In September 2018, an anonymous op-ed titled "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" was published in The New York Times, immediately sparking widespread public debate and outrage from then-President Donald Trump. This piece, penned by an individual identified only as "Anonymous," claimed to be from a senior administration official who, along with many colleagues, was actively working to thwart what they perceived as the president's
"worst inclinations." The editorial board of The New York Times confirmed they knew the author's identity but granted anonymity to protect the individual from potential reprisal, a decision that was unusual given the rarity of anonymously written pieces in the publication.
The op-ed's central premise was that the author and other officials were "working diligently" to block directives they believed would be detrimental to the country. The author characterized the president's decision-making as lacking "discernible first principles" and being driven by "amorality." While expressing support for traditional Republican Party platforms, such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the author strongly disagreed with the foreign policy of the first Trump administration, particularly taking pride in efforts to shift policy regarding Russia. The editorial page editor summarized the column's perspective as that of a conservative who felt that working within the administration, despite compromising some principles, ultimately served the country by achieving policy objectives while resisting the president's more problematic impulses.
The Content and Its Controversial Claims
The anonymous author explicitly stated that their actions were not the work of a "deep state" conspiracy, but rather the efforts of a "steady state." This distinction aimed to differentiate their internal resistance from a shadowy, unelected bureaucracy. The op-ed described President Trump's decision-making as uninformed and irresponsible, asserting that many within the administration deliberately undermined his suggestions and orders for the good of the nation. This portrayal painted a picture of an administration in internal turmoil, with officials actively counteracting the president's agenda.
The claims made in the op-ed were significant, suggesting a widespread internal effort to mitigate the perceived negative impacts of the president's leadership. The author's assertion of "amorality" and lack of guiding principles in Trump's decision-making was a direct and severe criticism from within his own government. The piece highlighted a tension between the president's stated goals and the actions of some of his appointees, particularly concerning foreign policy and national security.
The Quest for Identity and Presidential Outrage
The publication of the op-ed led to intense speculation about the author's identity. The New York Times clarified that it was a single author, not a group, and that the text was only lightly edited to preserve the author's voice, not to obscure their identity. They defined "senior administration official" as a position in the "upper echelon of an administration." The newspaper's editorial page editor, op-ed editor, and publisher were aware of the author's identity, and the agreement with the author did not prevent the news department from investigating.
President Trump reacted with outrage, calling for an investigation to determine the author. Senator Rand Paul even suggested polygraph examinations for administration members, and reports indicated the administration considered such tests and sworn affidavits. The Justice Department was asked to investigate, though it could only do so if classified information had been publicized. Over thirty administration officials, including the eventual author, publicly denied their involvement, fueling the mystery and public fascination. Theories about the author's identity often focused on specific word choices in the essay, such as "steady state," "lodestar," and "first principles," attempting to match them to known speech patterns of officials.
The Revelation of Miles Taylor
More than two years after the op-ed's initial publication, in October 2020, Miles Taylor publicly revealed himself as "Anonymous." Taylor, a former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, had also published a book in 2019, again anonymously, titled *A Warning*. This book, a follow-up to the op-ed, further detailed his criticisms of the Trump administration. Taylor's decision to come forward coincided with his campaigning against Trump's reelection, marking a significant moment in the ongoing political discourse surrounding the former president.
His revelation brought an end to the intense speculation and confirmed the authenticity of the claims made in both the op-ed and the book. Taylor's actions, from the initial anonymous publication to his public disclosure, underscored a deep-seated concern among some former administration officials regarding the president's conduct and its implications for the country. The op-ed and subsequent book became notable examples of internal dissent within a presidential administration, drawing considerable attention to the challenges faced by those who disagreed with the president's policies and leadership style.
