Reluctant Truth-Tellers and Institutional Fragility

Image: Scott Maxwell LuMaxArt / shutterstock.com

In democracies under strain, the most important truths often arrive too late, uttered hesitantly by those who should have spoken earlier. A striking case occurred on 5 July 2025, when Ty Cobb—former White House special counsel—accidentally revealed, in what he thought was a private Facebook comment, that Donald Trump was “worse than anyone in our history.”

The post went viral, becoming an insider’s indictment few external critics could match. Cobb wrote that Trump “has real contempt for the country, appoints wholly unqualified people to key positions,” and even “killed worldwide healthcare efforts monitoring pandemic producing diseases including Ebola.” He added that Trump had “just kicked 12 million people off Medicaid, eliminated child food support” and witnessed a personal net worth growth of over USD 3 billion, describing it as “purely personal, corrupt and [with] zero policy-based support.”

These were not partisan talking points but hard facts previously reported and now authoritatively confirmed. Yet, these truths surfaced only by accident, underscored by Cobb’s insistence that his words were “not intended for wide circulation.” That phrase has become emblematic of a deeper malaise: the unwillingness of insiders to speak candidly until their words escape by chance. That reluctance reflects a broader pattern observed in recent United States politics: internal criticism is rare, delayed, or voiced only after political risks have diminished. The effect is a dangerous silence that leaves citizens uninformed and institutions weakened.

This dynamic is not unique to the United States. In Brazil, military officials who privately questioned Jair Bolsonaro’s authoritarian drift remained publicly loyal until after his defeat. In Hungary, European Union officials observing Viktor Orbán’s erosion of judicial independence offered only anonymous briefings, avoiding open confrontation that might have spurred international pressure. In both cases, the absence of early internal dissent permitted leaders to consolidate power and normalise abuses.

When insiders delay speaking out, authoritarians gain vital time to dismantle checks and neutralise opposition. By the time the truth emerges, the institutional landscape has shifted. In fragile democracies and post-conflict settings, this pattern means early warnings that might prevent damage often go unheard.

Such disclosures share a familiar anatomy: reactive, surfaced only after leaks or visible collapse; lacking in formal documentation; and offered by individuals whose credibility matters—but only too late. Silence often stems from various motivations: a belief that one can moderate from within; fear of being labelled partisan; or hope that self-correction via institutions is possible without personal sacrifice.

However, these strategies frequently fail. The ‘adult in the room’ stance can instead enable wrongdoing. Autocrats learn to interpret silence as consent; the public, unseeing of internal resistance, struggles to mobilise.

By contrast, international experience shows that early truth-telling—however uncomfortable—is more effective. In Myanmar, civil servants—rather than staying silent—mounted one of the most powerful civil disobedience movements in the region, walking off the job in protest the day after the 2021 coup. Their defiance emboldened popular resistance and showed how decisive, collective action can shift political momentum, even if it could not reverse the coup. In South Korea, prosecutors exposed political meddling that catalysed civil society and led to the president’s impeachment. In Guatemala, judges and prosecutors brought down entrenched corruption networks from within government, enabling international action.

Strengthening democratic resilience therefore requires reconfiguring incentives. Whistle-blower protections must be strengthened so that independent institutions can act swiftly on credible disclosures. Civil society and media networks should be prepared to amplify insider warnings before they are suppressed. We must build institutional cultures that treat early truth-telling as civic duty, not betrayal.

International organisations can help by developing rapid-response mechanisms to protect and amplify important disclosures. Secure channels should preserve source anonymity while enabling coordinated global responses. Institutions must be ready to intervene when systems falter.

Civil society, meanwhile, must reduce the personal cost of speaking out—through legal support funds, secure communication tools, and rapid media response strategies. The goal must be to make courage less costly, and delay less tempting.

Ty Cobb’s unintended post was more than an accidental slip: it was a mirror held to institutional fragility and the perils of delayed honesty. As he put it, “I could of course be tilting at windmills but don’t really have much choice if I want to sleep at night given the stakes as I see them.” When insiders wait for the perfect moment to speak, that moment rarely arrives—and the public pays the price.

Democratic societies cannot rely on accidental disclosures to expose institutional failures. Instead, the international community must build systems that reward courage over caution and recognise that institutional silence in the face of authoritarian behaviour is too often indistinguishable from complicity.

Related articles by this author:

From Democratic Leader to Autocratic Example: The Global Impact of U.S. Backsliding (3-minute read)

Countering Human Rights Regression to Safeguard Peace (10-minute read)

A Defining Moment for the United Nations: The Global Stakes of U.S. Disengagement (3-mionute read)

Jordan Ryan is a member of the Toda International Research Advisory Council (TIRAC) at the Toda Peace Institute, a Senior Consultant at the Folke Bernadotte Academy and former UN Assistant Secretary-General with extensive experience in international peacebuilding, human rights, and development policy. His work focuses on strengthening democratic institutions and international cooperation for peace and security. Ryan has led numerous initiatives to support civil society organisations and promote sustainable development across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. He regularly advises international organisations and governments on crisis prevention and democratic governance.