The White House slammed a newspaper essay on Wednesday attributed to an anonymous administration official that criticized President Trump and suggested that aides have discussed ways to try to remove him from office.

Trump and others blasted The New York Times after the newspaper ran what it said was a column written by someone within the president's administration who called into question his judgment and vowed to block some of his wishes.

In a highly unusual situation, the author was identified only as "a senior official in the Trump administration."

The Times said revealing the author's identity would put his or her job in jeopardy. The Times declined NPR's request for an interview with an editor about its decision.

In the column, the author presents a damning assessment of the Trump presidency and suggests there is a network of officials working behind the scenes to protect the nation from Trump.

"We believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic," the author wrote.

The op-ed described Trump's leadership style as "impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

Trump responded to the op-ed in a previously scheduled White House meeting with sheriffs from across the country. He said the author is "failing" and "probably here for all the wrong reasons."

Trump responded to the op-ed in the same way the White House has been responding to the damning new book by Bob Woodward: by outlining his administration's accomplishments and touting the strength of the economy.

Trump is doing so well, in fact, that he is already confident that he'll be re-elected.

"Nobody's going to come even close to beating me in 2020, because of what we've done," Trump said.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, in a separate statement, called the anonymous author a "coward" who should resign.

The author of the column argued that the successes of the current administration on issues like deregulation and tax overhaul have happened despite the president's management style.

Calling it a "two-track" presidency, the author said Trump works on his own agenda, while others in the administration take actions they believe are in the best interest of the country.

One example was the decision to expel Russian diplomats from the United States after the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. The author said Trump was reluctant to take the action, but "his national security team knew better."

The column appeared as the White House already was fighting leaked details from the forthcoming Woodward book, Fear, that describes a dysfunctional White House in which the president is not respected by his staff and in which aides sometimes take clandestine action to keep the president from acting in ways that hurt the country.

In one example, former chief economic adviser Gary Cohn reportedly took a letter off Trump's desk to keep him from signing it because Cohn feared the consequences for the U.S. position in Asia.

Trump called Woodward's book "total fiction," and Defense Secretary James Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly have denied that they bashed the president.</s>Colleen Long and Amy Taxin, The Associated Press 

 



WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration on Thursday moved to abandon a longstanding court settlement that limits how long immigrant children can be kept locked up, proposing new regulations that would allow the government to detain families until their immigration cases are decided.

Homeland Security Department officials said that ending the so-called Flores agreement of 1997 will speed up the handling of immigration cases while also deterring people from illegally crossing the Mexican border.

The move angered immigrant rights advocates and is all but certain to trigger a court battle.

"It is sickening to see the United States government looking for ways to jail more children for longer," said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "And it's yet another example of the Trump administration's hostility toward immigrants resulting in a policy incompatible with the most basic human values."

The Flores agreement requires the government to keep children in the least restrictive setting possible and to release them generally after 20 days in detention. For decades, because of those restrictions, many parents and children caught trying to slip into the country have been released into the U.S. while their asylum requests wind their way through the courts -- a practice President Donald Trump has decried as "catch-and-release."

Such cases can drag on for years, and some immigrants stop showing up to court when it becomes clear their asylum requests are going to be denied.

The newly proposed rules would allow the government to hold families in detention until their cases are completed.

Homeland Security did not say how long it expects families to be kept locked up. But immigration officials say asylum cases involving detained families move much more quickly, taking months instead of years to resolve, in part because there are none of the delays that result when immigrants set free in the U.S. fail to show up for a hearing.

"Today, legal loopholes significantly hinder the department's ability to appropriately detain and promptly remove family units that have no legal basis to remain in the country," Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. "This rule addresses one of the primary pull factors for illegal immigration and allows the federal government to enforce immigration laws as passed by Congress."

Earlier this summer, a federal judge in California rejected a request by the administration to modify Flores to allow for longer family detention. Administration officials say they have the authority to terminate the agreement, but that is likely to be tested in court.

Peter Schey, an attorney representing detained immigrant children under the settlement and president of the Center for Human Rights and constitutional Law, said he will oppose any effort to end Flores unless the government proposes acceptable regulations for the safe and humane treatment of youngsters.

"Refugee children should not be made to suffer inhumane treatment and prolonged and unnecessary detention just to satisfy President Trump's zero-tolerance approach to refugees seeking safety in the United States from the violence and lawlessness spreading throughout Central America," Schey said.

The Flores agreement became an issue last spring when the Trump administration adopted a policy of prosecuting anyone caught crossing illegally. More than 2,900 children were separated from their parents, prompting international outrage.

Trump eventually backed down and stopped the separation of families. A federal judge ordered parents and children reunified; the government has said it has done so in as many cases as it could. But hundreds of parents were deported without their children, while others had criminal records or were not parents as they claimed to be, officials said.

Because under Flores children cannot be kept in criminal custody with their parents or held for an extended period in immigration detention, the administration has limited options when dealing with families.

The government operates three family detention centres, and they are mostly at capacity. Homeland Security and the Pentagon have been working to line up as many as 12,000 beds for family members at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. Another request for up to 20,000 beds for youngsters who arrive without parents is also pending.

The ACLU's Jadwat accused the administration of "trying to expand the trauma it is inflicting on these children in order to deter other people from coming to the country."

Rachel Prandini, staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said the erosion of Flores' protections would subject children to worsening conditions.

"The Trump administration's decision to exacerbate the suffering of kids, by imposing the cruel policy of family separation earlier this summer and now with this rule change to vastly expand detention of children, is horrifying," she said.

The regulations will be published in the Federal Register and will be subject to a 60-day public comment period starting Friday.</s>WASHINGTON (AP) - The Trump administration on Thursday moved to abandon a longstanding court settlement that limits how long immigrant children can be kept locked up, proposing new regulations that would allow the government to detain families until their immigration cases are decided.

 

 Homeland Security Department officials said that ending the so-called Flores agreement of 1997 will speed up the handling of immigration cases while also deterring people from illegally crossing the Mexican border.

 

 The move angered immigrant rights advocates and is all but certain to trigger a court battle.

 

 "It is sickening to see the United States government looking for ways to jail more children for longer," said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "And it's yet another example of the Trump administration's hostility toward immigrants resulting in a policy incompatible with the most basic human values."

 

 The Flores agreement requires the government to keep children in the least restrictive setting possible and to release them generally after 20 days in detention. For decades, because of those restrictions, many parents and children caught trying to slip into the country have been released into the U.S. while their asylum requests wind their way through the courts - a practice President Donald Trump has decried as "catch-and-release."

 

 Such cases can drag on for years, and some immigrants stop showing up to court when it becomes clear their asylum requests are going to be denied.

 

 The newly proposed rules would allow the government to hold families in detention until their cases are completed.

 

 Homeland Security did not say how long it expects families to be kept locked up. But immigration officials say asylum cases involving detained families move much more quickly, taking months instead of years to resolve, in part because there are none of the delays that result when immigrants set free in the U.S. fail to show up for a hearing.

 

 "Today, legal loopholes significantly hinder the department's ability to appropriately detain and promptly remove family units that have no legal basis to remain in the country," Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. "This rule addresses one of the primary pull factors for illegal immigration and allows the federal government to enforce immigration laws as passed by Congress."

 

 Earlier this summer, a federal judge in California rejected a request by the administration to modify Flores to allow for longer family detention. Administration officials say they have the authority to terminate the agreement, but that is likely to be tested in court.

 

 Peter Schey, an attorney representing detained immigrant children under the settlement and president of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, said he will oppose any effort to end Flores unless the government proposes acceptable regulations for the safe and humane treatment of youngsters.

 

 "Refugee children should not be made to suffer inhumane treatment and prolonged and unnecessary detention just to satisfy President Trump's zero-tolerance approach to refugees seeking safety in the United States from the violence and lawlessness spreading throughout Central America," Schey said.

 

 The Flores agreement became an issue last spring when the Trump administration adopted a policy of prosecuting anyone caught crossing illegally. More than 2,900 children were separated from their parents, prompting international outrage.

 

 Trump eventually backed down and stopped the separation of families. A federal judge ordered parents and children reunified; the government has said it has done so in as many cases as it could. But hundreds of parents were deported without their children, while others had criminal records or were not parents as they claimed to be, officials said.

 

 Because under Flores children cannot be kept in criminal custody with their parents or held for an extended period in immigration detention, the administration has limited options when dealing with families.

 

 The government operates three family detention centers, and they are mostly at capacity. Homeland Security and the Pentagon have been working to line up as many as 12,000 beds for family members at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. Another request for up to 20,000 beds for youngsters who arrive without parents is also pending.

 

 The ACLU's Jadwat accused the administration of "trying to expand the trauma it is inflicting on these children in order to deter other people from coming to the country."

 

 Rachel Prandini, staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said the erosion of Flores' protections would subject children to worsening conditions.

 

 "The Trump administration's decision to exacerbate the suffering of kids, by imposing the cruel policy of family separation earlier this summer and now with this rule change to vastly expand detention of children, is horrifying," she said.

 

 The regulations will be published in the Federal Register and will be subject to a 60-day public comment period starting Friday.

 

 ___

 

 Taxin reported from Santa Ana, Calif.

(Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)</s>The Trump administration is taking steps to indefinitely detain undocumented families that arrive at the border seeking asylum rather than releasing them into the community while their immigration cases are pending.

Under proposed regulations to be filed Friday, the Trump administration will seek to terminate a decades-old legal settlement known as the Flores agreement as part of the administration's continuing effort to deter thousands of undocumented families arriving at the border, the majority of them from Central American countries and regions of Mexico plagued by high levels of poverty, gang and drug cartel violence.

The proposed regulations, however, drew immediate condemnation from some Democrats and immigrant advocates who view the Trump administration's efforts to terminate the Flores settlement as an attack on the human rights of desperate migrant families seeking asylum in the United States.

The Flores agreement, reached in 1997, was initially intended to provide humanitarian protections to undocumented minors who arrive at the border unaccompanied by parents. It sets limits on how long the federal government can detain unaccompanied minors and spells out the conditions under which they must be held.

In 2015, a federal judge in California ruled that the Flores settlement also applies to undocumented children who arrive at the border with their parents.

As a result, federal authorities cannot hold undocumented families in immigration detention facilities for more than 20 days and, under current practice, they are typically released while their immigration cases are pending, a process that can take several years.

MORE: Without legal representation, migrants face long odds on immigration, asylum claims

The Trump administration has characterized the Flores agreement as a "loophole" and argues that releasing undocumented families encourages more Central American families to make the dangerous journey through Mexico, often with the help of smugglers, under the hope that once they reach the U.S. border they will be allowed to settle permanently in this country.

The Trump administration vowed to seek to replace the Flores agreement with new regulations after being forced to back off a "zero-tolerance policy" this summer that criminally prosecuted anyone caught crossing the border illegally, including parents arriving with children.

Nearly 3,000 children were separated from their parents as a result of the policy, drawing intense criticism and a global outcry. The Trump administration, however, blamed the Flores agreement for the separation of families, arguing that since children couldn’t be held in criminal custody with their parents, they had to be taken away and sent to shelters typically used only to house unaccompanied minors.

In proposed regulations to be filed Friday, the Trump administration is seeking to terminate the Flores agreement and replace it with a new system that would let the government detain families for longer periods of time while their immigration cases are pending. The Trump administration maintains that the proposed regulations would still provide the same humanitarian protections to detained minors as under the Flores settlement.

MORE: Respite centers for migrants preparing for possibility of indefinite detention

“Today, legal loopholes significantly hinder the department’s ability to appropriately detain and promptly remove family units that have no legal basis to remain in the country,” Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said, according to the Associated Press. “This rule addresses one of the primary pull factors for illegal immigration and allows the federal government to enforce immigration laws as passed by Congress.”

The proposed regulations, however, are already being denounced by some Democrats and immigrant advocates and likely will be challenged in court.

U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee rejected a request by administration lawyers this summer to allow for longer family detention.

“The Flores Settlement is not a loophole," U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., said in a statement.

The Flores agreement, he said, was the result of over a decade of litigation aimed at "protecting children from prison-like conditions" and the proposed regulations shows the Trump administration is "is doubling down on indefinite detention of immigrant children and families, a cruel and inhumane policy."

“Indefinite detention of mothers and children is not the solution to the trauma caused by family separation of families legitimately seeking asylum," Menendez added. "The harm caused by such a policy is in many cases irreparable. This does not comport with our values and is among the most shameful of this administration’s actions.

Michelle Brane, director of migrant rights and justice program at the Women's Refugee Commission, said the proposed regulations are an attempt to "gut basic standards" on the conditions for detaining immigrant children while in federal custody.

"The Trump administration has been whittling away at the basic rights of women and children since they came into office," Brane said. "Efforts to weaken or eliminate basic child protection standards by calling them loopholes and eliminating their obligations for the basic care of children is just another example of this administration's abdication of human rights."

The Associated Press contributed to this story.
• None Reunited or deported? Mother in ICE detention faces the inevitable
• None Trump administration releases plan to reunite migrant children with parents in mass detention center</s>Pushing back against explosive reports his own administration is conspiring against him, U.S. President Donald Trump lashed out against the anonymous senior official who wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times, claiming to be part of a "resistance" working "from within" to thwart the commander-in-chief's most dangerous impulses.

Washington was consumed by a wild guessing game as to the identity of the author, and swift denials of involvement in the op-ed came Thursday from top administration officials, including the office of Vice-President Mike Pence, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Trump himself was furious, tweeting Thursday morning:

The Deep State and the Left, and their vehicle, the Fake News Media, are going Crazy - & they don’t know what to do. The Economy is booming like never before, Jobs are at Historic Highs, soon TWO Supreme Court Justices & maybe Declassification to find Additional Corruption. Wow! —@realDonaldTrump

On Wednesday night, Trump tweeted a demand that if "the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!" White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called on the "coward" who wrote the piece to "do the right thing and resign."

White House officials did not immediately respond to a request to elaborate on Trump's call for the writer to be turned over to the government or the unsupported national security ground of his demand.

To some, the ultimatum appeared to play into the very concerns about the president's impulses raised by the essay's author. Trump has demanded that aides identify the leaker, according to two people familiar with the matter, though it was not yet clear how they might go about doing so. The two were not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

A House of Cards-style plot twist in an already over-the-top administration, Trump allies and political insiders scrambled to unmask the writer.

The authorship question lingered Thursday, even as many senior officials were quick to distances themselves from the piece.

What are senior administration officials saying about the op-ed? Vice-President Mike Pence: The vice-president called the op-ed "disgraceful" and said anyone who would write an anonymous editorial "smearing" the president should resign. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: Pompeo, on a working visit to India, denied writing the anonymous opinion piece, saying, "It's not mine." He accused the media of trying to undermine the Trump administration and said he found that "incredibly disturbing." Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats: Coats issued a statement saying the speculation that he or his deputy are "patently false. We did not." Defence Secretary James Mattis: According to a Reuters report, Pentagon spokesperson Dana White said Mattis didn't write the piece. Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Sessions himself hasn't made a public statement about the op-ed, but a CNN report says a Justice Department official told their team the attorney general isn't the author. White House counsel Don McGahn: Speaking outside the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, McGahn denied he was the author. They aren't the only top officials denying any link to the piece. Many top officials, including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Housing Secretary Ben Carson, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said they aren't the anonymous author. Many lower profile administration officials also issued denials.

The author — claiming to be part of the "resistance" to Trump, "working diligently from within" his administration — says "many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

"It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room," the author continued. "We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when Donald Trump won't."

The text of the op-ed was pulled apart for clues: The writer is identified as an "administration official" — does that mean a person who works outside the White House? The references to Russia and the late Sen. John McCain — do they suggest someone working in national security? Does the writing style sound like someone who worked at a think tank?

In a tweet, the Times used the pronoun "he" to refer to the writer; does that rule out all women?

In Opinion<br><br>In an anonymous Op-Ed, a senior Trump administration official says he and others are working ​to frustrate the president’s “misguided impulses.” <a href="https://t.co/qW1IoM3AYY">https://t.co/qW1IoM3AYY</a> <a href="https://t.co/rCHnQfcRjG">pic.twitter.com/rCHnQfcRjG</a> —@nytimes

The newspaper later said that tweet had been "drafted by someone who is not aware of the author's identity, including the gender, so the use of 'he' was an error."

Hotly debated on Twitter was the author's use of the word "lodestar," which pops up frequently in speeches by Vice-President Mike Pence. Could the anonymous figure be someone in Pence's orbit? Others argued that the word "lodestar" could have been included to throw people off.

U.S. President Donald Trump criticizes The New York Times for publishing an anonymous editorial purportedly by a member of his administration. 1:40

Trump, appearing at an unrelated event Wednesday at the White House, lashed out at the Times for publishing the op-ed.

"They don't like Donald Trump and I don't like them," he said of the newspaper. The op-ed pages of the newspaper are managed separately from its news department.

Demand for writer to resign

In a blistering statement, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused the author of choosing to "deceive" the president by remaining in the administration.

"He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people," she said. "The coward should do the right thing and resign."

Sanders also called on the Times to "issue an apology" for publishing the piece, calling it "pathetic, reckless and selfish."

Use of the word 'lodestar' in the article — a term often used by Mike Pence — has fuelled speculation that the author could be close to the U.S. vice-president. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

The anonymous author wrote in the Times that where Trump has had successes, they have come "despite — not because of — the president's leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

The assertions in the column were largely in line with complaints about Trump's behaviour that have repeatedly been raised by various administration officials, often speaking on condition of anonymity. And they were published a day after the release of details from an explosive new book by longtime journalist Bob Woodward that laid bare concerns among the highest echelon of Trump aides about the president's judgment.

The writer says Trump aides are aware of the president's faults and "we are trying to do what's right even when Donald Trump won't."

The writer also alleges "there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment" because of the "instability" witnessed in the president. That amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows for the transfer of power to the vice-president if the president is deemed "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

"This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady state," the writer adds.</s>There appears to be no shortage of leakers in the chaotic and factionalized Trump administration, but whoever wrote the recently published anonymous op-ed in The New York Times definitely took the cake.

The op-ed, titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” was purportedly written by a senior official from within the White House and discussed how some members of the administration – including the author – were working “diligently” to save the country from President Trump’s bad decisions and disastrous policies.

“Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [Trump’s] agenda and his worst inclinations,” it read. “I would know. I am one of them.”

The author also clarified they are not part of the so-called “Resistance” against the commander-in-chief.

“To be clear, ours is not the popular ‘resistance’ of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous,” the op-ed continued. “But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”

Towards the end of the piece that detailed the president’s “erratic behavior,” his “impulsiveness” and “repetitive rants,” the anonymous writer also talked about the possibility removing Trump from the office.

“Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over,” they wrote. “The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.”

Now, given that the New York Times explained that it knows the identity of the author and refrained from revealing it to protect the said person’s job, there was the usage of one particular word with in the op-ed that led many to believe the culprit behind the article is none other than Trump’s second-in-command, Vice President Mike Pence.

“We may no longer have Senator [John] McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue,” the senior White House official wrote. “Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.”

As many people were quick to point out, Pence has a history of using the term “lodestar.”

Of course, there were receipts:

However, many believe someone used the word deliberately to frame Pence.

If that’s the case, here are a few more senior Trump officials who could have written the scathing op-ed.

Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway is infamous for her ability to spin tales out of thin air when it comes to defending Trump. However, according to “The Trump White House: Changing the Rules of the Game” author Ronald Kessler, Conway is perhaps the biggest leaker with in the White House.

White House counsel and assistant to the president, Don McGahn, who will be leaving his position in fall is also a possible contender. He has a history of having disagreements with Trump and has reportedly cooperated with special counsel Robert Mueller and could be a potential witness in the ongoing investigation into whether the commander-in-chief obstructed justice.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been on the receiving end of Trump’s angry rants and temper tantrums ever since he recused himself from the Mueller probe. Not only has the president publicly insulted Sessions, he has also said he wouldn’t have picked the Alabama Republican for the job had he know he would recuse himself.

So, it won’t be far-fetched to assume Sessions could have written the New York Times op-ed.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s relationship with Trump has been off-and-on in terms of how well they treat each other. In the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, for instance, Trump tweeted out his disappointment in Ryan on several occasions, especially since the speaker had tried to distance himself from the GOP nominee after leaked audio of him confessing to sexual abuse was made public.

Earlier this year, Ryan told the New York Times Magazine Trump frequently called him a “boy scout.” Although the president was using the term in a disparaging way, Ryan said he thought he was being praised.

Despite being the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats doesn’t appear to have much of a say in Trump’s decisions.

For instance, Coats was in the middle of a live interview when he was told about Trump’s decision to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to the White House – and his reaction said it all.

“Say that again,” Coats asked hesitantly after NBC News' Andrea Mitchell broke the news. “Did I hear you, did I hear you?” he added when the host began to repeat her statement, drawing laughter from the crowd.

When Mitchell confirmed Coats had indeed heard her correctly, he responded with, “OK. That's gonna be special.”

Rumors of tension between President Donald Trump and Chief of Staff John Kelly have been making rounds for several months. Despite several reports, the White House has denied reports the president is looking for a replacement for Kelly. However, it is important to mention the two have reportedly clashed on prominent issues several times.

To put it honestly, Kelly also doesn’t seem to be a fan of Trump’s penchant for insulting world leaders.

Like most people in the list, Trump is reportedly not on good terms with his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, either. As for the president’s eldest daughter and favorite child Ivanka, it might sound a little improbable but she does have a history of disagreeing with her father on core issues – even if she does so in a rather subtle manner.

For instance, she slammed the white supremacists who staged the deadly rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, after her father failed to do so. The senior White House adviser also said she was sad about the Trump administration policy that separated thousands of families on the U.S.-Mexico border earlier this year.

Other honorable mentions include, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis, presidential adviser Fiona Hill and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.</s>BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images There's a secret "resistance" effort inside President Donald Trump's administration, an anonymous op-ed in The New York Times claimed Wednesday.

High-level officials under President Donald Trump are actively working to combat his controversial policies and erratic behavior, according to a scathing New York Times op-ed published Wednesday and written by an author identified only as “a senior official in the Trump administration.”

The op-ed, titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” paints a chaotic picture of life in the White House, including constantly undermining the president’s reckless demands in order to maintain the country’s safety and prosperity.

“The dilemma — which [Trump] does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations,” the author wrote. “I would know. I am one of them.”

At one point, the author writes, officials considered invoking the 25th Amendment ― which allows a president to be removed from office in the event of death, removal, resignation or incapacitation.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t. Anonymous senior official in the Trump administration

The op-ed speaks favorably of Trump’s “effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military” policy, but the author says officials know Trump’s impulses are rooted in anti-trade and anti-democratic beliefs. Many of Trump’s dangerous plans have been shot down or contained by officials who belong to the so-called resistance in his administration, according to the author.

“From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims,” reads the op-ed.

“It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room,” the author writes. “We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.”

The official points to Trump’s reluctance to punish Russia for poisoning a former spy in Britain. He grew angry when officials demanded Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spies be expelled from the U.S. and further sanctions be imposed on Russia, but Trump’s national security team made the response happen.</s>WASHINGTON – A senior administration official penned an anonymous essay in The New York Times on Wednesday describing President Donald Trump as erratic and amoral and said his aides were actively working to thwart him on decisions that are detrimental to the nation.

"It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t," the unnamed official wrote.

The piece, entitled "I am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration," was written by a senior official in the Trump administration, according to the Times. The newspaper said it was not disclosing the identity of the author because doing so would jeopardize that person's job.

More than an hour after the essay was posted, Trump spoke about it in the White House East Room where he attacked the New York Times and the unnamed official.

"Can you believe it? Anonymous -- meaning gutless," Trump told reporters during an event with sheriffs from across the nation.

He added people don't like him because his agenda doesn't always match what others want.

“Nobody has ever done more in less than a two year period than what we’ve done,” Trump said.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders slammed the essay as "pathetic, reckless, and selfish" and said the official who wrote it should resign.

"This is a new low for the so-called 'paper of record,' and it should issue an apology," she said.

More: Eight things to know about the 25th Amendment

The piece chronicled the work of the anonymous writer, along with other "senior officials" in the administration, who dub themselves part of a "quiet resistance" to the president to "frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

"But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic," the piece said. "That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

The timing of the piece came a day after excerpts were published from a forthcoming book by veteran journalist Bob Woodward that depicted chaos inside the White House and efforts by aides to prevent the president from taking actions they viewed as irresponsible. The book, "Fear: Trump in the White House," included details of Trump's top aides removing documents from the president's desk or hiding paperwork.

The official said there had been whispers within the Cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would allow the vice president to take over if a commander in chief becomes disabled.

"But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis," the official wrote. "So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until – one way or another – it’s over."

The senior official described Trump as "impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

"The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House," the author wrote. "Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful."</s>WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior administration official penned an anonymous essay in The New York Times on Wednesday describing President Donald Trump as erratic and amoral and said his aides were actively working to thwart him on decisions that are detrimental to the nation.

"It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t," the unnamed official wrote.

The piece, entitled "I am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration," was written by a senior official in the Trump administration, according to the Times. The newspaper said it was not disclosing the identity of the author because doing so would jeopardize that person's job.

The White House did not immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment on the piece, but White House press secretary Sarah Sanders and other aides were huddling in her office to examine the story.

Reporters gathered at the White House in a frenzy in hopes of getting some reaction to the publication of the essay.

The piece chronicles the work of the anonymous writer, along with other "senior officials" in the administration, who dub themselves part of a "quiet resistance" to the president to "frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

"But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic," the piece states. "That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

The timing of the piece came a day after excerpts were published from a forthcoming book by veteran journalist Bob Woodward that depicted chaos inside the White House and efforts by aides to prevent the president from taking actions they viewed as irresponsible. The book, "Fear: Trump in the White House," included details of Trump's top aides removing documents from the president's desk or hiding paperwork.

The official said there had been whispers within the Cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would allow the vice president to take over if a commander in chief becomes disabled.

"But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis," the official wrote. "So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until – one way or another – it’s over."

The senior official described Trump as "impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

"The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House," the author wrote. "Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful."</s>WASHINGTON, Sept 6 — Top members of Donald Trump’s administration are so alarmed by the president’s “erratic” and “amoral” behavior that they are actively working to undermine him, an anonymous senior official wrote in The New York Times yesterday.

Trump immediately slammed as “gutless” the unsigned op-ed — published a day after excerpts from bombshell book claiming that White House staff were constantly battling to rein in the president’s worst impulses.

In the article entitled I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration, the official stressed they were committed to the Republican agenda, and did not side with opposition Democrats.

But, the official wrote, “we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”

“Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations,” the official wrote.

“I would know. I am one of them.”

The official described a “two-track” presidency in which Trump says one thing and his staff consciously does another, for example with regard to what he called Trump’s “preference for autocrats and dictators.”

Staff actively worked to insulate themselves from Trump’s “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective” leadership style, the writer said.

“The root of the problem is the president’s amorality,” the official said.

“That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.”

Trump lashed out at the author of the anonymous piece — and at the “dishonest” Times.

“They don’t like Donald Trump and I don’t like them,” Trump said.

“So if the failing New York Times has an anonymous editorial, can you believe it, anonymous — meaning gutless — a gutless editorial — we’re doing a a great job.”

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders branded the piece “pathetic, reckless, and selfish” and condemned the Times for publishing it.

“Nearly 62 million people voted for President Donald J. Trump in 2016,” said Sanders.

“None of them voted for a gutless, anonymous source to the failing New York Times.”

The unsigned piece appeared to reinforce the claims made in the new book by investigative journalist Bob Woodward, which describes a virtual cabal of high-minded White House and cabinet officials scheming to prevent Trump from taking decisions damaging to the US economy and national security.

The White House has condemned Woodward’s book as “fabricated stories,” and Trump called it “a work of fiction.”

But the Times op-ed suggests that dissent and resistance inside Trump’s White House are even deeper than Woodward described.

The official said that early on in the administration, some officials quietly discussed invoking the 25th amendment of the US Constitution, which allows the removal of a president judged unable to perform his duties.

“But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.”

The New York Times acknowledged the extraordinary step of publishing such an anonymous op-ed, saying it did so at the request of the author whose identity is known to the paper.

“We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers,” it wrote. — AFP
The New York Times publishes an editorial written by an anonymous senior administration official in the Trump administration which criticizes U.S. President Donald Trump and claims unnamed administration aides and officials, in efforts to promote national stability, conspired against the president.