text:
Talk:Trilateral Commission

General article discussion
In the interests of true global self-actualization, I find it necessary that the Trilateral Commission disband. CarolSeerCarolSeer (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

To be credible this article requires links to the "founding documents", minutes, descriptions of meetings and any published materials. Ffzzz (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC) The article is misleading. First, although the Trilateral Commission originally included just three regions, it is now global. Second, the main point of controversy about the organization has little to do with whether or not it is a conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.3.135.29 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 January 2003

This page needs some serious work! The article seems to put down the notion that the Trilateral Commission is involved in "shadowy" and "sinister" activities, yet it doesn't even attempt to explain what 'legitimate' goals (if any) this organization serves. To anyone interested in researching this topic, Noam Chomsky wrote some interesting comments about a report that was authored by the Trilateral Commission in the 1970's. The report was about democracy, and showed that the Trilateral Commission has an extremely hostile attitude towards democratic values and institutions, and views such values and institutions as obstacles to their objectives. This report was real and is/was publicly available, though the Trilateral Commission has since become much more secretive (undoubtedly because of the poor public image this report gave them). I forget the name of the report, but it should be fairly easy to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.133.123 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 July 2003

 * While Chomsky is prone to overstatement, "extremely hostile" overstates the attitude of the Commission toward democracy, if the cited Huntington report is the basis for a judgment about the entire organization at the time. Chomsky himself quoted phrases for their reports like "a greater degree of moderation in democracy" to address an "excess of democracy" in the Sixties.  He is critical of the TriLat vision of democracy, which seems to him vaguely feudal. (See, an analysis with perhaps fewer of the cheap shots you see in some of his recent writings.)  It can be argued (and was, by Alexander Hamilton) that regulating excesses of democracy is very much what constitutional representative government is about, among other things.  As for a democracy that is somewhat "feudal", I still see that here in Japan, though it's not even as strong as it was 10 years ago.  It's always about what sort of accommodations have to be made for legitimizing government through some reflection of some part of public opinion.  In the context of the times, and from the perspective of radical politics, it wasn't hard to imagine that groups like the Trilats were trying to design "roach hotels for revolutionaries", to find some way to reduce the influence of radical politics on public opinion and the status quo. Yakushima 09:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can a link between the Great Depression and a rise of this trilateral commission be found? If so could we then suppose the wealth of a growing nation was redistributed amongst the 3 nations. I imagine the power of the UN was not far behind the formation of this 3lateral either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.57.130 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 9 December 2004
 * I'm going to have to say no, because the Trilateral Commission wasn't founded until 44 years after the Great Depression started :) You might be thinking of the Council on Foreign Relations.--Gloriamarie 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is not very informative. What the heck does the Trilateral Commission do exactly? I got to this page through the random article button so I have no prior knowledge what the Trilateral Commission is or does, and after reading the article I know about as much I did before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.16.47 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 30 March 2006
 * The organization does not do much! It's a discussion group, plain and simple, with little impact on real world events (save its major project of better involving Asia in worldwide conversations). That is why we are limiting the size of this article in accordance with the TC's actual relevance! Sailingfanblues (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Crisis of Democracy
Need I say more Zbigniew Brzezinski? Trilateral Commission on “The Crisis of Democracy”, make up your mind about it, I think it is very easy. See from this extract:

"Revitalizing Trilateral Democracies

Introduction: Troubled Democracies (without figures, tables or footnotes)

Two decades ago Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki reported to the Trilateral Commission on “The Crisis of Democracy” that, they argued, confronted the nations of Europe, North America, and Japan, Their starting point was the widespread commentary during the 1960s and 1970s that envisaged “a bleak future for democratic government”—an image of “the disintegration of civil order, the breakdown of social discipline, the debility of leaders, and the alienation of citizens. [...] 1. the surge of radical political activism that swept the West in the 1960s, beginning with campus protests in the United States about civil rights and the Vietnam War and then echoed in such far-flung and momentous episodes as the events of May 1968 in France and the “Hot Autumn” later that year in Italy; and

2. the economic upheavals triggered by the oil crisis of 1973-74 that were to engender a decade and more of higher inflation, slower growth, and worsening unemployment" ...[read more in TC's full article, the original report THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY Task Force Report #8 "Text of Introductory Chapter (without footnotes) A. THE CURRENT PESSIMISM ABOUT DEMOCRACY" New York University Press (© 1975) Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington and Joji Watanuki ISBN: 0-8147-1305-3

US Political Thought Notes on Samuel P. Huntington, Chapter III: “The United States” in The Crisis of Democracy, by Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watnuki

This is a condensation and arrangement of Huntington's argument, not a commentary upon it.

Critical commentary on TC http://www.ied.info/books/www/intropart3.html --203.166.96.239 12:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Membership List
How are the names on the membership list verified, other than having a person whose name appears on the list make known his or her membership in a public statement? patsw 15:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Declassified UK has published extensive membership lists obtained from The Trilateral Commission here, after the end of the article. Keir Starmer was a member from 2018 through 2021 and is listed as a former member thereafter. Geoff Pointer (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

http://www.trilateral.org/memb.htm CristianChirita 21:53, 18 February 2006

Patsw, order the full list yourself from the bottom of that website. You email them, they email you the list back in a couple of days as an MS Word file. Giuliani's name is right there. =) 65.28.2.172 01:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Anonymous editor, you have just conceded that as entered, Giuliani's membership is not verified. I am under no obligation to verify the edits made by someone else. He or she must provide verification. patsw 02:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This list is way too long for one page and the membership list is barely cited. Goatstein (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, I'm going to give this 2 days and then significantly pare down the membership lists. Any dissenting voices, please post! Sailingfanblues (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Began the cleanup. This will take a while as going through this long list is arduous work. Please do not revert w/o first discussion here. Any grammar and organizational help welcome. Sailingfanblues (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Logo
I believe they have a logo of some sort, with three arrows pointing to the center. If it is real (and not just made up by some con-nut, it should be included...--213.101.247.115 13:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Crisis of Democracy report pdf download
A pdf download of the report " THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY Task Force Report #8" from the Trilateral Comission is available at the Trilateral website, at http://www.trilateral.org/projwork/tfrsums/tfr08.htm I think it would be usefull to place it in this entry, since much of the commentary about the trilateral comission is about this specific report. I would have done it myself, but: 1 - The external links section is already very big. Perhaps it would be usefull to cut a unecessary link, and place one for this pdf download? 2 - Should it be mentioned in the main article? Should a new wiki entry be created about this report?

The report is very interesting, a view into the minds of the world elite at the begining of the 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.103.151 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 April 2006

What do they do?
What is the purpose or objectives of this organization? How often do they meet? What do they produce i.e. meeting notes or reports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.121.188 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 18 November 2006
 * read their book The Crisis of Democracy and the Chomsky essay that is linked to in the wiki article: http://www.chomsky.info/books/priorities01.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston (talk • contribs) 105:29, 10 July 2007
 * I think they mean, what is the aim of the Commission? I can not tell by looking at the page. JoeHenzi 07:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe that the aim of the Commission is to act as a Global Intellectual Aristocracy. If this is true, as long as their own ethics compel them to serve the public good, they are an essential hidden element of all democracies.  It is obvious that democracy only means government via propaganda, as the irrational/impressionable masses are the ones who hold power.  And so if somebody doesn't steer the perceptions of the masses towards views that encourage civilization, a charismatic demagogue such as Hitler will gladly steer their views towards barbarism.  Philosopher8 11:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, I'm sure the masses in Nazi Germany would have said Hitler was "essential" to preserving "civilization." Don't be so narrow-sited.  98.221.120.84 (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Geolink
The purpose of the geolink in the page is not clear, plus it seems to break the page design (see source).--Nicolas1981 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The geolink templates have been shortened. I hope it is tolerable.--SallyForth123 04:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
There should at least be a mention of the various conspiracy theories involving the Trilateral Commission.Intelinside2007 04:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. I first wanted to see this article to see if there was a connection between them and some really weird conspiracies. Mus640 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. I am no conspiracy theorist, but I thought it odd there was no conspiracy section. I came accross a book one time called Architects of Conspiracy, which was about the conspiracy involving the Trlateral Commission. I believe it was by the John Birch Society. J. D. Hunt (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I came here looking for information on conspiracy theories about the Trilateral Commission since the Trilateral Commission was mentioned as a stereotypical conspiracy. I see no such mentions here except that theories exist "out there". I also see no negativity or criticism on this organization in this article. I am inclined to mark this article or . Patcat88 (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I'll probably add something about this soon. There's a documentary I just bought that goes into a lot of detail about them. For example, Ronald Reagan said before he entered the White House that he would never choose George H.W. Bush as a member of his administration because he was a member of the Skull and Bones society at Yale. Along with that, he also said that if he was elected, he would investigate these secret societies and see what they were really up to. Of course, a few weeks after saying this, Reagan joined the Trilateral Commision and chose George Bush as his running mate.  Δnnuit   Cœptis  21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I added this conspiracy theories section and slimmed down/renamed the criticism section b/c the quotes in it were beyond unimportant (who cares what a fringe representative puts forward/how is barry goldwater relevant?). It's shorter and acknowledges that the Trilateral Commission is a central piece in CT thought, but doesn't give those ideas an creedance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.69.20 (talk • contribs) 19:37, July 15, 2011

 * That's clearly inappropriate. The John Birch Society's "criticism" might be moved to "conspiracies", but the other politicians listed are/were otherwise sane, and their criticism is not entirely a conspiracy.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 * While I agree that Chomsky and the others referred to are sane, their points are a bit random, they are not resources on this discussion, and their comments are not part of the main body of their research/work. So, just b/c they have made mention does not mean their mentions are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic setting. As of now, the quotes make the JBS/Alex Jones ideas appear to be substantive criticisms and not CTs (which they are). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.69.20 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I noticed a difference between the "from the right" and "from the left" paragraphs. "From the left" simply criticized their philosophy; it was only "from the right" that talked about the supposed conspiracy.   2001:558:6011:1:E406:4A65:5CD1:785C (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 * As far as I could tell at the time, it was a bogeyman the Republicans invented during the 1980 election in order to scare paranoid conservatives. Once Reagan was elected, I never heard it ever mentioned again.  The bogeyman had served its purpose. 2001:558:6011:1:E406:4A65:5CD1:785C (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced quotes
There are a lot of unsourced quotes from various unnamed "documents" and other individuals, especially in the "Activity history" section. I'm going to get rid of all of them if they can't be sourced within the next month. Matt T. (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
Clearly fails NPOV with a large criticism section and virtually nothing positive. I've trimmed the criticism section some, but it is still unbalanced. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag since there has been no work on the alleged neutrality issue for 7 months and the one line argument above is not compelling in my view. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I am slowly working through this NPOV issue. I've already added one positive issue to the 'activity history' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailingfanblues (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Still glaring. I have just re-added an NPOV note and tried to encourage changes by more finite sectioning in the article to draw attention to the more glaring sections. Specifically the introductory summary and unsourced and illogical claims (organizations do not 'sense' anything before they are founded!) regarding the founding myth. prat (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II
It would be a good thing if anybody could explain how Pope John Paul II ended up giving a speech to the members of the Trilateral Commission. It seems a bit strange to have a bishop of Rome giving suggestions to such a materialist organization like that. ADM (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bildeberg Group & Japan's Importance to its Formation
In the article on the Bilderberg Group there is a cross-reference to this article that says:
 * Trilateral Commission, established by David Rockefeller in 1972 after the Bilderberg Group refused to include Japan

Yet nothing in this article mentions that as any part of the reason for Rockefeller's creating the Trilateral Commission. This article implies that the Trilateral Commission was created because Rockefeller floated the idea of an International Commission of Peace and Prosperity at a Bildeberg meeting where "the idea was widely accepted, but elsewhere, it got a cold reception."

The two descriptions seem to contradict each other or at least talk past each other. This article suggests that the idea that became the Trilateral Commission was widely accepted by the Bildeberg group and that it was the "cold reception" elsewhere that is it's raison d'etre. The Bildeberg article indicates hostility (to the inclusion of Japan, not to a Peace and Prosperity Commission) by the Bildeberg group led to the creation of the Trilateral Commission. Which is it, or is there another explanation? Ileanadu (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg attendees
I can't think of a policy or guideline related reason to add this to names, it seems to be just editors thinking 'I think this means something'. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed. Sailingfanblues (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Purging Membership Section
I have gone through the supposed citations for membership, very few actual support what they purport to cite. For instance, multiple names included are tied to the obituary for Hedley Donavon--the obit itself never mentions the Trilateral Commission once. My proposal is to excise all membership logs (less those with appropriate citations to give some depth) and merely list current executive heads. The other listed committees (beyond directorships) are also meaningless--few included have wikipedia entries themselves, fewer correct citations. I am convinced that most of this misinformation was inputted by Trilateral Commission conspiracy theorists attempting to build an argument that this minor think tank controls the world and betting that no one would ever read through the page's citations. Again, I am leaving 3 days for conversation. Sailingfanblues (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree wholeheartedly with what you are doing, indeed it is required by our WP:BLP policy. And we should never use sources such as lewrockwell.com for something like this. Dougweller (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 * And looking at their official site, there's a membership list, so there is absolutely no need for us to duplicate that. Maybe spell out its existence in the EL section. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading Section
Upon looking up the texts referred to in this section, besides the texts by actual members of the TC, the works seem to be non-reliable sources. Robert Gaylon Ross (per quick google search) is apparently a conspiracy theorist writer extraordinaire--frequently interviewed by Alex Jones. Bill Wilkerson has no google history beyond this page and his book sounds like more CT work. As I understand it, a visitor here is to find reputable sources cited and referred to. I propose dropping those suspect texts and adding for the individual visiting this page to figure out what's up with the Trilateral Commission and CTs Jonathan Kay's wonderful book on the subject (Among the Truthers). Sailingfanblues (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting alt. revising the introduction line in criticism section?
The introduction to the criticism section of the article begins with:

"Not unlike reactions to the United Nations or other organizations created to foster international cooperation, a number of prominent thinkers and politicians have criticized the Trilateral Commission as encroaching on national sovereignty."

Is this a very suitable beginning of a section on criticism? Because it seems as if they are being equalized to the United Nations (in some respects at least, which are apparently essential enough since the section begins in such a way) which I find to be a faulty comparison since they are in many ways essentially different (Membership quota and history as two examples), and in this particular context does it come off negatively since the criticism of the Trilateral does not apply for the UN and vice versa, which also goes just as well for these unspecified 'other organizations'.

In the matter of 'fostering international cooperation', if this is the case it ought already been mentioned in preceding sections and made aware to the reader rather than having to have that restated in the criticism section conveying the feeling of a defensive bias.

These two together taken convey bias and faulty reasoning unsuitable for any -pedia, wherefore I shall omit it and instead keep the following part of the sentence i.e. "A number of prominent thinkers (...)". Since it does not contain any of the deficiencies above mentioned.

If wikipedia members find unsuitable, please reverse my action but please do justify your reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.197.145 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Chairmen
"The group is chaired by three individuals, one from each of the regions represented. The current chairmen are former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and Chief Corporate Adviser, Fuji Xerox Company, Ltd. Yotaro Kobayashi."

The article says there are three chairmen, but it names only two. Is there a third? 66.68.84.127 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been updated,they have a new chairman for Europe.--31.47.14.231 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

founder
It says "citation needed" on rockefeller as the founder.

Here is a reliable source for him being the founder. I would do it myself, but I don't know hot to edit these things."http://www.trilateral.org/go.cfm?do=Page.View&pid=21" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.215.124.52 (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Brilliant, I've added it. Thanks very much. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Crticisms
I don't understand how Chomsky can have critizised the organisation in the 60ies, when it started in the 70ies. Somethings wrong in that paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.163.84 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He was criticising the 1975 book The Crisis of Democracy which discussed the 60s. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky again
Why on earth would anybody take Chomsky at face value, and present this in wikipedia's voice?

This is no place for polemics. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't see the problem. You don't consider those involved as being elite, or do you don't regard the countries as capitalist? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sensing a discord among the elites of the wealthy ..". This is poorly written. Who is doing the "Sensing"? David Rockefellar? Or the Trilateral Commission itself? That makes no sense. Maybe the founders. But did they "sense" it, or "imagine" it. Just not good writing, although good enough for government work. GangofOne (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Labels
As I see it, the point of labeling someone like Alex Jones as a "right wing conspiracy theorists" is to contextualize why his opinion is being included, because otherwise it's not worth mentioning. Alex Jones isn't a reliable source for statements of fact on Wikipedia, and as a political commentator he produces a boatload of drivel about everything imaginable, so the only reason to include his position is as a right wing conspiracy theorist. There needs to be a very clearly explained reason why he's being mentioned at all, and the label is one part of that process. Regardless of how anyone feels about the people mentioned in this article, comparing Alex Jones to Noam Chomsky is an extreme mismatch. The idea that they must be treated exactly the same is not productive and ignores a great deal of context in service of specific point of view. Trying to treat them as being exactly parallel will lead to false balance. Grayfell (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't have it both ways, either the political labels apply to all the entities that were mentioned in both of the criticism sub-sections or they don't apply to them at all. The main problem with your argument is that just because you think that Jones is a right wing conspiracy theorist and Chomsky isn't, then a comparison of Jones to Chomsky must be an extreme mismatch; it doesn't occur to you that there exist alternative comparisons to Jones and Chomsky which are equally as valid as your Jones-Chomsky comparison...and even if your comparison was valid, it still wouldn't justify the double standards of your political labels. You'll also note that what you are doing doesn't stop with Jones as you also reverted the political label for Charles Krauthammer from "political commentator" to "conservative pundit" even though his policy positions have provoked a variegated description of his political views. Flaggerton (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In a further attempt to reach a compromise on this issue I've tagged the labels for Jones, the JBS, Krauthammer and Chomsky with the POV template. Should this compromise-building measure fail, I should note for the record that the first batch of edits which I made that initiated this dispute between myself and Grayfell was to just get rid of these labels completely. Flaggerton (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was trying to explain why there is no "both ways". Political labels do not need to apply to all entities. The article is quoting a joke by Charles Krauthammer in which he specifically mocks his status as a conservative boogieman. The line only makes sense if the reader understands this beforehand. The label is providing important context to assist the reader in understanding the quote. Likewise, Jones is being contextualized as a believer in the conspiracy theories around the Trilateral Commission. It definitely had occurred to me that there are alternative comparisons between Jones and Chomsky, but Wikipedia doesn't treat them as equally valid. If you don't agree, your disagreement is with WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE and all of the other alphabet soup used to describe Wikipedia's core philosophy. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It really is time for Flagggerton to stop adding inappropriate labels to persons mentioned in this article. They are essentially this person's WP:POV opinions and have been reverted by several experienced editors. It is also time to stop making comments such as "drive by reverts" regarding actions by other editors. My advice to Flaggerton is to stop edit warring now. David J Johnson (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

And that comment proves why my point about your insistence on having the political labeling go both ways continues to stand. Besides the illogic of your justification of labeling Krauthammer as a "conservative" (neither the article nor Krauthammer refers to him/himself as a "conservative" and if your interpretation of how that article describes his political views is true, then the fact that Krauthammer is mocking (i.e. denying) his status as a conservative would mean that it doesn't make sense to describe him as a conservative), you haven't explained why the political labeling should not be symmetrically applied to the entities that are mentioned in both of the criticism sub-sections except for a regurgitation of your main point that because you think that Jones is bad and Chomsky is good, then Jones must be bad and Chomsky must be good, and just using the fig leaf of Wikipedia guidelines (like the claim of false balance) which my edits putatively violates to better conceal your efforts to push your POVs by giving it an extra measure of legitimacy isn't going to cut it. I previously wrote how even if your comparison between Jones and Chomsky was valid, it still wouldn't justify the double standards of your political labels and the larger point that that assertion was getting at still stands as well: the labels (for JBS and Krauthammer) would be redundant because their viewpoints are already classified as originating from the political right, and there are alternative and less-POV labels that could be used to describe JBS, Jones and Krauthammer. I'll also note that your argument about the need to contextualize Jones/Krauthammer's politics is contextualized (i.e. labelled) in a way that is not supported by the relevant sources except for the way that you want their politics to be contextualized...and could be applied as well to Chomsky's political views. Given your history of edit warring as evidenced by the inordinate number of editors who have complained on your talk page about the way that you handle your ideological disagreements, I can understand why you resort to these kind of tactics to advance this hardline position on political labeling against the entities on this article who don't share your political views, but it really help if you didn't treat this particular article (and Wikipedia generally) as a battleground. Flaggerton (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Krauthammer isn't denying being conservative, he's making fun of silliness of the conspiracy theories he's been lumped-in with. It doesn't appear that you understand the quote, which makes your claims untenable. Context matters. Inordinate? The complaints I receive seem perfectly ordinate to me, and your personal attacks against me over unrelated matters says more about you than it does about the Trilateral Commission. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trilateral Commission. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801070811/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/people/AJ201204160056 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/people/AJ201204160056

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Epstein, Jeffrey
Being dead does that affect his membership?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it doesn't affect our interest in listing him. No more than it does Scranton.
 * Also, should David Miliband or Keir Starmer be on the list? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There should be a section for former members then and yes they should be added. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Addition to the lead section
I suggest the following addition: The Commision's members had phenomenal success in key politial and economic positions; 7 out 12 U.S. presidents and vice presidents, 10 out of 17 National Security Advisers and 6 out 8 World Bank presidents, were members of the Commision. Tshuva (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, but once again; you need to quote reliable, secondary, sources before inserting any information of this kind - otherwise it will be deleted. Please see and read WP:RS. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trilateral Commission


text:
Sienna Guillory

Sienna Tiggy Guillory (born 16 March 1975) is an English actress and former model. She portrayed Jill Valentine in several entries of the Resident Evil action-horror film series. Other prominent roles include elf princess Arya Dröttningu in the fantasy-adventure film Eragon, and the title role in the TV miniseries Helen of Troy. She has appeared in TV shows including Fortitude, Stan Lee's Lucky Man, and Luther.

Early life
Born in Kettering, Northamptonshire, Guillory is the daughter of American folk guitarist Isaac Guillory and his first wife, English model Tina Thompson, who married in 1973. Her father was the son of American and Turkish-Jewish parents and born at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

Her parents moved to Fulham, London, when Guillory was two, then later to Norfolk when she was 11. At the age of ten, she went to stay with cousins in Mexico to learn Spanish.

She has a half-brother named Jace, who has the same mother. Her father adopted him. Her parents divorced in 1990 when Sienna was 14. In 1993, her father married Vickie McMillan, and had two children with her, Ellie and Jacob.

Guillory attended Gresham's School in Holt, Norfolk, where she took part in numerous school productions. She started horseback riding at the age of two. At 14, she was given a horse, which she named The Night Porter, or "Porty", after the film The Night Porter; Guillory was a fan of its leading actress Charlotte Rampling.

In December 2000, Guillory's father died of cancer at the age of 53.

Modelling
In 1997, Guillory accompanied a ballerina friend to the London modelling agency Select Model Management and was soon signed. She modelled to support her acting career. As a model, she worked in campaigns for Armani, Dolce & Gabbana, Burberry and Paul Smith and appeared on the covers of several fashion magazines. In 1999, she became the face of the Hugo Boss fragrance campaign, succeeding model Karen Ferrari and continuing the campaign for three years. After modelling for a few years, Guillory returned her focus to acting in 2000. She is signed to Independent Models in London.

Acting
Guillory explained that she "became an actor because I wanted to know what it was like to be other people. Because possibly I don't like myself", and later said "I hate acting, really hate it. I kind of fell into it sideways ... I started acting because I got offered a job when I was 16, and they wanted to pay me £8,000, and we'd always lived on Family Support". She went on to say that her frustration with later film roles left her bitter, but after seeing Helen Mirren on stage she was inspired again.

In 1993, Guillory made her screen debut in Riders, a TV adaptation of Jilly Cooper's novel of the same name, for which the casting directors needed a young actress who was able to ride a horse. Her performance landed her another small role in the miniseries The Buccaneers, opposite Mira Sorvino.

Before becoming a model to support her acting career, Guillory waited tables at a club. In an interview in 2000, she said about the experience "Supporting my acting habit with waitressing was probably the most useful thing I've done." During her time as a model, she studied acting at the New World School of the Arts and the Paris Conservatoire, also taking small television and film roles in The Future Lasts a Long Time (1996), The Rules of Engagement (1999), ''Star! Star! (1999), Kiss Kiss (Bang Bang) (2000), The 3 Kings (2000), and Two Days, Nine Lives'' (2000). During this time, Guillory decided to go on with her acting career because "I was so scared of going to university and being with people my own age again, having been with that tiny little sect of girls in Norfolk whose daddies were farmers and politicians, who didn't trust me and didn't know where I was coming from".

She returned to film with a more substantial role in the thriller Sorted (2000). Guillory went on to appear in the BBC production Take a Girl Like You, a television adaptation of Kingsley Amis's novel of the same name. She portrayed Jenny Bunn, the story's virginal heroine, and gained critical attention for her part in the period piece. Guillory was pleased to have played a more innocent character, saying "I've played floozies, psychopaths, assassins, crackheads... It's nice to do something with a lighter touch." The production did not fare well in the ratings.

In 2001, Guillory continued with other roles in predominantly British films, including Oblivious, Late Night Shopping (with husband Enzo Cilenti), The Last Minute, and . 2002 saw Guillory appear in The Time Machine, alongside Guy Pearce and Jeremy Irons. She was pleased to take on a larger scale film, after having worked on low-budget independent films, and compared the experience with "finding an unicorn in your sock drawer". She played Emma, the fiancée of Pearce's character, who was killed early in the film and whose death set off its main events.

In 2003, after a friend had received a script for The Principles of Lust, Guillory claims she "read it and couldn't put it down, and begged to read for the part". She was impressed by director Penny Woolcock's unconventional style of shooting, without rehearsing the actors, using raw takes and improvisational performances. For the role of Juliette, Guillory performed nude in the film's sex scenes which were filmed during the first week of filming, making her somewhat nervous. She later went on to say that it was one of her favorite acting experiences. Afterwards, Guillory had a small role in the romantic comedy Love Actually before taking the starring role in the television miniseries Helen of Troy. The series was mostly based on Homer's epic poem Iliad and focuses on the mythological life of Helen. Helen of Troy was nominated for best miniseries at the Satellite Awards.

In May 2004, Guillory starred in a new stage production of The Shape of Things at the New Ambassadors Theatre in London, with husband Cilenti. That year she also played her first big Hollywood role. She was cast as Jill Valentine, one of the lead characters in the video game adaptation sequel Resident Evil: Apocalypse. The film makers had searched widely for an actress to portray the video game character and found her in Guillory, who had to "please not only the movie-going audience but also the gamers." She was "a dead ringer for Jill Valentine". Guillory studied the original character's movements by watching playthroughs of the video game Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. Before getting the script for the film, she had not been familiar with the video games or seen Resident Evil (2002).

She said about her role:

After the success of Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Guillory appeared in other film and television roles, including Beauty (2004), Marple: A Murder Is Announced (2005), In the Bathroom (2005), The Virgin Queen (2005), Silence Becomes You (2005), and Rabbit Fever (2006).

In 2006, Guillory was a lead in the ensemble cast of the fantasy Eragon, the film adaptation of the novel by Christopher Paolini; the role reunited her with The Time Machine co-star Jeremy Irons. She portrayed Arya Dröttningu, an elf princess. She had not read the novels before filming, but after accepting the role she became a fan of Paolini's work. Although Arya is a key character in the film, Guillory had little screen time and went on to say jokingly: "I've been trying to explain to friends who've seen the trailer [...] I'm like, "[...] but that's my whole part!"" Eragon was not well received by the critics, but was nominated as Best Fantasy Film at the 2006 Saturn Awards. The film grossed approximately $75 million in the US and $173.9 million elsewhere, totaling $249 million worldwide. Guillory was invited to reprise her role as Jill Valentine in Resident Evil: Extinction, the sequel to Resident Evil: Apocalypse, but could not accept due to scheduling conflicts with Eragon.

In 2007, she starred in the Spanish production The Heart of the Earth, and later in the year finished filming the horror/thriller Victims and the fantasy novel adaptation Inkheart. In Inkheart, she plays Resa, the wife of Brendan Fraser's character and the mother of Eliza Bennett's. Guillory acted alongside Helen Mirren, a friend of the Guillory family who was a role model when she first had aspirations towards acting.

Guillory was to be a lead in the television series The Oaks, expected to begin airing in 2008. She joined Bahar Soomekh, Matt Lanter, Romy Rosemont, Jeremy Renner, Michael Rispoli and Shannon Lucio in the series, which follows the intertwining stories of three families—a young couple in 1968 who have lost a child, a family of four in 1998, and a pregnant couple in 2008—who are haunted by the same spirit in their house. The television series began filming on 5 November 2007 on location in Pasadena, California. Guillory will play Jessica, the 2008 couple's neighbour, a woman who has Asperger syndrome who went to school with the husband (and father-to-be) and shares a secret with him.

In May 2010, Shock Till You Drop.com confirmed the return of Jill Valentine in the Resident Evil film franchise's fourth installment, Resident Evil: Afterlife, with Guillory reprising the role. On 31 May, Jovovich also confirmed that Guillory would return as Jill. Guillory reappears in the film in a mid-end credit scene. She returned to a starring role in the following film, Resident Evil: Retribution, as the main antagonist of the film.

In 2015, she joined the main cast as scientist Natalie Yelburton in the new thriller series Fortitude, commissioned by Sky Atlantic and set in the fictional Arctic oil settlement of the same name. She returned to the role for the show's second series in 2016, and appeared in the third season in 2018.

In January 2016 she also joined the cast of Sky One's new series, Stan Lee's Lucky Man, playing the character Eve. She subsequently returned for both the second and third seasons.

In May 2018, she appeared as the only actor, yet playing multiple roles, in the music video for Liam Gallagher's "Paper Crown". In 2023, she starred as the lead villain and billionaire Hillary Driscoll in the film Meg 2: The Trench.

Media
In 2001, readers of Esquire UK voted Guillory "Britain's Most Eligible Woman" and featured her in a pictorial in the magazine. Guillory was photographed for the cover and shoot by photographer Jonathan Glynn Smith. In 2002, she was number 89 on Maxim's "Hot 100 List" of the "world's 100 most beautiful women", and in 2007 Guillory was voted number 54 at Askmen.com's Top 99 Countdown.

Guillory has been quoted as disliking the Hollywood culture, saying she does not wish to be part of it:

Personal life
Guillory married actor Nick Moran in July 1997; they divorced in 2000. In 2000, Guillory began dating English actor Enzo Cilenti, and they married in 2002. The couple appeared in the 2001 film Late Night Shopping, and have continued to appear together in various works. In August 2004, Guillory and Cilenti cycled five stages of the Tour de France to raise money for charity. On 1 February 2011, Guillory gave birth to twin daughters, Valentina and Lucia Cilenti, named after her grandmother and great aunt who were also twin sisters.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sienna Guillory


text:
Talk:Drusilla (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

fungus demon
I don't think this should be there - there wasn't a fungus demon, was there? Harmony was just screwing up chaos demon - right? Maybe I missed something. . . I would think that we should note that Harmony later referred to him as a fungus demon, if we mention it at all. Ideas? Riverbend 22:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes?
We should have some of the more. . . interesting things that Dru has said.

Snake Vs. Bat
I think it's definitely worth mentioning that Drusilla is the only known Buffyverse vampire who has a snake-like appearance while "vamped out" instead of a bat-like appearance. Candall 16:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Only known Vampire to kill a Slayer
This isn't true, in addition to Spike & Dru, the Master killed a Slayer, Buffy.

Assorted comments that people can't be bothered to make new sections for
Let's be clear. Season two, episode 10. Kendra left on a plane. Drusilla did not kill her. Why has no one mentioned this? -- Molly Cutpurse 6 March 2009

I thought Angel sired Spike...? I remember an episode in 2nd season, when Spike breaks into the high school with his pals, and bumps into Angel. He says "You were my Sire!" Or did Angel and Drusilla sire him together? I don't remember. -- Wapcaplet

 * You're right about the 2nd season episode. Maybe they altered the history later -- Buffy season 5 (Gloria) had several flashback episodes, one with Spike pre-vamp. -- Tarquin 23:14 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * The episode you are refering to is "School Hard", where Spike says to Angel in effect "You were my sire, you were my Yoda". This is wrong, as the entry on Spike points out, either a continuity error or a generalization on Spike's part -- Wolf Deunan 23:17, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * I suppose he meant 'grandsire'. Noneofyourbusiness 15:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that if Jedi were sired, Luke's sire would be Obi-Wan, not Yoda. Just as Spike's sire is Drusilla, not Angel. But what I'm really wondering about is Drusilla's fate. I may be wrong about this, but in order for the First to impersonate someone, they have to be dead, right? But Drusilla's death is not mentioned in the article. Or is undead good enough? Or was I completely wrong about the "you see dead people" aspect? 66.32.85.5 00:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The First can manifest as any vampire because all vampires begin as dead humans. —Tamfang 08:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Undead is definitely good enough. You also don't have to be dead at the same time the First is impersonating you. Remember how it impersonated Buffy?

 * You're probably right about it being a generalization on Spike's part, because even if Drusilla sired him, Angel was basically his teacher (as we can tell from flashbacks in Angel season 5). Also, Drusilla definetely sired Spike, no doubt about it: Season 5, Episode 85: 'Fool For Love'.

 * Also, later ("Destiny", "Angel" season 5) Spike tells Angel that Drusilla sired him, but Angelus turned him into a monsterRiverbend 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

 * Spike continues to call Angel his sire throughout the series, years later. It's a generalization, because he'll interchange sire & grandsire when reffering to Angel from BtVS S2-AtS S5

For the romantic relationships part, whoever listed those, I think it would be helpful to list an episode reference or something to some of those less obvious ones (eg Giles' kiss). ArgentiumOutlaw

Ciber_ninja - don't mess with people's heads - you know that She's still at large and didn't die.

Useful link
Interview about writing for her character~ZytheTalk to me! 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Article rewrite
Just a note to say I'll be working on rewriting this article in a sandbox here. --Moni3 (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Cabinet of the United States

Odd
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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Order of succession to the Presidency
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)

 * See United States Presidential line of succession Jiang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiang (talk • contribs) 00:38, 4 October 2003 (UTC)

Chairman of the Fed?
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

FEMA as Cabinet-level administration office?
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)

Thompson, Ridge
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)

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

Do we have a source on this list? The White House site (linked at the bottom of the article) has a much shorter list of non-member cabinet-level officers, but I don't want to change anything yet. Ddye 01:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This page should omit every office that is not listed on the White House's official list of Cabinet Rank Members (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html). Or at least it should note the difference between high-ranking officials that regularly attend Cabinet meetings and high-ranking officials who have been granted Cabinet Rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.235.183 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Table of the "Cabinet"
Thanks for a good article which explained a lot about the US cabinet to this Brit. However, I am still a bit confused by the "State" column in the table: these are federal appointees, and don't necessarily have any particular stete connection (if I have understood correctly). Physchim62 23:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The "State" column simply refers to the official state of residence of the individual cabinet member.
 * — DLJessup (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In accordance with the definition of state provided in this section, I have reverted the edits by User:Folksong in which he changed Carlos Gutierrez's state from Michigan to Florida, and Elaine Chao's state from Kentucky to New York. While Gutierrez was a Florida resident for several years after immigrating to the United States, he was a Michigan resident at the time of his appointment. In Chao's case, she immigrated to New York, but was a Kentucky resident, by virtue of her husband's service in the U.S. Senate from that state at the time of her appointment. --TommyBoy 05:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also used this reason in order to change Jim Nicholson's state from Iowa to Colorado. --TommyBoy 05:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am sorting the table in alpha order by name of office. Does it look okay to you? Thanks for a nice article. I was surprised when searching that google.com gives this page first (not a .gov page) for "United States Cabinet". -Susanlesch 11:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

 * No, it does not. The Cabinet is usually listed in rank order (the order that the cabinet member would succeed to the Presidency), and that is the order shown here. — CJewell (talk to me) 02:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 * If the order that is shown here is right, then 1) great I learned something, and 2) yes it looks okay. -Susanlesch 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Secretary of Defense on the table
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)

Condoleezza Rice
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)

Removal of states column
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)

Cabinet member change, Nov 8 2006
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)

 * 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)
 * Good catch. I'ved edited the current cabinet template accordingly. - Walkiped (T 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Alphabetagamma 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Role of the Cabinet members
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)

Statement on British Cabinet incorrect
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)

 * You are, of course, quite correct. I hope that the current edit is acceptable. Unschool (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The current edit is also incorrect. It reads as follows:

"This constitutional separation between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch is quite different from the British, Canadian, or Australian parliamentary cabinet systems, where the members of the Cabinet are required by long-standing precedents to be sitting members of the legislature."

As stated above, there is no requirement in the Westminster system for Cabinet members to be sitting members of the legislature. It's only a convention--and not a constitutional one: In Canada, Michael M. Fortier was sworn in as Minister of Public Works and Government Services on February 6, 2006, without having been elected or appointed to Parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.94.40 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Secretary of Foreign Affairs
This article claims the Secretary of State position had this name from July 27, 1789 to September 15, 1794, but then goes on to say that "the position was renamed Secretary of State prior to being filled for the first time in March 1790." Huh? The article Secretary of Foreign Affairs gives January 10, 1781 - September 15, 1789 as the dates; I assume this is right and this article is wrong. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I just noted that as well. I think the confusion comes from:

The office of Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs were reinstated by a law signed by George Washington on July 27, 1789. However, before the office was filled, on September 15, 1789, Washington signed into law another act which changed the name of the office from "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" to "Secretary of State,"
 * Looking at the references for John Jay, this seems pretty clear. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  14:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

History
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)

-I'd also like to see a better explanation of the nomination process, esp. for an incoming administration. For example, does the president elect nominate cabinet officers before he takes office? Are the confirmation hearings before he takes office? If not, when is the change of power between the new and old cabinet? It would be nice to have this here, with a new administration approaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.139.199.27 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Appointment of governors?
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)

 * You're right. Making the change. JasonCNJ (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dept of Homeland Security?
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)

Assumed Office Dates
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)

The first secretaries assumed their office on January 21st, being confirmed on January 20th. I´m going to change this. (sebastianvader) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (CET)

UN Ambassador not a "former Cabinet member"
User:Ianweller has reverted my recent edit in which I removed the UN Ambassador from the "Former Cabinet positions" section due to its status as a current Cabinet postion under the Obama Administration. While he is correct in his observation that Cabinet status is not conferred under every administration, most recently occurring under the George W. Bush administration, I believe that it should be excluded from the list of "former Cabinet positions" while it is a "current Cabinet position". Any thoughts from other Wikipedians on how best to resolve this question would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The text in question is under the United States Cabinet section:
 * Under some administrations, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations was allowed to sit in for cabinet meetings.
 * My position on the subject is to keep the text as the text is non-specific to any administration and is truthful. However, the section it is under may not be the correct section or may need to have its section renamed. --Ian Weller (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I am responding to the request for a third opinion. The position of Ambassador to the United Nations is a “cabinet rank” position, not a cabinet post per se.  Please note that the distinction of who is formally a Cabinet member of th is made on the White House’s webpage on the Cabinet.  Traditionally, the sobriquet of “former cabinet officer” applies to formal Cabinet members – those who were formally on the path of secession – and not those of "cabinet-rank".  The cabinet-rank officers are generally referred to as “former X”, with X being the title of their office.  It would benefit this article to add some discussion of the differences between these two classes of positions.  Askari Mark (Talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since no response to my 3O, I'm removing this article from my watchlist. Please notify me of any subsequent queries on my talk page. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I was having trouble formulating my thoughts on this, so I just went ahead and changed this section. What do you all think? -Rrius (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the changes made to the section by User:Rrius. As noted earlier by User:Askari Mark and myself, aside from the 15 regular Cabinet officers, the determination of who qualifies for Cabinet-rank status varies by administration. In the case of the UN Ambassador, it is a current Cabinet-rank post under the Obama Administration, but under some administrations, including the George W. Bush administration, it was not conferred Cabinet-rank status. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks good to me. --Ian Weller (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Org chart needed
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)

five years later, still no hint of a definition of "cabinet-level"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.86.53 (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Significance" section delete
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)
 * 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)

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

Confederate cabinet
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)
 * 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)
 * I see your point and will try to do it that way. Thank you. PKKloeppel (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Secretary of state
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)

Too much space at top
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)
 * Rrius (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks much better now. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In the Constitution
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)

Add "created" column to Cabinet table?
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)

In federal law and the Constitution
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)
 * It was vandalism added a few hours before you asked this question. -Rrius (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

help public to private permanent
this article is vandalism everyday.but this article is "edit" (unlocked) to "view source" (permanent locked). Akuindo (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Proposed Cabinet departments
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)

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

Cabinet Level Offices Redux
It appears that some of the concerns previously raised in the similarly named section above have been addressed, but questions still remain. Other than Wikipedia getting them from a list by the White House stating "The following positions have the status of Cabinet-rank" how is that determination made? Is it purely at the whim of the President? By Executive Order or Presidential Proclamation? Is Congress involved? When did this practice start? What is the significance of being Cabinet level rank.

There is also some imprecision of language here. For example, the section on Salary states that:

 * Cabinet level positions qualify for Level I pay, which was set at an annual salary of $203,700 in 2015. Some Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President and the White House Chief of Staff, have their salaries determined differently.

Does "Cabinet level" here mean those individuals who are members of the Cabinet or does it include those who have Cabinet Rank. In other words, does the Administrator of the Small Business Administration have the same salary as the Secretary of State? It doesn't make sense that they would, but the second sentence states that some "cabinet level officials have their salaries determined differently" and lists the VP and the Chief of Staff. The VP is in the first group but the Chief of Staff is in the second group, individuals who "are considered to be cabinet level."

Underneath each of these cabinet level positions are links to statutes and executive orders, some of which appear to be the legislaton or order creating such an agency. For example for the Small Business Administration the chart lists 15 U.S.C. § 633 and there is a link to https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/633.

That law created the agency, but it does not say anything about whether this is a cabinet level position, and doesn't specify the salary of the Administrator. In the chart under Director of the Office of Management and Budget there is a link to 3 U.S.C. §1, which is a statute that generally authorizes the President to delegate the powers of the office. There are also links to a series of executive orders, but none of the links work. Even when those EOs are found by a browser search, they aren't necessarily helpful in answering these questions.

For example, in the case of the White House Chief of Staff there is a link first to a 1939 law allowing the President to reorganize federal agencies, then to an executive order by FDR establishing certain divisions in the White House (EO 8248 - found via internet search), but a Chief of Staff is not mentioned. Then there's a reference to EO 10452, which is an order by Eisenhower dealing with the United States Civil Service Commission. Then there's a reference to EO 12608 signed by Reagan and titled "Elimination of Unnecessary Executive Orders and Technical Amendments to Others," which again does not mention a chief of staff. If these statutes and EOs are relevant to the position of the Chief of Staff, one would expect they would be discussed in the Wiki article White House Chief of Staff.

I don't see how listing of these laws and executive orders, with no explanation is at all useful, particularly since with at least one position they aren't even mentioned in the wiki article for that position. Those articles are where the laws and executive orders creating the position should be listed. This is not as well written and thought out a comment as I would like, but I'm short on time, but to summarize the article still does not explain how these "cabinet level" positions are determined and isn't clear about what applies to Cabinet versus Cabinet level positions. Furthermore, the links that are provided int the chart don't help answer these questions. Ileanadu (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Here is my understanding of the difference between Cabinet-Member positions and mere Cabinet-Level positions, as well as of the essential relationship between the President and his Cabinet. The fundamental purpose of the Cabinet is to aid the President in his management of the Executive branch of the government.  The roles of US Cabinet-Members were originally roughly based on the British roles of Cabinet-Ministers, and the purpose of the US Cabinet was originally roughly based on the same role of the British Cabinet with respect to its supporting role in assisting the British Prime-Minister in governance.

 * Amongst the many "players" within Cabinet Meetings are the Secretaries of the various government departments, some of the president's own personal staff members, and a few heads of smaller Departments that are not considered big enough to rise to the level of having "Secretaries" at their heads. The jobs of the members of the president's personal staff can be classified by the president as Cabinet-Level jobs, and can be otherwise defined by the president in most cases however he may choose.

 * Cabinet Secretary positions (Cabinet-Members) represent a certain "compromise" with Congress, as these government department heads must be approved by the Senate, and these positions are somewhat defined and regulated by the laws put forth by Congress. As per Lleanadu's question about why these laws are listed, I would assume that it was because these laws might aid in defining the roles of the various Cabinet Secretaries, or of the departments which they head.  Presidential staff appointments to Cabinet-Level positions are traditionally not defined by Congress, and only regulated by it in very general "lump-sum" ways which apply to the entire class of such individuals.  Lesser department head positions are treated more similarly to Secretary positions, but are not official "Cabinet-Members."

 * This is admittedly my undocumented understanding of how this all works. Anyone who may have any corrections or clarifications to make on the above, please do.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Acting
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)
 * 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)

Is the "Chief Strategist" position a cabinet-level position?
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)

 * 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)

When do terms begin?
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)

Proposed Cabinet departments 2
(I added just about a year ago, hence the numeral in the section heading.)

§ Proposed Cabinet departments contained, all of them tagged citation needed 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 cns as originally dated, and adding the Refimprove section 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)

Higher bar for "Proposed Cabinet departments" section
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)

"Confirmation" subhead
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)

History Section + W. Wilson Reference: Fix Needed
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)

Cabinet-level officials
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)

Successor added to table
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)

 * 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)

25th amendment
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)
 * See Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. EEng 18:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden and the Council of Economic Advisors
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)
 * Thank you to whoever fixed this ^_^ Negrong502 (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 * 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)

Avril Haines
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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Avril Haines portrait 2.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Matt Ammon US Dept of HUD.jpg

"Cabinet-level" positions
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)
 * 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Kamala Harris 139674503 (cropped).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Alondra Nelson, OSTP Acting Director (cropped).jpg

Powers of Cabinet members
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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Secretary Fudge official photo (cropped).png

Complete list of Presidential Cabinets?
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)

 * 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)

Attorney General below Vice President?
I'm confused, why is the Attorney General listed above State, Treasury, and Defence? I was under the impression the list is ordered in the Presidential line of Succession? In which case the Attorney General should be below the Secretary of Defense. 14.2.107.157 (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 * yes, came here to say the same thing! 109.132.156.96 (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly the A.G. is after the Secretary of defense. Some apparently just like Merrick Garland and wants him higher in the line of succession. SMT1190 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone
 * SMT1190 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cabinet of the United States