So, What Is “The Deep State”? (An Empathic, Multi-Viewpoint Perspective)

Unpacking our reasoning journeys creates a field of understanding

My friend’s decision to vote for the third-party candidate to help “dismantle the deep state” got me asking what that even means

A few days before the election, I was speaking to a friend over the phone. She said she was not voting for Kamala or Trump: She was voting for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian candidate. Her reason was that it was very important to dismantle the deep state. The term “deep state” triggered a cascade of reactions in me. However, loving and respecting her, I got to thinking — what that term meant to her might be very different from the associations I had with it. This prompted me to unpack what the term means — and led me to see that it could mean very different things to different people.

So let’s unpack “the deep state”

So first — what is actually meant by “the deep state”? Here’s Wikipedia’s definition:

According to an American political conspiracy theory, the deep state is a clandestine network of members of the federal government (especially within the FBI and CIA), working in conjunction with high-level financial and industrial entities and leaders, to exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government.

But this characterization does not tell us everything — for some, “dismantling the deep state” could have democratizing motives — such as removing undue corporate influence. For others, it may have libertarian overtones, and for still others, more authoritatiran ones.

Three people — and what they might mean by “the deep state”

To illustrate this, I asked Claude to help me imagine three different characters, with very different backgrounds, and what they might mean by “dismantling the deep state”. Exploring these three characters can give us insight into the need to define our terms, as well as the value of looking more deeply into the what’s and the why’s of people’s top-line labels (which can encapsulate very different sets of conclusions and very different value systems).

Maria, progressive reformer

By “deep state”, Maria means entrenched corporate interests and their lobbying power over government agencies. When she talks about “dismantling” it, she means stricter regulation of lobbying, campaign finance reform, and breaking up concentrations of corporate power. Her “better world” is one with more economic equality and democratic accountability. Her conception focuses on removing the influence of money from politics.

Maria’s story: She started her career as a public interest lawyer working on environmental cases. Over years of litigation, she repeatedly encountered situations where clear public health evidence was ignored due to corporate influence. Her most devastating case involved a community where children developed rare cancers, but corporate lawyers tied up the case for years while more children got sick. Her view of the “deep state” was shaped by watching how corporate money systematically distorted democratic and scientific processes.

Robert, libertarian tech entrepreneur

When Robert says “deep state,” he means bureaucratic regulatory agencies that he sees as stifling innovation. His version of “dismantling” involves dramatically reducing the size and scope of government agencies like the FDA, EPA, and SEC. His “better world” is one with minimal regulation where technological progress can proceed unimpeded. He sees these agencies as obsolete barriers to human progress.

Robert’s story: As a biotech entrepreneur, he developed a promising treatment for a rare disease. His small company spent three years navigating FDA protocols he saw as outdated and inappropriate for modern therapeutic approaches. He watched larger pharmaceutical companies with more regulatory expertise (and spending power) get similar treatments approved more quickly. His view of the “deep state” emerged from experiencing bureaucratic systems as innovation-killing entities that favor established players while harming progress.

Thomas, authoritarian nationalist

Thomas’ “deep state” refers to career civil servants and intelligence officials who he believes are secretly controlling policy regardless of who’s elected. His “dismantling” means replacing career officials with politically loyal appointees. His “better world” is one where a strong executive can implement their agenda without institutional resistance. He sees these institutions as enemies of popular will.

Thomas’s story: He comes from a military family and served for 20 years, including roles in military intelligence. He became increasingly frustrated watching what he saw as career bureaucrats and appointed officials undermining or slow-walking directives from elected leadership, regardless of which party was in power. His breaking point came during a crisis where he believed intelligence was selectively shared to influence policy decisions in ways that aligned with institutional preferences rather than elected officials’ goals. His view of the “deep state” was shaped by watching what he perceived as unelected officials substituting their judgment for democratic decisions.

Unpacking our terms is essential to healthy discourse, and allows us to speak across difference

By imagining three individuals’ reasonable stories about what “deep state” might mean to them, we begin to interpret specific meaning, that can then be understood and talked about. Through hearing their stories, we develop empathy that helps us see how they might have reached their conclusions. We might still not agree with them — but the tone shifts from simply whether they are “right or wrong”, to the deeper nuances of the human experience, and how we come to see things the way that we do.

This kind of unpacking does more than just clarify terms. It transforms our political conversations from exchanges of conclusions into explorations of how we each got there. When we understand someone's reasoning journey — even when we disagree with where it led them — we create space for real dialogue.

Our willingness to turn a reaction into a sense of curiosity begins to allow us to see things in this way. What started as a reaction to my friend’s political choice helped me enrich my understanding. By the way — after I had gone on this inquiry, speaking to her about the subject felt a lot less charged, and more appreciative. I was far more able to greet her choice with respect, because it was not all about whether I thought it was “the right” choice, but about appreciating a thoughtful human being, who had clearly arrived at her conclusions through a process, and I could respect her for doing her best to work things out for herself.

In short: Doing this is magical!