The Gatekeepers

The Gatekeepers Plot Summary

Introduction

On a cold January morning in 1981, as Ronald Reagan prepared to assume the presidency, he made a decision that would prove crucial to his success: appointing James Baker as his White House chief of staff. This choice was remarkable because Baker had managed the campaign of Reagan's bitter rival, George H.W. Bush, during the primaries. Yet Reagan, showing wisdom that would characterize his presidency, recognized that Baker's Washington savvy was exactly what his administration needed. This pivotal moment illustrates how the chief of staff—a position not mentioned in the Constitution—has become perhaps the second most powerful role in American government. The modern White House chief serves as gatekeeper, enforcer, and often the bearer of bad news to the president. Through examining the successes and failures of chiefs from H.R. Haldeman under Nixon to Denis McDonough under Obama, we gain unprecedented insight into how presidencies function behind closed doors. The chief's effectiveness often determines whether a presidency thrives or falters, whether crises are managed or spiral out of control, and whether a president's vision becomes reality or remains unfulfilled rhetoric. This historical journey offers valuable lessons for anyone interested in leadership, organizational management, or the inner workings of power at the highest levels of government.

Chapter 1: The Birth of Modern White House Management (1969-1974)

When Richard Nixon entered the White House in January 1969, he was determined to create a management system that would protect him from the chaos that had plagued previous administrations. The nation was in turmoil—Americans were dying in Vietnam at a rate of over 300 per week, while protesters clashed with police at home. Nixon needed a buffer between himself and the overwhelming demands of the presidency. H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, a former advertising executive with a military-style crew cut, became the architect of what we now recognize as the modern chief of staff position. Haldeman established what he called a "staff system" designed to protect the president's most valuable asset: time. "Nothing goes to the president that is not completely staffed out first," Haldeman declared, "for accuracy and form, for lateral coordination, checked for related material, reviewed by competent staff concerned with that area." This system created clear lines of authority and prevented what Haldeman called "end runs"—when someone with their own agenda meets privately with the president without going through proper channels. Haldeman practiced what he called a "passion for anonymity," sitting against the wall during cabinet meetings rather than at the table. He was the first person Nixon saw each morning and the last on his way to the residence at night. Despite his reputation as Nixon's "Lord High Executioner," Haldeman often acted as a brake on presidential orders he considered unwise or illegal. When Nixon, paranoid about leaks, ordered lie detector tests for every State Department employee, Haldeman simply didn't carry out the command. The fatal flaw in the Nixon-Haldeman relationship was the chief's inability to speak hard truths during the Watergate scandal. When the break-in at Democratic headquarters occurred in June 1972, Haldeman failed to insist on a full investigation and instead participated in the cover-up. As Donald Rumsfeld would later observe: "I don't doubt for a minute that Haldeman executed the president's desires well—maybe too well. I don't think Haldeman ever said, 'No, you're wrong.'" For his role in the scandal, Haldeman would be convicted and sent to prison. Despite his disgrace, Haldeman's management system endured as the template for almost every subsequent administration. At a gathering of former White House chiefs in 1986, Dick Cheney was impressed by Haldeman's mastery of the nuances of the job. "After about two days together, it was clear Haldeman knew more about it than anybody else," Cheney recalled. The truth was that sooner or later, nearly every president, regardless of campaign promises or personal style, would end up following some version of the Haldeman system—a testament to its effectiveness in managing the overwhelming complexities of the modern presidency.

Chapter 2: Carter's Folly: The Perils of Presidential Micromanagement

In January 1977, Jimmy Carter took office as the quintessential Washington outsider, determined to break with what he saw as the imperial presidency of Nixon and Ford. Despite explicit warnings from outgoing Ford administration officials about the pitfalls of trying to manage without a strong chief of staff, Carter decided he would be his own chief. "I was not a natural-born politician," Carter later admitted. "When I got to be president, while most of my advisers were saying, 'Let's postpone the unpleasant and unpopular things,' I just didn't do it." Carter believed his intelligence and work ethic would compensate for his lack of Washington experience. The president's inner circle consisted of young, devoted staffers from his campaign: Hamilton Jordan, his brilliant but disorganized political strategist; Jody Powell, his savvy press secretary; and Stuart Eizenstat, his cerebral domestic policy adviser. Without a strong chief of staff, Carter was unable to prioritize. He wanted to do everything at once: transform energy policy, reform the civil service, pass a Panama Canal treaty, revamp the tax code, reorganize the government, create an agency for consumer affairs, contain hospital costs, cut inflation, reform Social Security and welfare. No detail was too trivial for the president's attention—he personally signed off on everything from typos in memos to requests to play on the White House tennis court. By the summer of 1979, the Carter presidency was besieged by crises. OPEC's dramatic price increases caused severe shortages and mile-long gas lines. Inflation continued to spike. Most alarming, the shah of Iran, America's longtime ally, had been overthrown by radical mullahs, an uprising that took the CIA completely by surprise. Carter's approval rating plummeted to 34 percent. In a famous televised address that became known as the "malaise speech" (though he never used that word), Carter diagnosed a "crisis of confidence" in America. Days later, he asked for the resignation of his entire cabinet, a dramatic move that made his administration appear to be in disarray. Finally, two and a half years into his presidency, Carter agreed to give Hamilton Jordan the duties and title of chief of staff. But it was too late, and Jordan was the wrong person for the job. In November 1979, Iranian militants overran the U.S. embassy in Tehran, seizing 66 Americans as hostages. The 444-day hostage crisis, combined with stagflation at home, doomed Carter's reelection prospects. Only in the final year of his presidency did Carter appoint Jack Watson as chief of staff. In eight months on the job, Watson brought order and efficiency to the West Wing and mended relationships with Capitol Hill. "Jack knew what to do, knew how to get it done," said one aide. But it was too little, too late. "It was a terrible idea. It was a disastrous idea," Stuart Eizenstat later said of Carter's decision to be his own chief. "Presidents have too many things to do. They need someone to organize issues for them, to organize decisions, to bring the politics and the policy together, to have outreach to interest groups, to make sure that relations with Congress are going as smoothly as possible, to make sure the scheduling is done in the most logical way, to set priorities. That can't be done by the president himself—however smart or wise he is." Carter's experience offers perhaps the clearest lesson in White House management: even the most intelligent and well-intentioned president cannot succeed without a strong chief of staff. The presidency is simply too demanding, the issues too complex, and the political environment too treacherous for one person to manage alone. Carter's failure to recognize this reality until it was too late contributed significantly to his administration's ineffectiveness and ultimate defeat. As future presidents would learn, sometimes the most important decision a president makes is choosing who will help them make all other decisions.

Chapter 3: Baker's Renaissance: Reagan's Effective Power Structure

When Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981, he made a surprising choice for his chief of staff: James A. Baker III, a Texas lawyer who had been the campaign manager for Reagan's bitter primary rival, George H.W. Bush. Just months earlier, Baker had privately dismissed Reagan as "a grade B movie actor" who "was gonna get us in a nuclear war." Yet Reagan, understanding his own limitations, recognized he needed a Washington insider to help him govern effectively. Baker was a consummate professional who understood the levers of power in Washington. He devised a "troika" system with Edwin Meese as counselor to the president and Michael Deaver as deputy chief of staff. While Meese was technically in charge of "policy," Baker controlled its execution, information flow to and from the president, and the daily message. Baker also recruited a high-powered staff that knew its way around the White House, including David Stockman as budget director, David Gergen in communications, and Richard Darman as an expert in governmental affairs. The chief's job was to be a "javelin catcher," as Jack Watson had put it, and it did not take long for the spears to start flying. Baker clipped the wings of Secretary of State Alexander Haig when he tried to "lay down a marker" with the Soviets over Central America. Baker also fought back against "true believers" in Reagan's administration—including CIA director Bill Casey, Defense secretary Caspar Weinberger, and UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick—who viewed every compromise as capitulation. This internal struggle between pragmatists and ideologues would continue throughout Reagan's presidency, with Baker often serving as the voice of political reality. Baker's greatest strength was his ability to tell Reagan the unpleasant truth. When budget deficits soared after Reagan's historic tax cuts, Baker warned the president of the consequences of failing to act. Reagan finally acquiesced to a tax increase, saying, "OK, dammit, I'm going to do it—but it's the wrong thing to do." Baker also persuaded Reagan not to tackle Social Security reform head-on, knowing it was political suicide. "It was my view that going up to the Hill with a bill to reform Social Security was really dangerous from a political standpoint," Baker recalled. "If you touched it, you got electrocuted." After four years and two weeks—"longer than anybody else had ever held that job and not gone to jail"—Baker was exhausted from the internecine warfare with the true believers. In January 1985, he and Treasury Secretary Donald Regan agreed to swap jobs. Baker had set a modern record for longevity as chief of staff and had redefined the position. "I find myself thirty-four years after the fact saying, 'Do things the way James A. Baker III did them,'" said Mary Matalin, who served three Republican presidents. "You gotta have nerves of steel, you have to have endless energy, you gotta know how to pace yourself. But none of that would matter if your skill set doesn't complement the president's." The Baker-Reagan partnership demonstrated how a strong chief of staff could amplify a president's strengths while compensating for his weaknesses. Reagan provided the vision, the communication skills, and the broad policy direction; Baker provided the tactical expertise, the political judgment, and the management discipline to translate that vision into reality. This division of labor allowed Reagan to be "the Great Communicator" while Baker handled the messy details of governance. The result was one of the most effective presidencies of the modern era, a model that future administrations would strive to emulate but rarely match.

Chapter 4: From Order to Chaos: The Iran-Contra Turning Point

When Donald Regan became chief of staff in February 1985, the change in White House management was immediate and dramatic. The blunt-talking Irishman, an ex-chairman of Merrill Lynch, had been an effective Treasury secretary, but he was ill-suited to be chief of staff. "He was a Wall Street CEO," observed speechwriter Peggy Noonan. "Other people with egos as big as Don Regan's know to hide it, to put it aside. Don Regan couldn't do that." Regan's imperious style was reinforced by the sycophants he brought with him to the West Wing. Gone were Baker's talented lieutenants who knew the White House staff system and were unafraid to challenge their boss. In their place came what Noonan called "the mice"—second-rate staffers who "spent all their time saluting" Regan. "I had the immediate sense: This will not work," Noonan recalled. "They were just second-rate, and they didn't know what they didn't know." The new chief immediately marked his territory, vowing that "a sparrow will not land on the White House lawn without my knowing about it." But the first major crisis of Reagan's second term caught him off guard. When Reagan agreed to visit a German military cemetery at Bitburg as part of a World War II commemoration, no one realized it contained graves of SS officers. The ensuing uproar damaged Reagan politically and emotionally. Regan's relationship with Nancy Reagan, always tense, deteriorated further when he pushed for the president to return to work too quickly after cancer surgery. The first lady was also disturbed by Regan's frequent use of the president's helicopter and his tendency to act "as if he were the president." The Iran-Contra scandal, which broke in November 1986, revealed the dangers of a dysfunctional White House. Without Baker's oversight, Reagan's National Security Council had hatched a scheme to sell arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages in Lebanon, then divert the profits to the Nicaraguan Contras in violation of congressional prohibitions. The scandal threatened to end Reagan's presidency. As Nancy Reagan wrote: "If anything devious had been going on in the West Wing basement it would have come to light—and certainly to Ronnie's attention" during Baker's tenure. Regan tried to distance himself from the scandal, comparing himself to a bank president who couldn't know if a teller was "fiddling around with the books." But the Tower Commission Report concluded that he "must bear primary responsibility for the chaos that descended upon the White House." Nancy Reagan, convinced that Regan had failed to protect her husband, orchestrated his removal. The final straw came when Regan hung up the phone on the first lady. "That's not just a firing offense," James Baker observed. "That may be a hanging offense!" Howard Baker Jr., the former Senate majority leader, replaced Regan in February 1987. With his deputy Ken Duberstein, Baker brought stability and competence back to the White House. They helped Reagan recover from the Iran-Contra scandal and salvage his presidency. Under their guidance, Reagan achieved significant foreign policy successes in his final two years, including the INF Treaty with the Soviet Union, which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons. The contrast between the White House under James Baker, Donald Regan, and Howard Baker provided a stark lesson in how the chief of staff's competence directly impacts a presidency's success or failure—a lesson future administrations would do well to remember.

Chapter 5: Clinton's Learning Curve: McLarty to Panetta

When Bill Clinton entered the White House in January 1993, he brought with him a management style that was the antithesis of the disciplined Reagan operation. Clinton, brilliant but undisciplined, appointed his kindergarten friend Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty as chief of staff—a choice that reflected his preference for loyalty over Washington experience. McLarty, known as "Mack the Nice," lacked the toughness and organizational skills the position demanded. The early Clinton White House quickly descended into chaos. Meetings in the Oval Office became free-for-alls, with staffers sprawling on sofas and the floor. The president, who loved to debate policy, allowed discussions to go on for hours. His schedule was perpetually behind, as he lingered at events and schmoozed on rope lines. As Erskine Bowles, head of the Small Business Administration, observed: "It was a mess. I mean, really a total mess. People would wander in and out of the Oval Office, the president would get a little bit of information here, a little bit of information there. And so it took him more time to make worse decisions." This disorganization had serious consequences. Clinton's early presidency became defined by distractions—the gays in the military controversy, the "Travelgate" firings, and a haircut that supposedly shut down Los Angeles International Airport. Meanwhile, his signature initiatives stalled. The administration's ambitious healthcare reform plan, led by First Lady Hillary Clinton, collapsed without even coming to a vote in Congress. By the summer of 1994, even Hillary was at the end of her rope. During a meeting ostensibly called to discuss a gas tax, she delivered a brutal critique of White House management, declaring it "unacceptable and unfair to Bill." In June 1994, Clinton turned to Leon Panetta, his Office of Management and Budget director, to become his new chief of staff. Panetta, a former congressman with extensive Washington experience, initially resisted. "I'm doing a great job as director of OMB," he told Vice President Al Gore. But Clinton was persuasive: "Leon, you can be the greatest OMB director in the history of the country, but if the White House is falling apart, nobody will remember you." Panetta accepted with conditions: he needed the trust of both Clintons, the authority to reorganize the White House, and honest communication. He immediately established a chain of command and controlled access to the president. "The first order of business was obviously to make very clear that I was going to be a chief of staff that would in fact control the staff, and that if they wanted to go to the president, they would have to go through me," he explained. The results were dramatic. Under Panetta's leadership, Clinton regained his footing. When Republicans shut down the government in a budget standoff, Clinton stood firm and prevailed. He ordered NATO bombing in Bosnia that led to the Dayton Peace Accords. And he began to position himself for reelection. By the time Clinton won reelection in 1996, Panetta had transformed a chaotic White House into an effective governing operation. His successors—Erskine Bowles and John Podesta—would build on this foundation, helping Clinton survive impeachment and achieve significant policy victories despite Republican control of Congress. As Robert Reich observed: "Leon put the Clinton presidency back on track. I think the most effective chiefs are self-effacing like Leon. They know that all of their power and authority derive from the president." The evolution from McLarty to Panetta demonstrated how crucial the right chief of staff is to presidential success—a lesson Clinton learned the hard way but ultimately took to heart.

Chapter 6: Post-9/11 Governance: Expanding Executive Authority

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally transformed the American presidency and dramatically expanded executive power. George W. Bush, who had entered office with limited foreign policy experience, suddenly found himself a wartime president facing unprecedented national security challenges. His chief of staff, Andrew Card, would play a pivotal role in this transformation, famously whispering in the president's ear while he read to schoolchildren in Florida: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." In the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration rapidly reorganized around a war footing. Vice President Dick Cheney, who had served as Gerald Ford's chief of staff decades earlier, emerged as an extraordinarily powerful figure with a dark worldview shaped by the attacks. "We're going to have to go to the dark side," Cheney declared, advocating enhanced interrogation techniques, warrantless surveillance, and an aggressive military response. Card, while nominally the chief of staff, often found himself overshadowed by Cheney's influence and the forceful personalities of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell. The decision to invade Afghanistan in October 2001 enjoyed broad support and initial success in routing al-Qaeda and the Taliban. However, the subsequent pivot to Iraq proved far more controversial and consequential. Despite tenuous intelligence linking Saddam Hussein to weapons of mass destruction or terrorism, the administration built a case for war that Powell would later call "a blot on my record." Card struggled to manage the competing voices within the administration, with Cheney and Rumsfeld pushing for invasion while Powell urged caution. The Iraq War, launched in March 2003, initially appeared successful with the swift toppling of Saddam's regime. However, catastrophic post-war planning led to an insurgency that claimed thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Critical decisions, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and purging all Ba'ath Party members from government, were made with insufficient White House coordination. As Card later admitted: "I would like to have had greater recognition of how hard it is to win the peace after you've won the hard part of a battle." Beyond the wars, the Bush administration faced domestic crises that further tested its management capabilities. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 exposed serious flaws in emergency response and communications, with the enduring image of Bush flying over the devastation rather than engaging directly undermining public confidence. Card, exhausted after nearly five years as chief, stepped down in 2006, replaced by Joshua Bolten who worked to stabilize the administration in its final years. The financial crisis of 2008 presented the ultimate challenge to Bush's presidency. Facing potential economic collapse, Bush and Bolten made the difficult decision to support massive government intervention through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), despite its contradiction of conservative free-market principles. This pragmatic response helped prevent a second Great Depression but further divided the Republican Party. The post-9/11 era demonstrated how crises can fundamentally reshape presidencies and expand executive authority in ways difficult to reverse—a transformation that would have lasting implications for American democracy and the role of the chief of staff in managing an increasingly powerful executive branch.

Chapter 7: The Polarization Challenge: Obama's Management Adaptations

Barack Obama entered the White House in January 2009 facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and inheriting two ongoing wars. His campaign had promised transformational change and a new era of post-partisan politics, but he would quickly confront the realities of governing in an increasingly polarized environment. Obama's choice for his first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, reflected a pragmatic recognition of these challenges—Emanuel was a hard-charging, profane former Clinton aide and congressman known for his tactical brilliance and willingness to break china to get things done. The Obama-Emanuel partnership initially focused on economic stabilization and healthcare reform. With the economy losing 800,000 jobs monthly and financial markets in freefall, they pushed through a $787 billion stimulus package within weeks of taking office. Emanuel, drawing on his congressional experience, worked the phones relentlessly to secure votes. On healthcare, Emanuel advocated a cautious, incremental approach based on his scarring experience with the Clinton healthcare failure. Obama overruled him, insisting on comprehensive reform: "I'm not really solving the full problem I wanted to solve. I'm disappointing my political allies and they won't fight as hard." This decision led to the year-long battle to pass the Affordable Care Act, which succeeded in March 2010 without a single Republican vote. The process revealed both the administration's determination and the limits of Obama's post-partisan vision. Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, had adopted a strategy of unified opposition to Obama's agenda, calculating that any cooperation would legitimize his presidency. Emanuel's tactical skills proved valuable in navigating this environment, but the political cost was high—Democrats lost control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections. Emanuel departed in October 2010 to run for mayor of Chicago, replaced by William Daley, who struggled to find his footing in the White House. The administration's focus shifted to budget battles with the new Republican House majority, culminating in a failed attempt at a "grand bargain" on deficit reduction in 2011. These negotiations revealed the growing influence of the Tea Party movement, which rejected compromise even when Obama offered significant concessions on entitlement programs. As John Podesta observed, one house of Congress was now controlled by "a cult worthy of Jonestown." Obama's final two chiefs of staff, Jack Lew and Denis McDonough, helped the administration pivot toward executive action in the face of congressional obstruction. McDonough, described as being "like a brother" to Obama, implemented a disciplined process for developing executive orders on climate change, immigration, and other priorities. This approach yielded significant policy achievements but also fueled Republican accusations of presidential overreach. Foreign policy presented its own challenges, particularly the civil war in Syria. In August 2013, after evidence emerged that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against civilians, Obama faced intense pressure to enforce his previously declared "red line" with military strikes. After a walk around the South Lawn with McDonough, Obama made the controversial decision to seek congressional authorization rather than act unilaterally—a request Congress never granted. Critics saw this as damaging American credibility, while defenders viewed it as prudent restraint that avoided another Middle Eastern quagmire. The Obama years demonstrated how effective White House management could advance a president's agenda even amid fierce opposition, but also revealed the limits of presidential power in an era of hyperpolarization.

Summary

Throughout American history, the relationship between presidents and their chiefs of staff has been a critical but often overlooked factor in determining a presidency's success or failure. From Nixon's H.R. Haldeman, who established the modern chief of staff model, to Obama's series of chiefs navigating unprecedented polarization, we see a consistent pattern: presidents who empower strong, capable chiefs tend to succeed, while those who resist proper management structures invariably struggle. The chief of staff serves as the president's gatekeeper, honest broker, and sometimes conscience—protecting the president's time, filtering information, coordinating policy, and occasionally saying "no" to the most powerful person in the world. The lessons for leadership extend far beyond the White House. Effective leaders in any organization must recognize their limitations and empower trusted deputies to manage operations, filter information, and provide honest feedback. They must balance competing interests, maintain focus on long-term goals amid daily crises, and create systems that bring out their best qualities while compensating for their weaknesses. Perhaps most importantly, they must be willing to hear unwelcome truths from their closest advisors. As James Baker demonstrated with Ronald Reagan, and Leon Panetta with Bill Clinton, the most valuable service a chief can provide is not blind loyalty but the courage to tell a president when they are wrong—a lesson as relevant in corporate boardrooms and community organizations as it is in the West Wing of the White House.

About Author

Loading...

Chris Whipple

WHIPPLE is an acclaimed writer, journalist, documentary filmmaker, and speaker. A multiple Peabody and Emmy Award-winning producer at CBS’s 60 Minutes and ABC’s Primetime, he is the chief executive officer of CCWHIP Productions. Most recently, he was the executive producer and writer of Showtime’s The Spymasters: CIA in the Crosshairs.

Read more