Occam's Razor takes precedence in this case. The conclusion that requires the fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one.

It is far more likely that this is a case of the White House acting consistently with the way it has acted in the recent past (maliciously).

The problem with applying Hanlon's Razor here is that it presumes malice is rare. The current administration revels in malice. They very openly decide things based on malice.

Don's Razor - never attribute to malice or stupidity that which is adequately explained by both malice and stupidity.

People will see a felon actively protecting pedophilia and doing corruption out of the open and still pull Halons Razor out. We should have a new law about never try to explain obvious malicious actions away based on nothing but a rhetorical trick.

Except when we're talking about trump, in which case it's both malice and stupidity

Sure but, while stupid move can be supposed easier to perform by average individual, you can combine both malice and stupidity, and not all regrettable situations are indeed adequately explained by stupidity alone, or even with any stupidity involved at all.

Plus, supposing those at source of disliked outcomes are cleaver than they look can certainly help better preparing counteractions. Just stating "people that did this or that are stupid" might give some immediate feel good feedback with like-minded, but it doesn’t sharp the mind toward relevant plan to improve the situation (according to self and its clique)