Benjamin Ellisten, a senior budget analyst and funding manager at the White House, has been placed on administrative leave after an undercover operation by James O'Keefe captured him on recording calling President Donald Trump a "madman" who is "f***ing it up for everybody."
The White House moved swiftly. A White House official told the Daily Caller that Ellisten had been placed on leave and that his views "are not reflective of patriots who admirably serve in the Administration."
O'Keefe posted the recordings on May 12 under the banner "O'KEEFE EXPOSE: The White House Tapes." The footage also features Maxim Lott, a special assistant on domestic policy, describing the administration's internal decision-making as "a little bit chaotic" and "uncontrolled." Lott, however, was not reported to have faced the same disciplinary action.
Ellisten, who has reportedly worked at the White House since 2024, did not hold back when speaking to O'Keefe's undercover journalist. He described the president's leadership in blunt terms, calling Trump's decision-making "erratic" and "dangerous."
In the recorded remarks attributed to him by the Daily Caller:
"He's a madman. Literally. He's invincible. Nothing can stop him, and that's dangerous."
Ellisten went further, speculating about the president's temperament and sobriety.
"The way his decisions are so erratic, you would think he drinks. He doesn't drink. And that's what makes it so dangerous, that someone could be of sound mind and body, totally coherent, could just be so reckless in their decision-making. That's scary."
He also floated unsubstantiated claims about insider trading tied to the administration's foreign policy. Ellisten pointed to the conflict in Iran and oil prices, telling the undercover journalist that "one of the things that looks like it's going on, and going on a lot, is insider trading." He offered no evidence for the accusation.
The White House was quick to minimize his role. The official statement noted that Ellisten "has no direct access to the President or Senior Staff, and does not work on the White House campus."
Maxim Lott, a special assistant on domestic policy who previously produced for John Stossel, also appeared in O'Keefe's recordings. His comments were less personal but painted a picture of an administration where lower-level staffers exercise wide discretion.
"In theory, everything should sort of come from the president. But it might come from the level below him, where they're like, 'I think I know the president well enough to say what he would say on this.'... At my level, at five levels below or whatever, still there's a lot of discretion to be like, this is clearly like, what he would wanna do."
Lott described a policy process driven more by instinct than rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
"There's no like, 'Oh well, this will cost $10 million but save people $20 million.' There's like nothing like that, it's just, 'this feels like a good idea' or 'the base supports this,' alright, just sign."
When O'Keefe's team contacted Lott before publication, he stood by his remarks, up to a point. He said he remained committed to carrying out the administration's agenda and cast himself as a victim of Washington's political culture. The White House has not hesitated to force out officials who fall short of expectations, but as of the Daily Caller's reporting, no action against Lott had been announced.
"I went out with an individual I thought was a genuine person, but it goes to show how insidious politics and this city can be. Nothing I said was contradictory of this Administration, and I remain fully committed to carrying out its agenda."
The episode raises a straightforward question that taxpayers are entitled to ask: How many people inside the federal government are collecting a paycheck while actively holding the elected president in contempt?
Ellisten's comments were not the mild grumblings of a bureaucrat who prefers a different management style. He called the president a "madman," accused the administration of enabling insider trading, and described Trump's decision-making as frightening, all while drawing a salary funded by the public. The White House's own statement acknowledged his views do not reflect those of the people who "admirably serve" in government.
That the White House acted quickly is to its credit. Administrative leave is the minimum appropriate step when an employee is caught on tape expressing open hostility toward the president he serves. Whether Ellisten's employment survives remains an open question. The administration has shown a willingness to clean house when necessary, as it did when it exercised executive authority in other high-profile personnel and policy decisions.
Lott's situation is more nuanced. His recorded remarks described internal processes rather than attacking the president personally. His claim that "nothing I said was contradictory of this Administration" is at least arguable, though his description of policy decisions made on gut feeling rather than analysis is unlikely to appear in any White House recruiting brochure.
James O'Keefe has built a career on undercover recordings that expose what government officials and institutional insiders say when they think no one important is listening. His methods draw criticism from the left and occasional discomfort from establishment media. But the recordings speak for themselves. No one has disputed that the voices on the tape belong to Ellisten and Lott.
The sting fits a broader pattern. Throughout both Trump terms, undercover operations and leaked communications have revealed federal employees who view their role not as serving the elected government but as resisting it. The permanent bureaucracy's hostility toward this president is not a secret. What O'Keefe's recordings do is put names, faces, and direct quotes on the problem.
The internal dynamics of the West Wing matter because they determine whether the president's agenda actually reaches the American public as policy. When staffers five levels below the Oval Office are making discretionary calls based on what they think the president "would wanna do", Lott's own words, the margin for sabotage or incompetence widens considerably.
Ellisten's insider-trading speculation is worth flagging separately. He offered no evidence. He named no names. He simply told an undercover journalist that it "looks like" insider trading is happening "a lot," tying it to the war in Iran and oil prices. That is the kind of reckless accusation that, if made publicly by a named official, would trigger congressional inquiries and SEC scrutiny. Made privately to a stranger on a date, it raises questions about Ellisten's judgment, and about what other unfounded claims circulate among mid-level staffers who mistake proximity to power for actual knowledge.
Several questions remain. The exact date Ellisten was placed on leave has not been disclosed. Whether the White House will take further action, termination, a formal investigation, or referral, is unclear. The administration has not publicly addressed whether Lott faces any consequences. And the precise setting and circumstances of the undercover recordings have not been detailed.
The ongoing clashes over executive authority that have defined this administration make internal loyalty more than a human-resources issue. A president whose policy agenda faces resistance from courts, Congress, and the permanent bureaucracy simultaneously cannot afford to have his own staff working against him from the inside.
Ellisten's recorded words leave no ambiguity about where he stands. The White House responded. The real question is whether this is an isolated case or the tip of something much larger, and whether the administration has the tools and the will to find out.
When the people inside the building think the man who signs their paychecks is a "madman," the problem isn't one loose-lipped analyst. It's a hiring process that let him through the door in the first place.
