A Warning

by Anonymous

“Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels—men and women who dared to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.” —Dwight D. Eisenhower

The president still lacks the guiding principles needed to govern our nation and fails to display the rudimentary qualities of leadership we should expect of any commander in chief.

Indeed, it was a hallmark takeaway from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful,” he wrote, “but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

President Trump should not be shocked that wary aides and cabinet members saved his presidency. My colleagues have done so many times. He should be worried—we all should be worried—that these reasonable professionals are vanishing. The president is chafed by those who dare to challenge him. He has targeted and removed many of these officials, from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Chief of Staff John Kelly, one by one. Others have grown tired of the charade and left of their own accord. With every dismissal or departure of a level-headed senior leader, the risks to the country grow, and the president is validated by a shrinking cadre of advisors who abet or encourage his bad behavior. We are already seeing the consequences.

Unsavory figures in his orbit have relished the possibility of another four years—not in the “we can do good for the country” way you would hope, but rather with the attitude that “no one will be able to stop us.”

There are many “leaks” from this administration, perhaps more than any before it. While some officials tell stories to reporters to brag, to advance a personal agenda, or to retaliate against others, many appear to be doing so because they are alarmed at what they have seen in this White House.

After I published the op-ed in the Times, Trump responded with a one-word tweet: “TREASON?” Those seven letters say it all. To the president, criticism is treasonous. I find this to be a very un-American position. Former president Theodore Roosevelt argued that it was treacherous not to criticize the nation’s chief executive, as long as it was honest criticism. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public,” he wrote. “Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else.” We do not owe the president our silence. We owe him the truth.

Not only was the decision reckless, but administration officials had been testifying under oath that ISIS was not yet eliminated. They also publicly vowed that the United States would not abandon the fight in Syria. Now the president was falsely declaring ISIS to be finished, because he just decided it was true one day. He was broadcasting to the enemy that America was headed for the exits. “We are going to get hauled up to the Hill and crucified for this,” a senior cabinet member lamented.

Trump carried around maps outlining his electoral victory, which he would pull out at odd times in discussions meant to focus on preparing him to take office.

from the top. Two traits are illustrative of what brought the Steady State together: the president’s inattentiveness and his impulsiveness.

Take, for instance, the process of briefing the president of the United States, which is an experience that no description can fully capture. In any administration, advisors would rightfully want to be prepared for such a moment. This is the most powerful person on earth we are talking about. But before a conversation with him, you want to make sure you’ve got your main points lined up and a crisp agenda ready to present. You are about to discuss weighty matters, sometimes life-and-death matters, with the leader of the free world. A moment of utmost sobriety and purpose. The process does not unfold that way in the Trump administration. Briefings with Donald Trump are of an entirely different nature. Early on, briefers were told not to send lengthy documents. Trump wouldn’t read them. Nor should they bring summaries to the Oval Office. If they must bring paper, then PowerPoint was preferred because he is a visual learner. Okay, that’s fine, many thought to themselves, leaders like to absorb information in different ways. Then officials were told that PowerPoint decks needed to be slimmed down. The president couldn’t digest too many slides. He needed more images to keep his interest—and fewer words. Then they were told to cut back the overall message (on complicated issues such as military readiness or the federal budget) to just three main points. Eh, that was still too much. Soon, West Wing aides were exchanging “best practices” for success in the Oval Office. The most sal...

“What the fuck is this?” the president would shout, looking at a document one of them handed him. “These are just words. A bunch of words. It doesn’t mean anything.” Sometimes he would throw the papers back on the table. He definitely wouldn’t read them.

One of the hardest culture shifts took place with the National Security Council. NSC staff were accustomed to producing long-winded classified memos. But if the aim was to educate this new commander in chief, they couldn’t submit a fifty-page report entitled something like “Integrated National Strategy for Indo-Pacific Partnership and Defense,” expect him to read it, and then discuss it. That would be like speaking Aramaic to Trump through a pillow; even if he tried very hard to pay attention, which he didn’t, he wouldn’t be able to understand what the hell he was hearing.

“He is the most distracted person I’ve ever met,” one of the president’s security lieutenants confessed. “He has no fucking clue what we are talking about!” More changes were ordered to cater to Trump’s peculiarities. Documents were dramatically downsized, and position papers became sound bites. As a result, complex proposals were reduced to a single page (or ideally a paragraph) and translated into Trump’s “winners and losers” tone.

Seeing this type of behavior was both educating and jarring to the burgeoning Steady State. It was a visceral lesson that we weren’t just appointees of the president. We were glorified government babysitters.

He wants to do what he wants to do, consequences be damned. It isn’t beneath him to attack his own family members, too. “Jared, you don’t know what you’re talking about, okay? I mean seriously. You don’t know.” After some dire warnings (“Everyone will get subpoenaed”—“This will cost you dearly with working-class voters”—“This will put Americans in harm’s way”), he might show signs of reconsidering. Refusing to admit error, the president insists he still wants to go with his original plan, but he backs off temporarily or agrees to a less drastic measure, averting disaster for the moment.

Some aides grew so worn down by the roller coaster of presidential whims that they started encouraging him to hold more campaign rallies, putting aside the fact that it wasn’t campaign season. The events had the dual benefit of giving Trump something “fun” to do and also getting him out of town, where he would hypothetically do less damage. More public events were put on his schedule, allowing frayed nerves back in Washington the chance to recover.

Every White House in recent history instituted a deliberate process by which decisions were made and executed. Policies were carefully considered, final decisions were carried out with a step-by-step plan, partners at other levels of government were rarely caught off guard by White House positions, the paperwork and information the president received was properly vetted and fact-checked, and someone was in charge of overseeing hiring and firing. Family members were kept at a safe distance, and in cases where they participated in governing, like Bobby Kennedy, most had clearly defined roles. Great deference was given to ethics officials and the White House counsel’s office, who acted as watchdogs against inappropriate activities by members of the presidential staff. This was all undertaken to ensure the presidency was operating within or sometimes to the limit of its constitutional authorities and in compliance with federal laws. Not in the Trump administration. This approach was abandoned through inattention, intention, incompetence, or all three.

“Among us friends, let’s be honest,” a prominent presidential advisor once remarked, after the pro-chaos crowd left a White House meeting. The slimmed-down group was comprised of White House officials and cabinet secretaries. “About a third of the things the president wants us to do are flat-out stupid. Another third would be impossible to implement and wouldn’t even solve the problem. And a third of them would be flat-out illegal.” Heads nodded.

“So let’s say you had 20 percent of your teaching force, because that’s pretty much the number,” Trump said, describing the plan. “If you had a teacher who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly.” It was time for all of us to reenact the daily face-palm ritual. It wasn’t that everyone thought having armed and trained officials in schools was bad, it’s just that the president had no conception of what was doable and what was nuts.

One Harvard gun violence expert summed up the public reaction: “It’s a crazy proposal. So what should we do about reducing airline hijacking? Give all the passengers guns as they walk on?”

“I really believe I’d run in there, even if I didn’t have a weapon,” he claimed. We couldn’t contain our laughter.

“The president will let me do whatever the hell I want,” a newly minted cabinet secretary remarked after receiving an inappropriate request from Trump. Walking out of the West Wing, he paused and turned around, adding, “That’s why I have to take this job extra seriously.” The president doesn’t police bad behavior in his cabinet, he encourages it. Aides have to self-police.

Almost anything, any issue, and problem can be tied back to immigration in his mind.

At one point, Trump warmed to a new idea for solving what he viewed as the biggest crisis in American history: to label migrants as “enemy combatants.” Keep in mind this is the same designation given to hardcore terrorist suspects.

It’s times like these when people freeze and don’t know what to say. They’ll give him one of those polite smiles reserved for a deranged relative who thinks you want to hear about his soul-searching solo retreat to the Rockies.

Ironically, many of those who worked to protect the president from losing his job became some of the people he was most interested in firing.

At any given time during the Trump administration, there are at least a handful of top aides on the brink of resigning, either out of principle or exhaustion. Several departure timelines appeared to be converging in 2018, creating the possibility for a simultaneous walkout to prove our point about the president’s faltering administration. Every time this was contemplated, it was rejected. The move was deemed too risky because it would shake public confidence and destabilize an already teetering government. We also didn’t want to litter the executive branch with vacancies. Maybe, we thought, it could still get better. It didn’t. It went downhill, and the vacancies followed anyway.

The high rate of turnover was a direct result of the president’s leadership. He ejected people who were willing to stand up to him.

Americans should not take comfort in knowing whether there are so-called adults in the room. We are not bulwarks against the president and shouldn’t be counted upon to keep him in check. That is not our job. That is the job of the voters and their elected representatives. Americans’ faith in the executive branch should be measured by their faith in the president himself and him alone, not by functionaries in his administration whose names never appeared on the ballot. So that begs the question: Who is he?

“A good moral character is the first essential in a man…It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.” —George Washington

Whether you are there for a tour, or whether you work for the president, it is hard to shake this quiet feeling of reverence, no matter how many times you enter the room. That is, until the silence is broken. “It’s a hellhole, okay? They don’t let you say ‘shithole’ anymore. But that place is a hellhole and everybody knows it.” “Watch them start to choke like dogs.” “This place is kind of sexy, isn’t it?” “I don’t fucking care. Ooh ooh ‘excuses, excuses.’ Just stick it to them. I promise you, they will be kissing our asses afterwards.” “I’m hotter than I was then, okay? Because you know you also cool off, right? You do. But I’m much hotter.” “It is very unfair to me. And it’s presidential harassment frankly. You can’t harass a president.” “Sweetie, your face looked very tired on television. Have you lost weight?” “I think I’ve done more than any other first-term president ever.” “If you’re going to cough, please leave the room…Do you agree with the cough?” “I think it’s probably, uh, I want them to think whatever they think, they do say, I mean, I’ve seen and I’ve read and I’ve heard, and I did have one very brief meeting on it. But people are saying they’re seeing UFOs, do I believe it? Not particularly.” “We have the worst laws and the stupidest judges.” “This guy, have you seen him? ‘My Pillow.’ He’s unbelievable. He buys all the airtime on TV. It’s terrific. And he’s a big, big Trump supporter.” “This is one of the great inventions of all times—TiVo.” “You’re saying it...

In the history of American democracy, we have had undisciplined presidents. We have had incurious presidents. We have had inexperienced presidents. We have had amoral presidents. Rarely if ever before have we had them all at once.

The character of a president should be of the utmost concern for citizens. We are ceding day-to-day control of the government to that person, after all. Along with it, we are delegating decisions that affect our children’s futures and our personal well-being. That is why it’s every American’s responsibility to assess the occupant of the Oval Office and consider the leader’s disposition and moral qualities, especially when deciding whether that person remains suited for the role.

Cicero gave us a useful guide for measuring a leader’s character. His four-part rubric will sound familiar: (1) “understanding and acknowledging truth”; (2) “maintaining good fellowship with men, giving to every one his due, and keeping faith in contracts and promises”; (3) “greatness and strength of a lofty and unconquered mind”; and (4) “the order and measure that constitute moderation and temperance.” In short, it was a version of the cardinal virtues—wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance.

A man’s character is tested when he’s given power. That much we know from history. President Trump has been in power for several years, and he’s been thoroughly tested. The results are revealing. It’s been said that character is a tree, and reputation its shadow. The character of the president casts a long shadow across all Americans, and in time, his reputation will become our own. As you read this chapter ask yourself: Is this who we are? If not, is this who we want to be?

Cicero said true wisdom doesn’t require knowing all the facts up front. Rather, it consists of “learning the truth,” an eagerness to seek the facts and to get to the root of an issue.

What is troubling about the president is not that he came into office with so little information about how it runs. It’s that he’s done so little to try to learn more in order to do his job.

He proclaimed himself a great advocate of the Bible, remarking in February 2016 that “Nobody reads the Bible more than me.” He was unable to point to a single Bible verse that he found inspiring, almost certainly because he’s never actually read it. I’ve never heard him mention scripture of his own accord, nor has anyone else I know.

In his own words, Trump says he doesn’t need to read to make informed decisions because he acts “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already have], plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability.”

The sheer level of intellectual laziness is astounding. I found myself bewildered how anyone could have run a private company on the empty mental tank President Trump relies upon every day to run the government. On television, a CEO-turned-showman can sit around a desk and bark orders at subordinates and then go to commercial. In real life, a successful CEO has to absorb a lot of information, about the economic climate, about his or her competitors, about product and consumer trends. How can you manage a sprawling organization if you won’t read anything? Not very well, it turns out.

Intelligence is one of those qualities that, if you insist you have it, you probably don’t.

The president frequently claims to be an expert on issues about which, in reality, advisors will have found out he knows very little. Here is a sample from a much larger list put together by astute observers: On campaign finance: “I think nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do, because I’m the biggest contributor.” On the courts: “I know more about courts than any human being on Earth.” On trade: “Nobody knows more about trade than me.” On taxes: “Nobody knows more about taxes than I do.” On ISIS: “I know more about ISIS than the generals do.” On the US government: “Nobody knows the system better than I do.” On technology: “Technology—nobody knows more about technology than me.” On drone technology, specifically: “I know more about drones than anybody. I know about every form of safety that you can have.” On the contrary, I’ve seen the president fall flat on his face when trying to speak intelligently about most of these topics. You can see why behind closed doors his own top officials deride him as an “idiot” and a “moron” with the understanding of a “fifth or sixth grader.” Folks have been forced to publicly deny those specific quotes, usually with non-denial denials. These are the tamest descriptions used internally to express exasperation with the commander in chief. People normally tack a string of expletives onto the front and back ends of their assessments.

All I can tell you is that normal people who spend any time with Donald Trump are uncomfortable by what they witness. He stumbles, slurs, gets confused, is easily irritated, and has trouble synthesizing information, not occasionally but with regularity. Those who would claim otherwise are lying to themselves or to the country.

The president also can’t remember what he’s said or been told. Americans are used to him denying words that have come out of his mouth. Sometimes this is to avoid responsibility. Often, it appears Trump genuinely doesn’t remember important facts. The forgetfulness was on display after the president was briefed on a major Category 5 hurricane approaching Florida. “I’m not sure I’ve ever even heard of a Category 5…I don’t know that I’ve ever even heard the term,” he told reporters. White House aides were baffled. He’d been briefed on four other Category 5 hurricanes during his time in office. Was he forgetting these briefings? Or more problematic, was he not paying attention at all? These are events that affect millions of Americans, yet they don’t seem to stick in his brain.

You don’t need to be a presidential appointee to witness his irregular mental state. J...

We wonder, does he actually believe these conspiracies? Does he just say this stuff to get attention? I can’t get into his head, but my guess is a little bit of both.

The president spreads false claims almost daily. He is the nation’s most prominent re-tweeter of “fake news” while simultaneously being its biggest critic. In fairness, every president gets facts wrong once in a while. The difference is that those presidents seemed to care when they misspoke. They didn’t recite sham information every day as a matter of course without regard for the consequences. Yet after making a demonstrably untrue statement, the president displays zero remorse that he has done so. He’s comfortable being a huckster of half-truths.

During the 2016 campaign, journalist Bob Woodward asked Trump about President Obama’s view that “real power means you can get what you want without exerting violence.” In his response, Trump made a revealing confession: “Real power is through respect. Real power is, I don’t even want to use the word, fear.”

Cicero suggests that a courageous person also is someone who is not swayed by the masses—“He who is carried by the foolishness of the ignorant mob should not be counted a great man”—and someone who is not “conquered by pleasure” and greed—“Nothing is more the mark of a mean and petty spirit than to love riches.”