President Trump’s spokeswoman on Thursday tweeted the phone number of the New York Times and urged the president’s fans to pressure the paper to identify the “anonymous coward” behind a scathing opinion piece written by an administration official.

“For those of you asking for the identity of the anonymous coward,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders wrote over a statement decrying the writer, who described how administration officials worked behind Trump’s back to try to “keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing.”

“The media’s wild obsession with the identity of the anonymous coward is recklessly tarnishing the reputation [sic] of thousands of great Americans who proudly serve our country and support President Trump. Stop,” the statement read.

“If you want to know who this gutless loser is, call the opinion desk of the failing NYT … and ask them. They are the only ones complicit in this deceitful act. We stand united and fully support our President Donald J. Trump.”

The Times dropped the bombshell Wednesday afternoon, in which the ”senior” official described an unstable president ill-equipped to do his job, lacking even basic knowledge of world affairs, national security issues and domestic policy.

A seething Trump himself made a series of wild and often contradictory charges after it was published, claiming that the paper fabricated the column but also lashing out at whoever it was who wrote it.

“Does the so-called ‘Senior Administration Official’ really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!” he wrote in an ominous tweet.

The column echoed many of the stories told in Watergate journalist Bob Woodward’s stunning new tell-all, “Fear: Trump in the White House,” which also depicts Trump as incompetent, petulant and ignorant, citing top White House officials as sources.

Trump, according to multiple reports, has ordered an internal probe to discover the identity of Woodward’s sources — even as he called the book a “work of fiction.”