Ex-Trump official outlines 8 ways to defy 'wannabe-dictator tantrums'

Former Homeland Security official Miles Taylor, who publicly revealed he wrote the anonymous opinion piece that appeared in The New York Times in 2018, published an eight-point plan on social media this week to resist what he called former President Donald Trump’s “wannabe-dictator tantrums.” The development comes as Trump ordered the Department of Justice to review Taylor’s conduct over the op-ed, suggesting it could amount to treason and directing the secretary of Homeland Security to investigate him while he remained a government employee.

In a post on X, Taylor laid out the first two items of his eight-point plan, signaling he will not stay silent in the face of what he described as aggressive messaging from the former president. “1. First, I will not shut up,” Taylor wrote. “No threat, no investigation, no retaliatory order will work. I’ll keep writing, speaking, and showing up, not in spite of the pressure, but because of it.” He followed with, “2. I will not apologize for telling the truth,” promising to continue warning about what he said were attempts to abuse power, sway officials, or undermine fellow citizens. In his posts, Taylor asserted that he will keep “holding that mirror to [Trump’s] face,” and he pledged to stay vocal about accountability.

Taylor also said he would not pretend that the Trump administration’s vindictive moves were anything but “actual authoritarianism, wrapped in the American flag,” and he vowed to stand “vocally in solidarity with others on the enemies list” while resisting mounting legal pressure. He has insisted he will not be deterred by threats, defamation, or doxxing, saying he has been targeted for his whistleblowing and now faces government scrutiny for exercising free speech.

The 2018 op-ed at the center of the controversy was published under a pseudonym, with Taylor later revealing himself as the author. He described himself at the time as a senior official and part of a broader resistance to Trump’s approach to governance. In April, Trump issued a memorandum arguing that Taylor’s conduct might have violated the Espionage Act and ordered the DHS secretary to evaluate whether the former employee’s actions as a government worker warranted investigation. Taylor rejected the accusations and has continued to criticize the former president publicly.

Taylor’s public posture has drawn additional attention because of his prior association with Kirstjen Nielsen, then the secretary of Homeland Security, for whom he served as chief of staff. His recent posts frame the dispute as a defense of democratic norms and civil-society watchdog efforts against what he calls a “revenge campaign” that he says Trump is accelerating.

In a notable reference to the broader political narrative, Taylor contrasted his stance with what he described as a campaign to silence dissent. “Trump aides said I was targeted to ‘send a message,’” he wrote earlier this week. “Well, let me send a message in return. I won’t be a cautionary tale. I’ll be a counterexample and show how being targeted by Trump can be used as a way to get others to stand against him.” He also emphasized that whistleblowers should be defended if democracy is to survive and that there is “strength in numbers.”

Taylor’s manifesto comes at a time of intense political polarization around the former president and his allies, and it underscores a continued push from former Trump critics who argue that accountability measures and public scrutiny are essential to democratic norms. His references to a “revenge campaign” and a willingness to “defy” Trump’s constraints also echo a larger historical debate about whistleblowing, merit of dissent, and the role of government employees in public moral leadership.

The episode also intersects with broader discussions about the so-called “Random Enemies List” that appeared in the 2023 book Government Gangsters, which was authored by Kash Patel, a Trump ally and former FBI official. The book reportedly included a catalog of individuals labeled as opponents of Trump’s agenda, and Taylor’s name—long associated with internal opposition to the president—has been cited in broader coverage of the document’s portrayal of official dissent.

As Taylor continues to push back against the former president’s influence, legal observers and political analysts note the risk and potential impact of government personnel using public platforms to advocate for policy positions or to mobilize opposition. The DoJ review of Taylor’s conduct raises questions about the boundaries between protected political speech and actions that could be interpreted as disloyal or treasonous, especially for individuals who held sensitive roles within the U.S. government.

The broader political dynamic remains unsettled: Trump has repeatedly criticized opposition voices as part of a broader narrative about threats to democracy, while current and former officials across administrations have warned against attempts to delegitimize whistleblowers or politicize federal investigations. Taylor’s eight-point plan and his insistence on continuing public engagement highlight a persistent tension between accountability, free speech, and political realignment in U.S. politics.