I’m with Lowry, not Cooke or Frum, on this. I wrote about it for Bloomberg last night:

I think working for Trump while seeking to thwart some of his impulses is defensible. It’s not “overt defiance of presidential authority,” as one critic of the op-ed has put it, especially when the president is so lackadaisical about enforcing discipline among his underlings.
In any presidency, aides want to steer the president toward the impulses they consider better. What differentiates this administration from past ones is the contempt for the president’s character that animates so many of its employees.

One reason for these divergent reactions to the op-ed is that the author is pretty vague about what forms his “resistance,” and that of like-minded administration officials, is taking.

As I go on to argue in my Bloomberg Opinion article, it might be defensible for a Trump appointee who considers President Trump unfit for office to keep plugging away at his job, trying to block unwise courses of action and promote good policy. It might be defensible, too, to resign and go public with informed criticisms of the president. But I don’t see how writing this op-ed can be defended.