The Deep State: Modern Political Appropriation and Misuse

Origins vs. U.S. Rhetoric

The term “Deep State” originates from Turkey (derin devlet) and referred to a real network of military, intelligence, and criminal elements operating behind elected governments, sometimes using violence or coercion to maintain secular nationalist control. This was not a conspiracy theory, but a serious and often substantiated concern discussed by journalists, prosecutors, and public officials.

In the U.S., prior to the 2000s, no equivalent term was widely used. Concerns about unaccountable power were framed in terms like “military-industrial complex” or “shadow government.” Scholar Peter Dale Scott popularized “deep state” in U.S. academic discourse around 2007 to describe systemic, unelected power held by national security agencies and private-sector interests.

The Term Goes Mainstream (2016–2018)

The phrase “Deep State” exploded into mainstream American politics following Donald Trump’s 2016 election. As his administration encountered bureaucratic resistance, intelligence leaks, and public criticism from career officials, Trump and his allies began framing this pushback as a coordinated internal conspiracy — a “deep state” bent on undermining his presidency.

Right-wing media amplified the idea that agencies like the FBI, CIA, and even parts of the military were actively sabotaging Trump. The term became a rhetorical device: a way to delegitimize critics within government by casting them as shadowy saboteurs, rather than legal or institutional actors performing their duties. Polls in 2018 showed that most Americans, across party lines, believed unelected officials held too much influence — though understandings of the term varied.

In this usage, “Deep State” shifted from being a structural critique of opaque power (as in Turkey or academic circles) to a politicized accusation — often vague, lacking evidence, but emotionally potent.

Who the “Deep State” Refers To

In U.S. political rhetoric, the “deep state” is rarely defined precisely. It may refer to:

• Career bureaucrats or civil servants who resist unlawful or unethical orders.
• Intelligence community officials investigating presidential wrongdoing.
• Whistleblowers or inspectors general.
• Judges or military officers acting independently of political pressure.

This ambiguity is part of its appeal as a political weapon — it can encompass any institution or individual standing in opposition to a particular agenda.

Ironically, many of the people labeled as “deep state” by critics are public servants acting in line with the Constitution, not against it. For example, following lawful processes, adhering to norms of oversight, or testifying under oath are reframed as disloyalty.

Misuse and Consequences

The modern use of “deep state” often serves to:

• Delegitimize constitutional checks and balances (e.g., independent investigations).
• Undermine trust in institutions, including the judiciary, law enforcement, intelligence, and the civil service.
• Justify purging or replacing nonpartisan officials with political loyalists — as seen in Trump’s later proposals to dismantle employment protections for civil servants.

More extreme interpretations, like those promoted by QAnon, turned the deep state into a near-mythical, evil force responsible for all manner of atrocities — detaching the term from its original grounding in reality.

Alternative View: The “Steady State”

In response, some commentators described the nonpartisan, duty-bound civil service as the “Steady State” — officials upholding the Constitution, maintaining lawful continuity, and resisting unlawful directives. While this term never caught on widely, it helped reframe the debate by recognizing the difference between conspiracy and professional governance.

Most government employees — especially in military and civil service — swear an oath not to a leader, but to the Constitution. The real opposite of a “deep state” conspiracy is not blind obedience, but principled service under law.