This seems to be a good part of the reaction to the anonymous article in the NYT by a senior administration official who claims to be part of the internal resistance to Trump. I don’t agree that this follows.
It’s obvious that if this official were to publically express the sentiments in that article, they would be immediately terminated. (Unless it’s Pence who can’t be terminated - but he would immediately be frozen out of power.) Their replacement would either be someone who was likewise part of the anonymous resistance or would be someone who would not act to thwart Trump’s worst proclivities. What would be positively accomplished by that?
I don’t think this standard is applied to all sorts of secret agents - or MB posters, FTM - who are comfortable being anonymous because of real world negative consequences which necessitate anonymity. I don’t think it’s any different for politicians trying to mitigate the harm from a Trump-like president. Bottom line, as in all decisions: “what happens if I do X? what happens if I don’t do X?” Seems like a no-brainer in this instance.
In theory if there was a workable solution, that would be ideal. I suppose some may fault this official for not going the 25th Amendment route. But that’s a very risky gambit - it requires a high level of support that this official may (correctly) belief is not there, and also has never been done and may end up in a protracted legal fight or possibly a constitutional crisis.
Note: this leaves aside the propriety of administration officials acting to undermine the administration - IMHO this depends on the policy and method. But assuming that thwarting Trump is a positive, the question is whether the better alternative is to lie low and try to save the country or make an ineffective public protest about it, my choice is the former option, no matter how brave you might be.