Anonymous Op-Ed From Trump Administration Official: ‘I Hope A Long Shutdown Smokes Out The Resistance’

On Monday, The Daily Caller published a smoldering op-ed by an anonymous senior official in the Trump administration titled, “I’m a senior Trump official, and I hope a long shutdown smokes out the resistance.”

The title was likely an ironic reference to a New York Times op-ed in September from an anonymous Trump administration official titled, “I am part of the Resistance inside the Trump Administration.” Unlike the op-ed published by The Daily Caller, that op-ed was entirely unsympathetic to President Trump, stating, “ … the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. 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 root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.”

In The Daily Caller op-ed. the author surmises that 80% of federal employees simply ignore the necessity to produce results and instead wind up staying in their positions for years because they can’t be fired. The author explains that the current partial shutdown of the government could be a powerful means to change that situation and get rid of unwanted federal employees.

The op-ed states, “Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown.”

The author posits that because of the lack of funding during the shutdown, various federal agencies have been forced to become more efficient. The author delineates the process by which agencies “have adopted the position that more complaints are good because it shows inclusion in, you guessed it, the process. When complaints come, it is cheaper to pay them off than to hold public servants accountable. The result: People accused of serious offenses are not charged, and self-proclaimed victims are paid by you, the American taxpayer.”

Then the author shifts to how the shutdown can be helpful: “But President Trump can end this abuse. Senior officials can reprioritize during an extended shutdown, focus on valuable results and weed out the saboteurs. We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them.”

The author offers some suggestions: “The president should add to his demands, including a vote on all of his political nominees in the Senate. Send the career appointees back. Many are in the 5 percent of saboteurs and resistance leaders.”

The author does warn that two necessary changes must be made if Trump were to implement the author’s agenda without hurting himself in the process: to get better national security, and to elicit more savings for taxpayers. He cautions, “If this fight is merely rhetorical bickering with Nancy Pelosi, we all lose, especially the president.”

The author concludes, “The president’s instincts are right. Most Americans will not miss non-essential government functions … Now is the time to deliver historic change by cutting them down forever.”