It’s only been online for a few hours, but the anonymous New York Times op-ed penned by a “senior official in the Trump administration” has set off a frenzy of guessing about who is claiming to be one of the people “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”

The White House was out with a response Wednesday afternoon. “We are disappointed, but not surprised, that the paper chose to publish this pathetic, reckless, and selfish op-ed,” reads the statement from press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. “The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States. He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign.”

There are some clues within the 965-word essay of who the “coward” (or courageous truth-teller, depending on your perspective) really is. There are indications the writer is a movement conservative, including a line that castigates Trump for not sharing conservatives’ affinity for “free minds, free markets, and free people.” There is a noticeable lack of discussion of any issues of constitutionalism, the law, or immigration. The writing is straightforward, unpretentious, and familiar with the conventions of op-eds.

Here are four candidates for who “Anonymous” could be, in no particular order. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has sought comment from these people but we have yet to receive any responses.



(1) Larry Kudlow

Trump’s relatively new chairman of the National Economic Council, Kudlow took over for Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs executive who couldn’t abide the president’s affinity for tariffs. Since coming to the White House, Kudlow has struggled to fit his free-market views on trade and a few other issues into the administration’s more active approach to economics.

As a way of establishing his credentials as a more traditionally Republican critic of Trump, the NYT author cites several positive developments of the administration, including “effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military, and more.” Kudlow, who served in the Reagan administration and has been around movement conservatism for decades, would conceivably find these Reagan-era policy goals the most worthy of praise.

Plus, there are some similarities between the piece’s language and Kudlow’s own writings. “The root of the problem is the president’s amorality,” writes the anonymous official. “Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.” Here’s what Kudlow wrote in his 1998 book: “If we stick with what I call first principles, which is morality and ethics, some spiritual guideline which was present at the creation with the founders . . . then this country is unstoppable.”



(2) Kevin Hassett

The chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Hassett, like Kudlow, comes from the conservative media-policy world. He worked at the American Enterprise Institute for two decades, where he focused on fiscal policy, before coming to the White House last year. Another likely person to focus on the more traditional areas of deregulation, tax reform, and a strong military, Hassett also has a record of being pro-immigration. It’s notable that among the administration's "accomplishments" the op-ed does not mention is anything regarding immigration, a signature issue for the president.

Hassett is also a prolific op-ed writer who once wrote regularly for National Review Online and has written for several other publications, including the Times. And this mysterious essay, as Carlos Lozada notes , has the markings of a seasoned op-ed writer.

There’s also the interesting ending of the op-ed, which puts the focus on the late senator John McCain and “his example— a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.” Hassett was once an adviser to both of McCain’s presidential campaign, including the role of chief economic adviser on his 2000 bid for the Republican nomination.



(3) Dan Coats

The elder Hoosier statesman who serves as director of National Intelligence is at the end of a career in politics and government service. Coats would have little to lose professionally if he wrote the op-ed and was outed. And he might be motivated to speak out given the way President Trump spoke dismissively of him and the intelligence community after the summit with Vladimir Putin.

Coats was a conservative Republican in Congress who also has diplomatic experience as the ambassador to Germany. The op-ed writer’s focus on foreign policy suggests he may be someone with an interest in, and involvement with, the subject in the Trump White House. The more specific focus on the administration’s Russia policy suggests Coats, a critic of Putin while in the Senate, could be frustrated enough with moments like what the op-ed describes as Trump’s reluctance to expel Russian spies.

There are enough folksy word choices (“Don’t get me wrong,” for one) to recall the writing style of politicians, and particularly politicians of Midwest stock, such as Coats.

Updated September 6, 2018, 10:45 a.m.: Dan Coats has issued a statement denying he wrote the op-ed. "Speculation that The New York Times op-ed was written by me or my Principal Deputy is patently false," reads the statement. "We did not. From the beginning of our tenure, we have insisted that the entire IC remain focused on our mission to provide the President and policymakers with the best intelligence possible."



(4) Mike Pompeo

Could the secretary of state, who is currently traveling in Pakistan, really write such a harsh assessment of the president he serves? Pompeo has been closer to Trump than most Cabinet officials, starting from his days as CIA director. And the former Kansas congressman is in the midst of guiding the president’s most important diplomatic efforts in North Korea and elsewhere.

As someone fond of, and thought fondly of, by CIA agents, Pompeo could be particularly irked by the suggestion by Trump and his supporters that a “deep state” is at work against the president. The correction of the internal resistance to Trump, the op-ed writer protests, is no “deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.”

And in Congress, Pompeo compiled a straightforward conservative record on military spending, trade, and taxes—although there’s little in his public profile to suggest he’s particular to the op-ed’s libertarianish “free minds, free markets” worldview.

Updated September 5, 2018, 7:22 p.m.: A State Department spokesperson responded to the question of whether Mike Pompeo wrote the op-ed with: "No."