monarch still had considerable power and was the dominant executive. Weak presidents did not exist yet. --Jiang — Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 15 July 2003 (UTC)

text: In England, George III was certainly strong, but power had pretty much actually transitioned to Parliament.  The Privy Council was well on its way to becoming the vestigial stump it is today, being replaced by the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister and Parliament were the architects of government policy, not the King.  The King did exercise reserved powers and executive authority more than today.  The debates at the constitutional convention do consider explicitly whether the cabinet officers (or even the President) should be elected by the legislature, and they rejected it for the reasons I gave. --Tb 23:10, 15 July 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd

message: What is the actual order of succession to the Presidency for each Secretary?  The departments should be listed in that order. I believe the Secretary of War, now Secretary of Defense, is first, followed by State and Treasury, followed by the order in which others were created (though I'm not sure how the splits are handled). –radiojon 00:37, 4 October 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: See United States Presidential line of succession Jiang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiang (talk • contribs) 00:38, 4 October 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of succession to the Presidency

message: Is the Chairman of the Fed a cabinet level position?  I would think so seeing as how he helps to shape the US economy.--jsonitsac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsonitsac (talk • contribs) 02:45, 14 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of, but not officially. The Chairman of the Fed has had varying levels of influence; In addition, because the Federal Reserve is semi-sort-of-privatized (It's officially owned by the member banks, not the Government), he doesn't fall into the official Cabinet. More curious, I think, is the absence of the Surgeon General, often a booming voice on health issues. (Whereas the Secretary of HHS is a politician, the Surgeon General is, in a way, the "Nation's Physician".) You'd think he'd be consulted on health policy. --Penta 22:06, 17 September 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to the comment above on the Surgeon General, that position is more one of a bully pulpit and its influence varies depending on the person holding the office.  The SG has very little specific statutory authority, while the Secretary of HHS has budgetary and administrative authority over an entire department.  There is an ongoing argument that there should be a Department of Health, headed by the SG, spun off from HHS (just as the Department of Education was).  However, there seems to be little political support for this idea in Congress in either party at the moment.  The SG is rarely considered a senior policy advisor to the President.    I would also point out that the SG is not necessarily more or less political than any Cabinet secretary - again, this depends more on the individual appointee than the nature of the office itself.  For more information see the Surgeon General article.  --Xinoph 18:02, 16 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Chairman of the Fed?

message: FEMA is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, and the head of FEMA is now an Under Secretary (instead of a Director). I've made the appropriate changes to the article, but does anyone know if the FEMA Under Secretary is still a "Cabinet-level administration office"? - Walkiped 02:29, 5 October 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: FEMA as Cabinet-level administration office?

message: While their intent to resign has been widely reported, it has not been officially announced.  Let's leave the asterisk to officially announced resignations and leave the speculation to commentators.--Xinoph 17:49, 16 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson, Ridge 

message: When should we replace Director of Central Intelligence with the Director of National Intelligence? james_anatidae 06:14, 19 February 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should wait until Negroponte has been confirmed by the Senate and sworn into office. - Walkiped 18:28, 19 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabinet-level administration offices

message: I understand that the Secretary of Defense was given a place on the table related to the date on which the modern department was founded, but according to every other ordering, including the presidential order of succession and the US order of precedence, that office is given the position of the war department which it replaced (after treasury and before the attorney-general), and I've edited it accordingly. Ddye 13:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secretary of Defense on the table 

message: Whoever is changing Condoleezza Rice's state is wrong. She is not considered from California, she is considered from Alabama. Even though she taught at Stanford, she resides in Alabama, not California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.41.108 (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condoleezza Rice 

message: Took it out from the two tables, didn't add any value to this article.  If you want to know where a particular cabinet member was from, click on their article and read it. — MrDolomite | Talk 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of states column 

message: I've reverted Slastankya's change to Secretary of Defense -- no date has been given for the effectivity of Rumsfeld's resignation; Gates has only just been nominated, and has yet to be confirmed by the Senate. SeanWillard 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that, at the bottom list of "current" cabinet members, Gates's name is present, but not Rumsfeld's.  The switch hasn't taken place yet... Alphabetagamma 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I'ved edited the current cabinet template accordingly. - Walkiped (T | C) 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Alphabetagamma 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabinet member change, Nov 8 2006 

message: The article mentions "The United States Cabinet (usually simplified as "the Cabinet") is composed of the most senior appointed officers of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States"
1. Is the "executive branch" refers to the "Executive Office of the President"? 
It also mentions: Starting with President Franklin Roosevelt, the trend has been for Presidents to act through the Executive Office of the President or the National Security Council rather than through the Cabinet. This has created a situation in which non-Cabinet officials such as the White House Chief of Staff, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Security Advisor have power as large or larger than some Cabinet officials.
2. So what is (if there is) the differences between the role as a Cabinet member and an Executive Officer of the President? 
Are they only possess the executive functions; and are they in a different rank of official status?
Many thanks for your help.
scarlett_tong 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of the Cabinet members 

message: The statement that: 
"This constitutional separation between the executive and the legislative branches is distinct from the British parliamentary cabinet system, where a cabinet appointee as a rule must first be a member of the legislature, and continues in both positions."
Is incorrect. The Prime Minister can choose anyone he wants to be in cabinet. It is only by custom that they normally sit in the legislature. David Lloyd George had a newspaper editor in his cabinet and later Harold Wilson appointed Patrick Gordon Walker as Foreign Secretary despite him not holding a seat. 
I have therefore deleted the above line.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.211.58 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, of course, quite correct.  I hope that the current edit is acceptable. Unschool (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement on British Cabinet incorrect 

message: The page doesn't really seem to give a very thorough treatment of the history of the cabinet. For example, where is the spoils system? 74.94.21.101 (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Senate confirmation hearings are not mentioned in this article, but should be. Badagnani (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation hearings 

message: Quoth the article:
One of the few qualification restrictions is set out in Article One of the Constitution: "no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office." Accordingly, a sitting member of the United States Congress must resign his or her seat before accepting a Cabinet appointment. Likewise, a governor appointed to a cabinet post must resign as governor.
I'm not sure that the "likewise" clause follows.  "Office under the United States" does not immediately strike me as applying to state governments.  I know that in practice (and in the provisions of many state constitutions) governors cannot simultaneously hold federal office, but that doesn't really seem to be a result of the Constitutional clause cited.  And if "office under the United States" does apply to state government, then it applies not just to governors but any state government official.  I just worry that the current wording implies that a state governor is a federal office holder, which is not the case.  --Jfruh (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Making the change. JasonCNJ (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appointment of governors? 

message: The Dept of Homeland Security is missing from the updated table: is this vandalism or is the position no longer a cabinet post? If it has been changed, neither this article nor the main Homeland Security one shows any evidence of such, in fact that article also has no mention of Obama's pick (or lack of same) at all. CFLeon (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dept of Homeland Security?

message: Have any of the nominees been sworn into office yet? I know some have been confirmed, but I see on the info boxes for some nominees and the list pages for some departments, we have listed these nominees as having already taken office. Is this appropriate, or should we wait until they have been sworn into office. Of course this is all in the interest of accuracy. Rick Evans (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Assumed Office Dates

message: I could not find a clear description of how cabinet, cabinet-level and cabinet-rank fit in the executive's organizational structure; what the difference is between them.  An org chart would be VERY helpful. 74.111.206.203 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Org chart needed

message: Here's another example of POV creep, of someone trying to present opinion as fact.  "Significance" in itself is a value judgment.  As it is, the section is riddled with POV and argumentation. (Obama's cabinet didn't meet for three months, therefore...) While the opinion that the cabinet has declined in influence may have merit, it's still opinion, especially when uncited.  I think the whole section should be deleted. J M Rice (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this when illustrating the seated cabinet. Since there are no objections to this proposal after a month, I will remove the two "significance" paragraphs and keep the precedence and succession paragraphs. Cmprince (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Significance" section delete 

message: Cute phrase but needs to be explained.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been clarified in the text.--Polly Ticker (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: serve at the pleasure of the President

message: Can someone add a few words to the article concerning the cabinet in the Confederate States government? I am editing an article involving the Confederacy that contains a link to this one - justified, of course, by the continuity of governmental structure. I don't believe that the Confederate cabinet is worth a separate article, but with no mention of the CSA here, a reader following the link might wonder if he/she has been delivered to the wrong address. I don't want much more than a statement that the Confederate cabinet was similar in form and practice. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether doing that actually makes sense, but what about linking to something else, such as Confederate States of America or Confederate States Constitution, which note in general terms the similarity in structures. A more specific addition about the Confederate Cabinet would make more sense at one or both of those articles than here as it is more clearly relevant to them. -Rrius (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point and will try to do it that way. Thank you. PKKloeppel (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confederate cabinet

message: In the list of cabinet members, the secretary of State is not there. That might be the most important one and she's not even listed. What gives? 75.141.117.5 (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Secretary of state

message: Why is there so much unsightly white space at the top of this article's page? I looked at the source but I can't figure out why it is there. It looks like at least two blank lines. Someone more knowledgeable than I, please take a look at it and fix it. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rrius (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Looks much better now. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much space at top 

message: The President's Cabinet is mentioned - indirectly - twice in the Constitution, and this fact MUST be included in this article. These are in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
"the principal officers of the executive departments"
and in Section 4 of the 25th Amendment:
"the principal officers in each of the executive departments".
In the latter case, the avoidance of the word "Cabinet" was quite deliberate, but the meaning was clear: the principal officer of an executive department is either a Secretary or the Attorney General. This terminology might change sometime in the remote future, but the meaning will be the same.98.67.167.60 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: In the Constitution

message: I think a column in the Cabinet table giving the year when each cabinet position was established would give readers a quick view of how the cabinet has evolved over time. Later sections on former, renamed, and proposed cabinet offices tell part of that story, so it's evidently part of the topic of the article. But currently an interested reader would have to click on each cabinet office to find when that office was created. I'd put the column between Office and Incumbent. What do you think? Jbening (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "created" column to Cabinet table? 

message: What on earth is this? "There are fifteen different Cabinet positions and they all have their own purpose. Like the secretary is supposed to handle things but they can't. Overall the cabinet needs to be more authorized." That's just weird writing. I don't even know quite what to say in criticism of it. "That's not right -- heck, that's not even wrong."   ;-)   rasqual (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism added a few hours before you asked this question. -Rrius (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In federal law and the Constitution 

message: this article is vandalism everyday.but this article is "edit" (unlocked) to "view source" (permanent locked). Akuindo (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment is incomprehensible any day. , do you want to rephrase that? WHAT are you trying to say? Ask a fluent English-speaker for help. — After looking at your talk page, I think it might be best if you take 's advice and restrict your editing to Wikipedia in your native language. --Thnidu (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  help public to private permanent 

message: The reference given for the 
"U.S. Department of Science and Technology", 
: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp#safe=strict&q=united+states+department+of+science+and+technology 
produces a blank page for me in the U.S. (Note the domain: www.google.co.uk .) When I tried putting 
: "U.S. Department of Science and Technology"
(with quotation marks) into Google I got a few hits, but most of them did not support the claim. 
* Two (one from a U.S. government agency site!) refer to such a department as already existing: 
**U.S. Customs and Border Protection:  COAC Global Supply Chain Subcommittee Executive Summary
** Google snippet for  South Africa and the Global Hydrogen Economy: The Strategic ...
**:https://books.google.com › books
**:Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA) - 2014 - ‎Science
**: ... Department of Energy (US) Department of Science and Technology Energy Information Administration (US) Extractive ...
* Three are from, of all things, a Chinese beauty supply company; e.g. (Google snippet)
*: News - Shenzhen US Department of Science and Technology ...
*:www.bctpro.cn › news
*: LCD hair curler, LCD hair straighteners, such hair curler, led three rod, led the hair straightener, touch hair curler, touch
* One is a false positive, the "Contact us" page of a "Department of Science and Technology" at an Indian domain, apparently governmental but maybe not. 
* One is to this article.
Please  ping me to discuss.
--Thnidu (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Cabinet departments 

message: Substituted at 10:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: There are Acting cabinet officials until Trump's appointees are confirmed. I am only aware of a few, so it would be helpful if the rest were filled out on the chart. Calibrador (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all your work in determining the identities of all the acting secretaries! (Even though a couple of them served for only a few hours. :-p) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 08:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting 

message: Even though the White House website has not yet published an "official list" of Cabinet Members and Cabinet-Level positions, the New York Times, USA Today, and many other news organizations are now reporting that the position of Chief-Strrategist is a Cabinet-Level position.  I can only speculate as to why the press seems to have accepted this as fact, but Trump has created this position and given it essentially a higher status than the Chief-of-Staff position.  The Chief-Strategist position appears to have equal authority as Chief-of-Staff as many decisions now require both positions to sign off on them, yet the Chief-Strategist position is not burdened with having to essentially run the White House Personnell department, as the Chief-of-Staff position is.
Traditionally the president has the authority to define any position within his own personal staff that he might want, to be a Cabinet-Level position.  Perhaps the reason that the Press is reporting that Chief-Strategist is now a Cabinet-Level position is because to imagine that Trump would specifically and routinely exclude the person who is apparently his number one advisor from Cabinet meetings would seem to be quite odd. Scott P. (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So the USA Today source actually does not list Bannon as a Cabinet appointee, it puts him as "Other top-level staff" alongside the Deputy Commerce Secretary, Deputy NSA and CMS Administrator who are all obviously not Cabinet members, so that's totally out. The NYT is also synthesizing by blending senior officials with Cabinet members in listing people clearly not in Cabinet such as Peter Navarro, Don McGahn and Carl Icahn, so you are either taking it's information in sum or making an editorialized judgment call as to what you think is more accurate. Everything else you've said is some form of WP:OR and WP:SPECULATION. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the "Chief Strategist" position a cabinet-level position? 

message: Does the term begin on January 20th for all cabinet members? I can see that acting cabinet members term will begin on that date, but shouldn't this date be their first date in office after Senate confirmation and swearing in by the Vice President? In addition, we should highlight which cabinet members have been confirmed (for this term) and are not just serving in a acting capacity. I have attempted to do this with bold type.
user:mnw2000 04:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  When do terms begin? 

message: (I added #Proposed Cabinet departments just about a year ago, hence the numeral in the section heading.)
§ Proposed Cabinet departments contained  , all of them tagged  just last month.   
User:Bmon94, whose account is  less than two weeks old, has  all of the unref'd citations:
: 05:09, 10 February 2017‎  (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (32,255 bytes) (-1,561)‎
Now, it seems to me that this batch of "cn" deletions is over-hasty — taken by a very new and inexperienced editor who shows promise of becoming a valuable member of our community. 
More time should be allowed for editors to find and add citations. 
So I am restoring these items, with their s as originally dated, and adding the  note that I was in the process of inserting. 
Please note, , that this deletion of 1,561 characters is not a  minor edit at all:
: A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m). 
And neither is adding a reference, which most of your contributions are; those are significant improvements. :-)
Please  me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Cabinet departments 2 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States#Proposed_Cabinet_departments includes proposals from Presidents, congresspeople, NGOs (e.g. Heritage Foundation), and ordinary citizens (e.g. Quincy Jones). I suggest limiting the section to proposals formalized by the President or Congress.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxGhenis (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher bar for "Proposed Cabinet departments" section 

message: The text under "Confirmation" has no footnote references.  Presumably the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (II.2[2]) is the source of authority.  If so, it should be referenced.  It's odd that the appointment of cabinet members (and other "heads of departments") is kind of buried in the term "other public ministers."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.26.247 (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Confirmation" subhead 

message: I don't feel comfortable making this edit, as I can't imagine the author intended what it sounds, but the way it comes off to me is very wrong, as it now reads:
"Secretary of State William H. Seward and then Professor Woodrow Wilson advocated the use of a parliamentary-style Cabinet government. But President Abraham Lincoln rebuffed Seward, and Woodrow Wilson would have none of it in his administration."
It sounds like Woodrow Wilson was a professor during Lincoln's time. He wasn't even 10 when Lincoln dies. So I don't know what the devil they meant or why they decided to include the extraordinary specification of Wilson "then" being a professor, only to say Seward and Wilson were both contemporaries -when Seward was Sec State, Wilson was professor, all during Lincoln's time.
Clearly this is *not* correct, but I don't know what they *were* going for, and so someone needs to fix this and better clarify it.  Coladar (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section + W. Wilson Reference: Fix Needed 

message: The "Other positions no longer of Cabinet rank" section shows the time periods in which they were cabinet level. Is it known when the current cabinet level positions obtained their status?73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabinet-level officials 

message: In a , WayneEditing added a column `Successor` to the table of current officeholders.
If that column is retained (which I oppose), there should be reasonably clear criteria for populating it.
One standard was apparently used for its current form; the people in it are AFAICT those who have been identified publicly by the President-elect or his proxies as those he intends to nominate for those positions upon taking office.
I believe that standard fails. If it's possible that the table would have to be revised because, ultimately, the then President nominates someone else or the Senate rejects the named nominee, then this person was never actually the "successor". Hence, what I consider the correct standard is that the nomination and approval process has actually taken place. Of course at that point, the person would become the current officeholder and the "successor" column would be empty (or contain a placeholder like TBD).
If the rigorous standard for "successor" is applied, that column would only ever have an entry for the Vice President row, and then only when there has been election of a new Vice President, until they take office.
Even if the standard used by WayneEditing in initially populating the column is applied, the column will be empty except in the current scenario, and when there is a nominee named that has not been voted on by the Senate.
I propose the column be removed.
Moreover, WayneEditing has made similar changes to (at this moment) ten of the pages for these offices. For the same reason presented above, I think all of those changes should be reverted. I would sweep through and revert each of those myself except that 1) that might seem like a hostile act in absence of a discussion, and 2) once the subsequent officeholder is actually in place, such tables will be updated and not have a vestigial artifact like the "successor" column on the table in this page. Lastly, I would mention that none of the related edits have any citations provided. DoctorCaligari (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree — it would be slightly better if the column were labeled "Nominated Successor", because there is no guarantee these people will actually be confirmed by the Senate. But this is likely to change rapidly, and as you note it will then be a blank column. Even with one nominee in place, it will be blank for everyone else, and that seems like wasted space. It would be best if the article itself is simply updated with a sentence like “so-and-so was nominated by such-and-such”. — Andy Anderson 18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Successor'' added to table 

message: The 25th talks about, "principal officers of the executive departments" .  We've got (written by ), "certain members of the Cabinet".  We should have a clear citation for how you get from the language in the amendment to the language in our article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 4: Declaration by vice president and principal officers. EEng 18:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  25th amendment 

message: Biden has elevated this position to cabinet level, but it has not been corrected here. I am unsure if that position has been filled by an acting chair, but in the meantime, could someone please add it to the table? Negrong502 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you to whoever fixed this ^_^ Negrong502 (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

text: As an aside, is it known what years the current cabinet level positions obtained their status as such?73.110.217.186 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Biden and the Council of Economic Advisors 

message: Haines has been confirmed by the Senate, which is the news that has broken within the past hour, but as far as I know she has not been sworn in yet. Can someone please confirm this, and if I am correct, fix this page and the Avril Haines page until she is sworn in? The government website of the office of the Director of National Intelligence still has Lora Shiao listed as Acting Director as of 20:00 EST 20 Jan 2021. Thank you Negrong502 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avril Haines 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: It seems to me like this article needs some revision for better clarity regarding "Cabinet-level" positions. In some places, it makes a distinction between "Cabinet" positions and "Cabinet-level" positions, and in other places, it indicates that all of these positions are actually part of the Cabinet. Either some positions are "Cabinet-level" but not actually part of the Cabinet, or all of the positions are part of the Cabinet and some just have a bit more distinction than others; as it stands now it's trying to have it both ways and it seems kind of confusing. Alphius (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for one example, the intro says, "As of January 15, 2021, there were 23 members of [the] Cabinet: the Vice President, 15 department heads (of which 4 were acting), and 7 were Cabinet-level members," while a later section of the article just says, "The Cabinet includes the vice president and the heads of 15 executive departments." While there is some attempt at clarification at one point in the article, contradictions like this are what could make it confusing. Alphius (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cabinet-level" positions 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The lead section gives the impression that members of the Cabinet are merely advisors, but this is not correct. Each member of the Cabinet has legal powers granted by the laws of Congress, powers which the President generally cannot assume for himself. This creates situations in which the President might tell the Secretary of X to do something, and the Secretary might refuse to comply. The President could then dismiss the Secretary, but this has other implications. A dismissal might cause political problems for the President if the public considers the dismissal unjustified. Furthermore, the new acting head of that department might refuse the President's request just as his predecessor refused it. Replacing the Secretary with someone who will do the President's bidding would require Senate confirmation, and the Senate might not be willing to confirm the President's chosen candidates (particularly if the President is suspected of corruption). All of this means that the members of the Cabinet have power to check the President to some extent, even without the twenty-fifth amendment. The lead should mention some of this. Sonicsuns (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers of Cabinet members 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: To the best of my knowledge no one has created a complete list of Presidential Cabinet members from Washington to Biden, which I think is worthwhile. Does anyone else think this is a good idea? Any suggestions on how it should be organized? If so, I could use some help creating this page, which probably should be separate. 
If no one else starts it, I may create a draft on a sandbox page to get the organizational factors started within the next few weeks. Unless someone else fills in the blanks it may start with a few Cabinets from the beginning and a few modern ones. It would be best to agree on organizational structure early, to make changes easier.
BTW, do I still have to use the four squiggly lines to sign things? I noticed the last time I forgot, I think, it was added anyway. I'll find out now. Zacherystaylor (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking closer, it's clear there are lists for each cabinet position. Unless someone else thinks a major change is in order, I may not do this right away, if at all. Zacherystaylor (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete list of Presidential Cabinets?