海角大神

White House 'resistance': act of protection, or unadvisable 'soft coup'?

After The New York Times published an anonymous opinion piece from a 鈥渟enior administration official鈥� outlining an alleged quiet resistance to President Trump among his own top advisors, the first question that rattled through Washington鈥檚 political world was, 鈥淲ho wrote it?鈥�

But perhaps the more important query, one that gradually dawned on many after gleefully chewing over possible authors, might be this: 鈥淲hat鈥檚 going on here? Are these people really doing the right thing?鈥澛�

The op-ed article by an unnamed Trump staffer asserted that a loose team of 鈥渦nsung heroes鈥� who believe Mr. Trump to be dangerously unstable are secretly working to block the president鈥檚 鈥渨orst inclinations.鈥� Combined with revelations from Bob Woodward鈥檚 upcoming book on the administration, 鈥淔ear,鈥� an extraordinary portrait聽is emerging of a president hemmed in by his own handlers, unaware when some of his orders are ignored, changed, or delayed.

On its face, the op-ed seems to be an attempt to reassure voters who may be concerned about Trump鈥檚 impulses. But the anonymity of the writer raises credibility questions. What鈥檚 the real motive? Why not go public? Won鈥檛 revealing this effort, if it truly exists, infuriate the president and defeat its purpose?聽

And if there really is an anti-Trump resistance in top levels of the administration itself, is that anti-democratic as well? After all, Trump faced the voters and was elected president under the rules established by the US Constitution. All other top officials in his administration, with the exception of Vice President Mike Pence, were not.

鈥淪oft coup鈥� is not the phrase to use to describe the current situation, says Elizabeth Saunders, an associate professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. But it鈥檚 definitely not normal pushback by presidential advisors, either.

鈥淚t鈥檚 definitely something we don鈥檛 have a name for.... The larger point is, this is not the way things are supposed to work,鈥� says Professor Saunders.

Complementary narratives

The op-ed, published Wednesday, was submitted to the Times prior to the first appearance of stories detailing similar revelations in Mr. Woodward鈥檚 upcoming book, according to editors. That means its appearance in conjunction with the publicity attracted by 鈥淔ear鈥� may be a coincidence. But if that鈥檚 the case, it鈥檚 one the author probably does not regret, as the opinion piece and the book reflect and in some cases amplify each other鈥檚 themes.聽

The author of the opinion piece says he or she shares some of Trump鈥檚 goals, and feels that in tax reform, deregulation, and military spending, the administration has not gotten enough credit for positive moves. But after that, it鈥檚 brutal, calling the president 鈥渁moral,鈥� 鈥渆rratic,鈥� and 鈥渞eckless.鈥�

鈥淢eetings with him veer off topic and off the rails,鈥� the author writes.

The piece is a little vague about what specific actions the alleged internal Trump resistance is taking to head off dangerous presidential action. But the writer does describe a 鈥渢wo-track presidency,鈥� in which Trump may communicate one policy in public, but officials pursue another offstage. The example the article uses is Russia, where the president has treated Russian president Vladimir Putin with deference, but US actions in the wake of the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain have included sanctions and diplomatic expulsions.

Why write all this anonymously? If your purpose is to affect policy and change presidential behavior, a public complaint and resignation on the part of a high official might seem more effective. Anonymity, in effect, allows the writer to position him or herself as an anti-Trumper for post administration purposes, when all can be revealed, while remaining in office for now.

After all, an anonymous outline of an inside anti-Trump effort plays right into stereotypes of the 鈥渄eep state鈥� of bureaucratic lifers who are supposedly organizing against the presidency. The author is clearly sensitive to this, saying that the efforts are the work of a 鈥渟teady state鈥� instead.聽

The problem is a sizable portion of the public, which disproportionately supports Trump, truly believes a 鈥渄eep state鈥� exists. That is the backdrop against which the present crisis occurs, making it different from past instances of alleged presidential incompetence or disability, according to University of Virginia historian Brian Balogh, co-host of the BackStory history podcast.

鈥淲hatever the intentions of the anonymous NYT op-ed writer(s), the consequence will be to reinforce the beliefs of those who subscribe to such conspiracies,鈥� writes Professor Balogh in an emailed response to questions.聽

Infighting? Or something more?

Such conspiratorial views are already a huge problem for effective governance, according to Balogh. 鈥淭he anonymous op-ed will simply exacerbate the problem,鈥� he writes.

To be fair to the anonymous author, many Republican members of Congress complain privately about the president鈥檚 demeanor and lack of interest in details, yet it is mostly only retiring lawmakers who seem willing to criticize him in public. In addition, presidents often face pushback from advisors who have differing ideas about where policy should go. Manipulating information before it gets to the Oval Office desk is one of the great sports of top-level executive branch officials. The best trick: make sure your preferred option is in the middle of a three-choice list. It鈥檚 natural to discard numbers one and three as the extremes.

But the quiet resistance seems to have gone far beyond infighting聽over options. The most extraordinary detail so far 鈥� from Woodward鈥檚 鈥淔ear,鈥� not the op-ed 鈥� is that former top economic advisor Gary Cohn stole a letter off Trump鈥檚 desk that the president was intending to sign to formally withdraw the US from a trade treaty with South Korea. Mr. Cohn told associates the move was a terrible idea, and he removed the paper to protect national security. Trump never noticed the paper was missing, writes Woodward, and the United States remains in the pact.

Aides typically have many opportunities to weigh in prior to presidential decisions on issues, says Saunders, who studies presidential leadership and decisionmaking, particularly in foreign relations. But after the chief executive says he wants to do 鈥淴,鈥� that鈥檚 usually it. Thus retrieving the trade letter at that point was highly unusual.

鈥淭hat to me is different. It is really changing things after the fact,鈥� she says.聽

Woodward and others have used the phrase 鈥渁dministrative coup鈥� to describe the overall situation. But 鈥渃oup鈥� is a loaded word that doesn鈥檛 really apply in this situation, claim experts. It refers to an attempt to change executive personnel or the regime itself, wrote Naunihal Singh, an expert in coups who teaches at the Naval War College, widely shared among political scientists on Wednesday.

But it is far from garden variety bureaucratic behavior, either. Nor is Trump鈥檚 lack of follow-up on the South Korea decision document. Woodward published the actual letter, showing what Cohn had stolen back. Trade is one of the issues about which Trump feels strongly, so you鈥檇 think he might have asked what had happened in this instance.聽

鈥淚t鈥檚 pretty telling about his inability to oversee this process,鈥� says Saunders.