logo
Bill Clinton reveals key White House details in murderous new political thriller

Bill Clinton reveals key White House details in murderous new political thriller

USA Today03-06-2025

Bill Clinton reveals key White House details in murderous new political thriller
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Bill Clinton and James Patterson talk new political thriller book
Bill Clinton and James Patterson release "The First Gentleman," using Clinton's White House experience to shape their third political thriller.
WHITE PLAINS, NY – Most former presidents write memoirs after they leave the White House. Former President Bill Clinton has been there, done that. First on his literary agenda now? Writing political thrillers.
Clinton is a thriller reader himself, but more than that he just really wanted a chance to work with bestselling author James Patterson. Their third novel, "The First Gentleman" is out now from Little, Brown and Company.
Sitting down for an interview with USA TODAY, the prolific pair catch up like a couple of old friends – Clinton shares a story of tourists he spotted reading his wife's book while in Korea and gives Patterson the name of a new author to check out.
"He reads everything," Patterson tells me. Both love S.A. Cosby, Michael Connelly and Lee Child.
In their latest novel, the fictional Madame President Wright's husband is on trial for murder, a potential crime uncovered by journalist couple Brea and Garrett. Not only is it harmful to the White House image for the first gentleman and former Patriots player to be accused of murder, but it threatens to upend the carefully crafted economic "Grand Bargain" the president is nearly ready to announce. It's a twisty thriller with plenty of inside jobs, political sabotage and many, many deaths.
Clinton and Patterson take us inside their writing process, revealing how they weave details pulled from real life with fictional characters to create the next big nail-biter.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Question: How has your collaboration changed over three books?
Patterson: I don't think it's changed. Other than, I will say, I think this turned out really, really well. If somebody's looking to read a book with really good characters and great story or if they want to find out sort of how Washington really works, I think this is really cool for either one of those kinds of people. But initially we had, it was a little bit of a problem in terms of getting the characters real. They weren't working and we just kept going at it.
Clinton: We had this just gut-wrenching conversation because in the beginning, we were excited – what would it be like to write a book that was from the point of view of the first gentleman, the first woman president's husband? It had all kinds of fascinating ramifications. But then something happened while we were doing it and I realized we hadn't created anybody you could like.
Patterson: We have these two (reporters) and they weren't working, either, in the beginning. When people think of my writing, they go "short chapters," but the whole thing is character. Alex Cross is, in my opinion, a great character. Lindsay Boxer is a really good character. The characters in "First Gentleman," there are four of them, are really good characters, and that's the key. Obviously (Clinton) was key in terms of making those characters work, especially in the White House.
Clinton: People (in the White House) struggle to maintain some measure of normalcy, however they define it. Even though you have to be ambitious to be elected president and disciplined to execute the job, you're still a person. We all react differently to different things that happen. So we try to capture that.
Patterson: The humanity. I wish we could get back to the understanding that whatever party you're with, (we are) human beings. I'll give you one quick example: Last year, the president called the house and my wife and he said, put it on (FaceTime). And there he was with his grandkids, and he was in a tiger suit with only his face showing. Human being!
Right, and in this book, all the first gentleman wants to do is go on a run with no one bothering him.
Patterson: President Clinton used to go on runs.
Clinton: I went running every morning for years. I still have the M&M's box that I was given by the head of my security detail on my 100th run when I was president. I loved it.
Patterson: Once M&M's get 20 years old you don't eat them anymore.
Are there any other signature Clinton White House details that made it into the book?
Patterson: You have a relationship with a man and a woman, and obviously, it would've been possible at one point for President Clinton to be the first gentleman.
Clinton: It's the only job I ever wanted that I didn't get.
Is that why you chose to make a female president in this book?
Clinton: I had thought a lot about, long after I left the White House and Hillary was running, and I thought about it. This character, he and his president wife, they're closer to the age Hillary and I were when we actually served. So I was thinking about, even though he was a pro football player and macho guy, he was really proud of his wife. He wanted her to succeed. He wasn't threatened by her being president, but he could be threatened by people making certain assumptions about him, like he was a dumb jock, which he's not.
Patterson: But is he a murderer?
Clinton: We keep that hanging a long time.
In the book, President Wright is trying to pass legislation to address Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. How did you come up with the "Grand Bargain"?
Clinton: I knew what the drivers of the debt are and what the politics pushing against real change are, and so I tried to think of the things we could do to get it under control that would be the most bearable, both for people and politically.
Patterson: It's a fascinating thing. How do you solve the problem with Social Security and Medicaid? And there is, you know, there's in the book, there is a solution. It's complicated, which is kind of cool. You don't hear anything (today), about, well, how do we solve these problems? I'd like to hear that right now. Yes, there is a problem.
Clinton: Medicaid pays for about 40% of all childbirth and pays for an enormous percentage of senior citizens' health care and a lot of other stuff. It's really important. So this bill that's just been presented cuts Medicaid in order to help pay for a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. In all respect, (Patterson) and I don't need a tax cut. We'd rather have people with health care. So these are choices, and unless people understand that these choices are being made, they can't know clearly whether they're against or for whatever's being proposed.
Patterson: This lays out that there is an alternative to that which makes sense and we don't have to cut things off for people who really need help.
What was it like crafting fictional presidential addresses?
Clinton: I imagined what I would say if confronted with the challenges she was confronted with. If you really want to change something, people like to hear about it in speeches and imagine it, but it almost always requires a mind numbing, detail-written piece of legislation – not always, but mostly. So, I tried to figure out how to sell it in the speech and describe how complicated the legislation would be without putting people to sleep. I found it difficult, but I think it's important, because one thing I learned the hard way is if you can't explain it, you can't sell it, and if you can't sell it and it's hard, you're going to get creamed.
The problem we describe is something like what really exists today. Except today, it's in many ways more severe. It's just that our economy has been, for the last 20 years, or now 30 years, stronger than any other one in the world.
Patterson, were there any details about the presidency or White House that Clinton added that surprised you?
Patterson: A lot of little things. I might set a scene and he'd go: "It can't happen in that room. That room is so small, there's not room for three people in that room." And anytime it pops up: "The Secret Service wouldn't act like that. They would act like this." A lot of the thriller writers that we all like, they just make stuff up. When you're working with a president, you just can't make it up, because he'll go: "No, it wouldn't work that way. Here's how it could work." One of the beauties of this book, and the three that we've done, is that it's a really good story with really good characters, but it's also authentic.
Did you have a favorite character to write?
Patterson: Favorite character for me is Brea – she just develops, she gets stronger and stronger for a lot of reasons, and there is one big twist in there, and that really propels her as a character.
Clinton: I agree with that, and one of the reasons I liked her is that she's smart and brave and good and honest, but in the beginning of the book, she thinks something that's very wrong about a big issue, and when she knows she's wrong, she turns on a dime and does the right thing. You don't see that much in Washington.
Patterson: Or in general.
Clinton: There are people that think that you never admit error. You accuse other people of doing what you're doing, and you roll along. The worst thing you can do is admit that she made a mistake. I like her because she's playing in the big leagues − her whole life is on the line, and she still does the right thing.
Patterson: We've sold this in Hollywood and ... the production companies go, "Well, maybe we should cast (First Gentleman) Cole." I'm going like, no, you better cast Brea, because Cole, he's a good character, but Brea, she's real, and Garrett, her partner, they are really key characters. And the president herself, but Cole, eh, I don't know. Not as big a character.
Who would be your dream actor to play her? (Brea, the protagonist, is Black.)
Patterson: There's so many. I mean, that's the beauty right now − one of the nice things that's happened in Hollywood, especially with Black actors, so many have been discovered. There are so many choices.
What are you excited for readers to see in this story, especially fans of your last two thrillers?
Clinton: I'm excited for them to see, first of all, that there's still room for citizen activism that can make all the difference in the world, from people who just want to do the right thing, like Brea and Garrett. Secondly, I want them to see that a president and her husband are people. No matter what's going on, she's still got to go to work every day. If she thinks (Cole) machine-gunned half a dozen people, she's still got to go to work. Nobody else can make these decisions. I want them to see how staff behaves, senior staff, and when they're honorable and when they're not, and what a difference it can make, because you can't be president unless you can trust them. You have to have some people you trust.
Clare Mulroy is USA TODAY's books reporter, where she covers buzzy releases, chats with authors and dives into the culture of reading. Find her on Instagram, subscribe to our weekly Books newsletter or tell her what you're reading at cmulroy@usatoday.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Son of CT lawmaker arrested in connection with a recent missing person complaint of a 15-year-old girl
Son of CT lawmaker arrested in connection with a recent missing person complaint of a 15-year-old girl

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Son of CT lawmaker arrested in connection with a recent missing person complaint of a 15-year-old girl

The son of a Connecticut state representative has been arrested in connection with a recent missing person complaint in West Haven, police said. The arrest comes after a Silver Alert was issued on June 21 for a 15-year-old girl who was missing from West Haven, police said. But the girl's family announced on Tuesday that she was safely on her way home thanks to the 'outpouring of help' from the private sector, along with local and federal law enforcement. The West Haven Police Department said their investigation led to the arrest of 22-year-old Christopher Aniskovich Jr. of Clinton. Aniskovich Jr. is the son of State Rep. Chris Aniskovich, who represents Connecticut's 35th District, which includes Clinton, Westbrook and Killingworth. Aniskovich Jr. was taken into custody in Clinton on a warrant without incident, police said. He has been charged with custodial interference in the first degree and interfering with an officer. 'This is a sad and upsetting day. I am disappointed in Christopher's actions, but he understands that he must now be held accountable for them. Out of respect for the people involved and the process, I will have no further comment,' Rep. Aniskovich said in a statement to the Courant. Aniskovich Jr. was held on bond and appeared in Milford Superior Court on Friday, June 27. Stephen Underwood can be reached at sunderwood@

Presidents have F---'s to give when it's about Israel's Bibi Netanyahu
Presidents have F---'s to give when it's about Israel's Bibi Netanyahu

Fox News

time6 hours ago

  • Fox News

Presidents have F---'s to give when it's about Israel's Bibi Netanyahu

What is it about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu that drives American presidents to profanity? As Iran and Israel were still exchanging salvos after President Donald Trump had declared a ceasefire, Trump complained that these two countries "had been fighting for so long they don't know what the f--- they are doing." Trump's anger came through, and the ceasefire is holding — for now. While Trump is the latest president to send profanity in Netanyahu's direction, he is far from the only one. In fact, presidents have been cursing at Netanyahu for three decades. In the 1990s, Netanyahu and President Bill Clinton had a contentious relationship. In two separate elections, 1996 and 1999, Clinton sent political aides to try and defeat Netanyahu. He succeeded the second time. In the interim, though, they had to work together, and on one visit to the White House, Clinton was annoyed with how Netanyahu comported himself at a joint press conference. Afterward, Clinton reportedly fumed to his aides, "who's the f---ing leader of the free world?," suggesting that Netanyahu had overstepped his boundaries. Due in no small part to Clinton's efforts, Netanyahu was out of office during President George W. Bush's years, but cussing came back with Netanyahu's return during President Barack Obama's time in office. Netanyahu and Obama really disliked each other, and had a number of unpleasant run-ins, including one incident where Obama left Netanyahu and his team to cool their heels in the White House while Obama went to have dinner at the residence. Then, as now, the Iranian nuclear program and the matter of the Palestinians were matters of intense debate. Obama and company felt that Netanyahu was too cowardly on both issues. A senior Obama official, who may have been Obama himself, told The Atlantic that Netanyahu was "a chickensh***." The remark sparked outrage, especially since Netanyahu had been a decorated soldier in the Israeli special forces. Netanyahu pushed back on the comment, saying in a statement that "The attack on me comes because I defend the State of Israel and despite all the attacks, I will continue to defend our country and the citizens of Israel." Trump followed Obama and, by all accounts, they had a far better relationship, punctuated by important milestones such as the moving of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the signing of the Abraham Accords peace deals between Israel and four Arab countries. But Bibi also irked Trump by calling President Joe Biden to congratulate him for his 2020 election victory. This move managed to anger both Biden, who felt that Netanyahu had waited too long to make the call, and Trump, who felt that Netanyahu had betrayed him by calling at all. Trump signaled afterward that he was done with Netanyahu, saying starkly, "f--- him." Trump has three more years in office, but it will be hard for him to break the cursing at Netanyahu record set by Biden. Multiple reports have Biden launching streams of profane invective at Netanyahu, including calling Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas "two of the biggest f---ing a--sholes in the world" ; saying that Netanyahu was "a f---ing liar," and adding, for good measure, that "Eighteen out of 19 people who work for him are f---ing liars."; and barking, "That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he's a bad guy. He's a bad f---ing guy!" Biden also was not above cursing at Netanyahu directly. When Israel killed Hezbollah's Fuad Shukur, a fiend who helped kill 241 U.S. Marines in 1983, Biden should have praised Bibi for bringing Shukur to justice. Instead, he screamed at Netanyahu over the phone, "Bibi, what the f---?" With Trump now back in office, the two men have mostly cooperated, with Trump helping to release some of the Israeli hostages from Hamas' Gaza dungeons and striking the Iranian nuclear program, which elated Netanyahu. Yet the "they don't know what the f--- they are doing" incident shows that Netanyahu has the capacity to drive even friendly U.S. presidents to profanity. The question is why. One reason is that Netanyahu, unlike American presidents, lives in a dangerous neighborhood and faces constant existential threats. While some world leaders might acquiesce in a disagreement with the American president, Bibi is more likely to push back. A second reason lies in the way Netanyahu pushes back. His method, which he absorbed from his father's mentor, the Zionist leader Zev Jabotinsky, is to reach over the heads of the presidents and directly to the American people. As the record of profanity sent in his direction suggests, this method tends to annoy presidents. It also appears to have led to a grievous and welcome blow to the Iranian nuclear program.

Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.

USA Today

time11 hours ago

  • USA Today

Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.

Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store