Benjamin Ellisten, a senior budget analyst and funding manager for the White House, has been placed on administrative leave after an undercover operation by James O'Keefe's team recorded him calling President Donald Trump a "madman" and accusing the administration of reckless decision-making.
The footage, released May 12 under the banner "O'KEEFE EXPOSE: The White House Tapes," captured Ellisten making a series of pointed remarks about the president he serves, remarks that prompted swift action from his employer.
A White House official confirmed the leave to the Daily Caller, adding that Ellisten "has no direct access to the President or Senior Staff, and does not work on the White House campus." The official went further, saying the views Ellisten expressed "are not reflective of patriots who admirably serve in the Administration."
The hidden-camera recording captured Ellisten speaking with remarkable candor to someone he apparently believed was a sympathetic listener. His comments went well beyond the kind of grumbling you hear at any workplace water cooler.
He called Trump a "madman," then elaborated:
"Literally. He's invincible. Nothing can stop him, and that's dangerous."
Ellisten also questioned the president's judgment in personal terms:
"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 didn't stop there. Ellisten floated an accusation of insider trading connected to the administration, telling the undercover journalist that Trump "knows that he affects how people react to the stock market." He then claimed:
"So one of the things that looks like it's going on, and going on a lot, is insider trading. Like, for instance, with the war going on in Iran, the price of oil is expensive."
Just The News reported that Ellisten also said the White House needed to "get rid of him", referring to the president, and called Trump a "mess" who was "f***ing it up for everybody."
These are not minor policy disagreements. A federal employee entrusted with budget analysis and funding management was caught on tape leveling unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conduct against the president of the United States while simultaneously calling for his removal.
Ellisten was not the only White House staffer captured in the sting. Maxim Lott, a special assistant on domestic policy who previously worked as a producer on John Stossel's show, also spoke with the undercover journalist. His comments painted a picture of an administration where policy decisions flow without rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
"The decision-making processes are a little bit chaotic. I think it's just the overall tone that, like, you know, the government right now is a little bit uncontrolled."
Lott described a chain of command where lower-level staffers exercise broad discretion, claiming that decisions don't always originate with the president himself:
"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.' It's like, 'Yeah, he would wanna do that, that would be popular.' And then, 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."
He also offered a blunt assessment of how spending decisions get made:
"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."
The Ellisten case is hardly the first time a federal employee serving in a sensitive role has been sidelined over conduct unbecoming the position. A DHS counterterrorism official was recently placed on leave amid allegations of lavish gifts and other misconduct, illustrating a broader pattern of accountability failures inside the federal workforce.
Unlike Ellisten, Lott responded when O'Keefe's team contacted him. His statement tried to thread the needle, acknowledging the conversation happened while insisting his words were taken out of context.
"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."
He added:
"Nothing I said was contradictory of this Administration, and I remain fully committed to carrying out its agenda."
Whether that framing holds up is another matter. Describing an administration's decision-making as "chaotic" and "uncontrolled," and saying policy choices rest on gut feeling rather than analysis, is not exactly a ringing endorsement. But Lott was not placed on leave, at least not as of the Daily Caller's reporting. The White House drew a clear line between the two men, Ellisten's comments crossed it; Lott's, apparently, did not.
Security and conduct concerns around the White House have surfaced repeatedly in recent months. Separate incidents involving a Secret Service officer arrested and charged with indecent exposure have raised questions about the vetting and oversight of personnel entrusted with protecting the presidency.
Ellisten has worked at the White House since 2024, O'Keefe's reporting stated. That means he was hired into a Trump administration role, and then, behind closed doors, called the president a madman, accused his administration of insider trading, and said the White House needed to remove him.
This is the permanent government problem in miniature. A mid-level budget analyst with no direct access to the president or senior staff, by the White House's own admission, nevertheless occupies a position of trust. He manages funding. He touches the levers of the federal budget. And all the while, he apparently holds the elected president in open contempt.
The White House's response was measured but firm. Placing Ellisten on administrative leave signals that the comments were taken seriously. But the episode raises questions the official statement did not address. How did someone with these views operate inside the White House for roughly two years? What, if any, internal mechanisms exist to identify staffers who are actively hostile to the administration's mission? And will administrative leave lead to termination, or will Ellisten quietly return to his desk after the news cycle moves on?
These are not abstract concerns. The federal bureaucracy employs millions of people. Most serve honorably regardless of which party holds the White House. But when someone in a position of budgetary authority openly accuses the sitting president of criminal behavior and calls for his ouster, the question isn't whether he has a right to his opinions. He does. The question is whether he can be trusted to faithfully execute the duties of his office.
The broader context of ongoing security and operational questions surrounding the White House only sharpens the point. Every administration inherits a workforce it didn't fully choose. Managing that workforce requires vigilance, and consequences when trust is broken.
O'Keefe's undercover operations have always drawn criticism from the left, which tends to question the methods rather than confront the substance of what the cameras capture. That pattern will likely repeat here. Expect the conversation to center on whether it was fair to record Ellisten rather than on what Ellisten actually said.
But the tape speaks for itself. A White House budget official called his boss a madman, accused the administration of insider trading without evidence, and said the president needed to go. He said all of this to a stranger he'd just met. That's not a private political opinion shared with a spouse over dinner. That's a federal employee broadcasting hostility toward the president he's paid to serve, to anyone willing to listen.
Incidents of misconduct among personnel connected to the presidency are not limited to policy staff. A Secret Service agent was recently arrested in a Miami hotel case, a reminder that the standards expected of those who serve near the Oval Office extend across agencies and roles.
Administrative leave is a start, not a resolution. The American public deserves to know whether Ellisten's role gave him any ability to slow, redirect, or otherwise obstruct the administration's budgetary priorities. If he managed funding streams, who audited his work? Did his contempt for the president ever translate into action, or inaction, on the job?
These questions matter more than the spectacle of the tape itself. Undercover stings make for dramatic viewing. But the real story is structural: how many Benjamin Ellistens are scattered across the federal payroll, and what tools does any administration have to find them before a hidden camera does the job instead?
Taxpayers don't fund White House salaries so that budget analysts can moonlight as opposition researchers. If the system can't catch disloyalty this brazen on its own, the system needs fixing, not just one man's desk cleared out.
