The big news of the day turned out not to be the Brett Kavanaugh hearings but rather an anonymous op-ed published in The New York Times by a writer who claimed to be part of “the resistance” inside the Trump administration, working to “thwart parts of his agenda.”
Plenty of people are tossing big names around, but the author of the piece is identified by The Times only as “a senior official in the Trump administration.” The Washington Post’s David Nakamura thought it would be a good time to remind people just how many “senior administration officials” there are out there.
Most DC journalists, incl. me, have quoted a "senior administration official" in stories. But I feel as though an op-ed like this should have an editor's note explaining what an SAO is. There are 1,212 Senate-confirmed positions, incl. 640 'key' jobs https://t.co/9WNva10ZOr https://t.co/CySe7znom1
— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) September 5, 2018
So the author could be one of more than a thousand “senior officials.”
Also feel like an editor's note could narrow the pool somewhat without giving away too many identifying characteristics. is the person in the 1,212 or the 640; work in WH/NSC or in a federal agencies, on domestic or foreign affairs, etc…
— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) September 5, 2018
I wonder if the Times would have granted anonymity for a piece like this for a deputy assistant secretary, though, or whether they'd only do that for someone who really IS senior.
— Mike Madden (@MikeMadden) September 5, 2018
Recommended
Yeah well that's something they could explain to help the reader.
— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) September 5, 2018
How big do you think readers imagine the pool to be when they see the term in a story?
— Dave Marino-Nachison (@marinonachison) September 5, 2018
West Wing
— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) September 5, 2018
Pretty much.
I think non-journalists would be shocked at how low on an organizational chart you can go and still be called a “senior admin official” fwiw https://t.co/5gbw5D6t6d
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 5, 2018
Many people are now referring to a “senior White House official.” The op-ed identifies the author as a “senior administration official.” Seems like an important difference.
— Chuck Dryden (@Chuck_Dryden) September 5, 2018
Wasn't Omarosa one? That's pretty low.
— DSM (@miechulz) September 5, 2018
Actually, she really was a senior official, to Trump’s shame
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 5, 2018
In any case, we’re eventually going to find out who wrote it — New York Times reporters might even spill the beans — and we’re willing to bet the author is not quite as senior as we’ve been led to believe.
It will attract a billion eyeballs and fuel weeks of breathless speculation (if you think it’s Pence, btw, I want what you’re smoking), but greatest value is for the author who’s now guaranteed a book/cable deal after their “I am Ironman” moment.
— Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) September 5, 2018
The inevitable "I am Ironman" reveal is why James Bennet better have chosen somebody who is very senior and has a lot of direct access to Trump. https://t.co/CDMdUKMwnY
— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) September 5, 2018
More than that, he better be a household name.
— rogercee23 (@rogercee23) September 5, 2018
The op-ed was written by some rando deputy whom no one would care about
— Allahpundit (@allahpundit) September 5, 2018
Deputy assistant secretary of commerce. https://t.co/87SYjD2ARf
— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) September 5, 2018
And apart from the question of who wrote it, is why?
So the goal of this NYT op-ed was what? To lead to a full Captain Queeg in search of the strawberries moment for Trump?
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 5, 2018
One weird thing about this anon op-ed: If you're arguing your goal at WH is to calm Trump down, doesn't publishing this op-ed (particularly in NYT) accomplish the exact opposite?
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) September 5, 2018
It seems like the person's goal is to get outed and secure a very generous advance on a book deal. https://t.co/rY2alOZIqp
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 5, 2018
It does ring of someone who’s on his way out the door, either by choice or not.
https://twitter.com/ebruenig/status/1037436598441390080
Whatever one’s political leanings, this has to be one of the strangest political op-eds ever written. https://t.co/BfSZo7BHdS
— Patrick Chovanec (@prchovanec) September 5, 2018
My sense is that it treads into unconstitutional ground. The President was elected. If there’s something we should know about him, say it and let Americans decide what to do. But just subverting him, behind the scenes? Even as one of his strongest critics, this is troubling.
— Patrick Chovanec (@prchovanec) September 5, 2018
An anonymous voice saying “We have the captain tied up in his cabin, for his own good. But don’t worry, we’re in control of the ship of state.” This is the opposite of reassuring.
— Patrick Chovanec (@prchovanec) September 5, 2018
I’m grasping for a historical analogy here. The closest I can think of is Wilson after his stroke.
— Patrick Chovanec (@prchovanec) September 5, 2018
This is basically "Weekend at Bernie's" or "Dave." Instead of removing a corrupt POTUS, the unelected insiders have decided to run things themselves.
— Steger (@stegermeister) September 5, 2018
Exactly – We have an out of control shadow WH filled with people NO ONE in this country voted for. We ALL (BOTH DAMN SIDES) should be concerned, worried & pissed off as hell. Not sure wtf is worse the spawn or these crazy fools who claim they are "saving the country". SMFH
— Beach Chick Willow (@willow_chick) September 5, 2018
We’d better be impressed when the author is eventually revealed, New York Times.
Related:
Jim Geraghty offers a preview of tomorrow's rebuttal of that anonymous NYT op-ed https://t.co/0Oo2xwmyNP
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 5, 2018
Join the conversation as a VIP Member