Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Uncategorized

Still Anonymous: White House hunt for op-ed author fades

Published

7 minute read

WASHINGTON — Remember Anonymous?

One month ago Friday, an unidentified Trump administration official set off a White House firestorm by claiming in a New York Times opinion piece to be part of a secret “resistance” force out to undermine parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The article triggered cries of “treason” from Trump and a demand that the powers of the federal government be brought to bear to root out the disloyal officials.

And then … not much happened.

The investigation, which existed more in name than practice, stalled. A move to clean house never occurred. The author’s identity is still a mystery.

Still, publication of the piece, along with a new Bob Woodward book painting a picture of a president whose impulses were being thwarted by his own staff, has had some lasting aftershocks.

The president, already besieged by leaks, has closed ranks around the Oval Office, growing far more suspicious of staff and trusting fewer West Wing personnel. That’s according to four White House officials and Republicans close to the White House who were not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.

The Sept. 5 publication of the op-ed rocked Washington. The author, described only as a senior administration official, wrote that “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 writer went on: “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 piece landed the same week as Woodward’s “Fear” and emphasized the new book’s themes: that Trump appeared unfit for office and some of his closest aides viewed themselves as a bulwark between his worst decisions and the American public.

Trump was incensed about the op-ed, calling around to confidants to vent about the author, solicit guesses as to his or her identity, seethe that it appeared in the newspaper he loves to hate, and complain that a “deep state” within the administration was conspiring against him. At a rally that week in Montana, he called the author “an anonymous, gutless coward.”

“You look at this horrible thing that took place. Is it subversion, is it treason?” Trump bellowed. “It really is terrible.”

The Beltway guessing game seeped into the White House, as current and former staffers traded calls and texts trying to figure out who could have written the piece, some even asking reporters for clues. Trump ordered aides to unmask the writer, cited “national security” concerns to justify a possible Justice Department investigation and issued an extraordinary demand that the newspaper reveal the author.

Trump’s anger triggered an extraordinary parade of senior officials, Cabinet members and even the vice-president, who issued statements and stood before cameras to deny that they were part of the resistance.

Some Trump advisers, like attorney Rudy Giuliani, suggested that it would be “appropriate” for Trump to ask for a formal investigation into the identity of the op-ed author. And Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a key ally of Trump’s, called for the president to order those suspected of being the author to undergo lie-detector tests.

But then, mirroring the very thesis of the op-ed, Trump’s requests to the government largely went ignored.

It was never expected that the Justice Department would move to open an investigation. A White House official later said Trump’s call for the investigation was an expression of his frustration with the op-ed, rather than an order for federal prosecutors.

White House chief of staff John Kelly, communications director Bill Shine and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders convened a series of closed-door meetings and ordered a cursory leak search, including enforcing a pre-existing ban on personal phones, according to three White House officials not authorized to speak publicly about internal meetings. But as the op-ed was wiped from the headlines by other news events, most notably the contentious confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the probe was quietly pushed aside.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Though the president continued to vent about the leaks, aides never conducted an exhaustive search, according to two of the officials. And many administration officials recognized that there was a long list of officials who plausibly could have been the author.

The West Wing and, for the most part, Trump himself moved on, focusing on the upcoming midterm elections and the push to get Kavanaugh on the bench.

But Trump has confided to allies that he still is frustrated by frequent leaks and feels that there are few aides around him whom he can fully trust, according to the three White House officials and Republicans close to the White House.

Beyond a network of outside advisers Trump has known for decades, the officials said, those on the inside the president continues to trust include family: daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, both senior advisers.

___

Follow Lemire on Twitter at http://twitter.com/@JonLemire and Lucey at http://twitter.com/@catherine_lucey

Jonathan Lemire And Catherine Lucey, The Associated Press

Before Post

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Uncategorized

Poilievre on 2025 Election Interference – Carney sill hasn’t fired Liberal MP in Chinese election interference scandal

Published on

From Conservative Party Communications

Yes. He must be disqualified. I find it incredible that Mark Carney would allow someone to run for his party that called for a Canadian citizen to be handed over to a foreign government on a bounty, a foreign government that would almost certainly execute that Canadian citizen.

 

“Think about that for a second. We have a Liberal MP saying that a Canadian citizen should be handed over to a foreign dictatorship to get a bounty so that that citizen could be murdered. And Mark Carney says he should stay on as a candidate. What does that say about whether Mark Carney would protect Canadians?

“Mark Carney is deeply conflicted. Just in November, he went to Beijing and secured a quarter-billion-dollar loan for his company from a state-owned Chinese bank. He’s deeply compromised, and he will never stand up for Canada against any foreign regime. It is another reason why Mr. Carney must show us all his assets, all the money he owes, all the money that his companies owe to foreign hostile regimes. And this story might not be entirely the story of the bounty, and a Liberal MP calling for a Canadian to be handed over for execution to a foreign government might not be something that the everyday Canadian can relate to because it’s so outrageous. But I ask you this, if Mark Carney would allow his Liberal MP to make a comment like this, when would he ever protect Canada or Canadians against foreign hostility?

“He has never put Canada first, and that’s why we cannot have a fourth Liberal term. After the Lost Liberal Decade, our country is a playground for foreign interference. Our economy is weaker than ever before. Our people more divided. We need a change to put Canada first with a new government that will stand up for the security and economy of our citizens and take back control of our destiny. Let’s bring it home.”

 

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Canada Needs A Real Plan To Compete Globally

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Génie 

Ottawa’s ideological policies have left Canada vulnerable. Strategic action is needed now

As Canada navigates an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, the next federal government must move beyond reflexive anti—Americanism regardless of its political leanings. Instead, Canada should prioritize national interests while avoiding unnecessary conflict and subservience.

The notion that Canada can stand alone is as misguided as the idea that it is only an economic appendage of the United States. Both perspectives have influenced policy in Ottawa at different times, leading to mistakes.

Rather than engaging in futile name-calling or trade disputes, Canada must take strategic steps to reinforce its autonomy. This approach requires a pragmatic view rooted in Realpolitik—recognizing global realities, mitigating risks, governing for the whole country, and seizing opportunities while abandoning failed ideologies.

However, if Washington continues to pursue protectionist measures, Canada must find effective ways to counteract the weakened position Ottawa has placed the country in over the past decade.

One key strategy is diversifying trade relationships, notably by expanding economic ties with emerging markets such as India and Southeast Asia. This will require repairing Canada’s strained relationship with India and regaining political respect in China.

Unlike past Liberal trade missions, which often prioritized ideological talking points over substance, Canada must negotiate deals that protect domestic industries rather than turning summits into platforms for moral posturing.

A more effective approach would be strengthening partnerships with countries that value Canadian resources instead of vilifying them under misguided environmental policies. Expand LNG exports to Europe and Asia and leverage Canada’s critical minerals sector to establish reciprocal supply chains with non-Western economies, reducing economic reliance on the U.S.

Decades of complacency have left Canada vulnerable to American influence over its resource sector. Foreign-funded environmental groups have weakened domestic energy production, handing U.S. industries a strategic advantage. Ottawa must counter this by ensuring Canadian energy is developed at home rather than allowing suppressed domestic production to benefit foreign competitors.

Likewise, a robust industrial policy—prioritizing mining, manufacturing, and agricultural resilience—could reduce dependence on U.S. and Chinese imports. This does not mean adopting European-style subsidies but rather eliminating excessive regulations that make Canadian businesses uncompetitive, including costly domestic carbon tariffs.

Another key vulnerability is Canada’s growing military dependence on the U.S. through NORAD and NATO. While alliances are essential, decades of underfunding and neglect have turned the Canadian Armed Forces into little more than a symbolic force. Canada must learn self-reliance and commit to serious investment in defence.

Increasing defence spending—not to meet NATO targets but to build deterrence—is essential. Ottawa must reform its outdated procurement processes and develop a domestic defence manufacturing base, reducing reliance on foreign arms deals.

Canada’s vast Arctic is also at risk. Without continued investment in northern sovereignty, Ottawa may find itself locked out of its own backyard by more assertive global powers.

For too long, Canada has relied on an economic model that prioritizes federal redistribution over wealth creation and productivity. A competitive tax regime—one that attracts investment instead of punishing success—is essential.

A capital gains tax hike might satisfy activists in Toronto, but it does little to attract investments and encourage economic growth. Likewise, Ottawa must abandon ideological green policies that threaten agri-food production, whether by overregulating farmers or ranchers. At the same time, it must address inefficiencies in supply management once and for all. Canada must be able to feed a growing world without unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles.

Ottawa must also create an environment where businesses can innovate and grow without excessive regulatory burdens. This includes eliminating interprovincial trade barriers that stifle commerce.

Similarly, Canada’s tech sector, long hindered by predatory regulations, should be freed from excessive government interference. Instead of suffocating innovation with compliance mandates, Ottawa should focus on deregulation while implementing stronger security measures for foreign tech firms operating in Canada.

Perhaps Ottawa’s greatest mistake is its knee-jerk reactions to American policies, made without a coherent long-term strategy. Performative trade disputes with Washington and symbolic grandstanding in multilateral organizations do little to advance Canada’s interests.

Instead of reacting emotionally, Canada must take proactive steps to secure its economic, resource, and defence future. That is the role of a responsible government.

History’s best strategists understood that one should never fight an opponent’s war but instead dictate the terms of engagement. Canada’s future does not depend on reacting to Washington’s policies—these are calculated strategies, not whims. Instead, Canada’s success will be determined by its ability to act in the interests of citizens in all regions of the country, and seeing the world as it is rather than how ideological narratives wish it to be.

Marco Navarro-Génie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is co-author of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Trending

X