In a striking move reflective of his long-standing battle against what he calls the “Deep State,” President-elect Donald Trump has selected Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and prominent critic of the U.S. surveillance state, to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The decision aligns with Trump’s promise to dismantle entrenched bureaucratic forces that he claims undermine democratic governance and obstruct his administration’s agenda.
Gabbard’s appointment underscores her alignment with Trump’s vision of curbing what both have described as the overreach of the national security state. Her legislative record, outspoken criticism of U.S. foreign policy, and support for whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange highlight her maverick credentials, making her both a controversial and compelling choice for the role.
Gabbard, once a Democratic representative for Hawaii, has cultivated a reputation as an independent thinker. Her critique of the “national security state” and its “warmongering friends” set her apart during her time in Congress. In December 2020, shortly before leaving office, she introduced legislation to repeal the Patriot Act and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—cornerstones of post-9/11 surveillance law. Though the bills failed, her effort was emblematic of her staunch opposition to unchecked government spying.
She has repeatedly condemned what she calls a “cabal of warmongers” in Washington, including Democrats and neoconservatives. Gabbard’s skepticism of U.S. support for Ukraine and her criticism of interventionist foreign policies resonate with Trump’s own rhetoric, further solidifying their ideological compatibility.
Her support for whistleblowers like Assange and Snowden, who exposed massive surveillance and national security abuses, has also made her a polarizing figure. Advocates hail her as a champion of transparency and accountability, while critics argue her positions compromise national security.
Trump’s choice of Gabbard must be viewed within the context of his antagonistic relationship with the so-called Deep State. The term, popularized in American discourse by Republican strategist Mike Lofgren, refers to a shadowy network of entrenched bureaucrats, intelligence officials, and private sector elites who allegedly wield undue influence over government policy. For Trump, the Deep State became a symbol of the resistance he faced during his first term, particularly from intelligence agencies and military officials.
In his 2024 campaign kickoff in Waco, Texas, Trump declared his bid a “final battle” against this opaque power structure. He vowed to dismantle the Deep State, describing himself as the people’s “warrior” and “retribution” for perceived betrayals of public trust.
Trump’s grievances with the national security apparatus date back to the early days of his presidency. In 2017, a Senate Homeland Security Committee report revealed an unprecedented rate of national security leaks during his administration, with more than 125 stories involving leaked information appearing in major publications within his first four months. The leaks, often critical of Trump, were seen as evidence of entrenched bureaucratic opposition.
The FBI, in particular, has been a focal point of Trump’s ire. Former FBI Director James Comey’s decision to leak memos documenting private conversations with Trump further fueled accusations of Deep State disloyalty. Trump allies like Corey Lewandowski labeled Comey a key player in this covert resistance.
Other officials, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, also clashed with Trump. Retired Lt. General H.R. McMaster, Trump’s former National Security Advisor, has written about instances where the Pentagon defied Trump’s directives, including policies on aid to Pakistan. These incidents reinforced Trump’s belief that the Deep State was undermining his presidency.
The concept of the Deep State has roots outside the United States. In Turkey during the 1950s, it referred to a shadowy network of military officers, bureaucrats, and organized crime figures working to preserve secularism and combat communism. Similar narratives have emerged in countries like Egypt, Pakistan, and pre-war Syria, where militaries have exerted significant influence over civilian governments.
In the U.S., the term gained traction through works like Mike Lofgren’s The Party Is Over and Michael J. Glennon’s National Security and Double Government. These books argued that an unelected cadre of bureaucrats, intelligence officials, and corporate leaders shapes policy decisions, often prioritizing their interests over those of the electorate.
Critics of the Deep State in the U.S. also point to the role of Big Tech and mainstream media. Mark Zuckerberg’s recent admission that the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor COVID-19 content has fueled allegations of government overreach and collusion. Republican leaders argue this reflects a broader trend of silencing dissent, particularly against conservative voices.
During Trump’s presidency, Big Tech’s actions, including Twitter’s ban on Trump before its acquisition by Elon Musk, were cited as evidence of the Deep State’s influence. Supporters claimed that technology giants were complicit in a campaign to undermine Trump’s administration and suppress conservative viewpoints.
The Deep State debate extends to foreign policy, where critics argue that unelected officials prioritize ideological objectives over national interests. For instance, many Trump supporters believe the Deep State has driven policies that unnecessarily antagonize Russia and China while undermining allies like India and Israel.
In India, observers see parallels with their own struggles against bureaucratic inertia and external interference. The perception that U.S.-based social media platforms amplify dissent against Indian policies has led to concerns about American Deep State activities targeting India’s sovereignty.
Trump’s battle against the Deep State faces significant challenges. As John J. DiIulio Jr., a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, notes, the true Deep State may not reside solely within federal bureaucracies but in the sprawling ecosystem of contractors, corporations, and nonprofit organizations that influence policy from the outside.
This “contractor state” includes defense contractors, state and local governments reliant on federal funding, and taxpayer-subsidized nonprofits with multimillion-dollar budgets. Reforming this entrenched network would require not just executive action but widespread legislative and systemic change.
As Trump prepares for his second term, his choice of Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence signals his intent to confront entrenched bureaucratic power structures. Gabbard’s track record as an anti-surveillance advocate and her criticism of interventionist policies align with Trump’s vision of reining in the national security state.
