Recently, the New York Times published an anonymously written op-ed supposedly authored by "a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure." 

Analyzing the language used by this "senior official" leads me to conclude that something is not quite right with that claim.

In the second paragraph of the piece, the author, who I must remind readers is claimed by the Times to be "a senior official in the Trump administration" (a claim, by the way, the author himself never makes) states, while listing the travails facing our president, "that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall."  He uses the word "his" (that is, "the president's") when describing the Republican Party.  Why?  Isn't he also a Republican?  He is serving in a Republican administration; it would be a realistic assumption that by far most members of Trump's administration are Republicans.

If he is not a Republican, at least he should be easy enough to find.

He goes on to say "that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."  If he were, as claimed, a "senior official," wouldn't he say "many other senior officials," or "many other top officials"?  And wouldn't he say "our administration?"  Why phrase it that way only to say in the next paragraph, "I am one of them"?  Why say it afterward when he could have made it clear in his statement?  There's a disconnect.

"To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance" of the left.  We want the administration to succeed."  He uses "we" and "ours" here, but it refers to the "new resistance," which he considers himself a part of.

"That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can."  The use of "we" here can be read as a claim to be an appointee.  He doesn't say he is an appointee in the White House or that he is in on the decision-making process or, as claimed by the Times, is a "senior official."

"Anyone who works with him [Trump] knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making."  He doesn't say "we who work with him know."

"[T]he president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives."  He doesn't claim to be a conservative; he could just as easily be referring to others who are conservatives.

He says, "Meetings with him [the president] veer off topic and off the rails," never saying he has ever been to one of these "meetings."  The same with the president's "repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions."  He never says he was present when such things have happened.  Yet he says this as if it is a fact, with credibility assigned by his implied presence without saying he was ever present or personally witnessed any of this.

He says, "a top official complained to me recently."  Were I a "senior official," I would have said "another top official."

He talks of "unsung heroes in and around the White House" without claiming to be one, yet pay attention to the use of "around the White House."  His usage says to me he fits in with the "around" part of this statement. 

"Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media.  But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful."   Notice that he uses "they" when talking about them, not "we."

"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."  Using "we" is including himself as an American.

When talking about Russia, and Trump's supposed unwillingness to punish the country for its much publicized poisoning attempt in London, he says: "But his national security team knew better – such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."  Again, were I a "senior official," I would have said "our," instead of "his."

He claims that within the Cabinet, there was discussion of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president.  "But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.  So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until – one way or another – it's over."  This is the closest he comes to power: using "we" can be interpreted to say he is a member of the Cabinet or an assistant to a Cabinet member.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example – a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.  Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

In both instances where he uses "we," he is talking about "we the people."

This is not written by a "senior administration official."  The person who wrote this is not in on the decision-making process and doesn't serve in the White House.  He may be a Cabinet official or an appointee at the most. 

I wouldn't be surprised to find he is something like the third assistant to the secretary of the Regional Administration Committee for Religious Community Outreach.