Power play: Can Donald Trump dismantle US 'deep state'?

As US President-elect Donald Trump prepares for his second term, the contours of a looming battle are becoming clearer: a direct confrontation with what he has long decried as the “deep state.”

Trump’s sweeping nominations for key positions in his incoming administration signal a shift from conventional governance to a government aligned with fierce loyalty and adversarial intentions toward career bureaucracies.

Driving the news

• Throughout this year's campaign, Trump consistently pledged to "demolish the deep state," whilst criticising the professional national-security personnel.
• Now, Trump’s recent appointments have sent shockwaves through Washington, marking an aggressive new chapter in his battle with the institutions he has long labeled as part of the “deep state.”
• With Matt Gaetz nominated for attorney general, Pete Hegseth for defense secretary, and Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, Trump’s selections prioritize allegiance over conventional expertise.
• These appointments, if confirmed, will set the stage for a combative second term focused on dismantling what he views as entrenched opposition within government agencies.

Zoom in: Each of Trump’s selections comes with significant implications:
Matt Gaetz as attorney general: Gaetz has been one of Trump’s most vocal defenders in Congress, advocating fiercely for the dismantling of the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Gaetz’s nomination underscores Trump’s desire to overhaul the Justice Department, which he has accused of political bias. Gaetz’s past controversies, including a federal investigation into alleged sex trafficking that was eventually dropped, make his appointment particularly contentious. His agenda, according to Trump allies like Stephen Bannon, will be to take “a blowtorch” to what they see as deep-rooted corruption in the department.

Pete Hegseth for defense secretary: Hegseth, a former Army National Guard officer and Fox News host, brings military experience but lacks the leadership background typical for the role. His selection signals Trump’s intent to challenge what he perceives as a “woke” military culture and return to a more rigid, nationalist posture. Hegseth’s outspoken support for Trump, especially in defending controversial pardons for convicted war criminals, aligns with the president-elect’s vision of a military that prioritizes loyalty over protocol.

Tulsi Gabbard as director of National Intelligence ( DNI ): Once a Democratic congresswoman and critic of her own party’s foreign policy, Gabbard has shifted to Trump’s corner, aligning herself with anti-establishment views. Gabbard’s past comments echoing Russia’s positions on Ukraine and skepticism of Nato have raised eyebrows in Washington. Her nomination reflects Trump’s desire to install a DNI who will challenge mainstream intelligence narratives and perhaps pivot US intelligence policy towards a less interventionist stance.


Why it matters

• Trump's confrontational stance stems from the significant obstacles he encountered during his first term. These included resistance from the Justice Department, the intelligence community, and the Pentagon. These institutions, seen by Trump as bastions of bureaucratic resistance, proved instrumental in pushing back against his most controversial policies and post-election maneuvers.
• The repercussions of these past struggles now resonate in his current choices, signaling a deliberate shift towards consolidating power and reshaping the US national security landscape.
• The notion of a powerful, insular “deep state” has been both decried as paranoia and defended as a reflection of institutional inertia. Trump’s narrative positions it as a bureaucracy that subtly shapes policy irrespective of elected mandates. However, former intelligence officials caution that such a perspective risks undermining the foundational stability of governance.
• As per an Atlantic report, Asha Rangappa, an ex-FBI agent, and Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA officer, recently argued that a politicized approach would be dangerous for national security. “The institution of a ‘loyalty test’... would drastically undermine the effectiveness of our agencies,” they wrote.

The big picture
Trump’s animosity towards these agencies has roots in several key episodes. In 2017, the intelligence community concluded that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to aid his candidacy. Despite pushback, including Trump’s public dismissal of US intelligence findings in favor of President Vladimir Putin ’s denials, these agencies held firm. The Justice Department, led by figures such as former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, also presented challenges. Sessions recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation, a move that enraged Trump and was perceived as a betrayal. Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s refusal to engage in post-2020 election schemes, such as deploying troops domestically or seizing voting machines, reinforced Trump’s view of these departments as obstacles rather than allies.

This historical friction has culminated in a slate of new nominees that starkly contrast with Trump’s first-term picks, which included establishment figures like Jeff Sessions, retired Gen Jim Mattis, and Dan Coats. Each of these appointees clashed with Trump over policy and independence, eventually resigning or being dismissed as their relationships soured. By contrast, the likes of Gaetz, Hegseth, and Gabbard are known for their unwavering support of Trump’s worldview, suggesting that loyalty is now the top qualification.

What they're saying

• Reactions to Trump’s nominations have spanned shock, concern, and support, revealing deep divides within Washington and the Republican Party.
• Stephen Bannon, a key figure in Trump’s ideological sphere, set the tone with his forceful response on his podcast: “You tried to destroy Trump… He’s not breakable. And now he has turned on you,” signaling that the nominees were chosen as a direct affront to what Trump sees as bureaucratic resistance. Bannon’s comments reflect a belief among Trump’s base that these appointments will bring the long-promised reckoning against those perceived as members of the “deep state.”
• Former national security officials and critics have expressed alarm. Olivia Troye, a former aide to Vice President Mike Pence and outspoken Trump critic, argued that these picks underscore a strategy of weaponizing government: “It’s almost projection because he does exactly what he accuses these people of doing,” she told the NYT, highlighting the potential for politicizing vital national security agencies.
• On the Democratic side, the response has been more pointed. Representative Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA officer, said, “As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am deeply concerned about what this nomination portends for our national security.” Her worries echo those of current intelligence officials who fear that a leadership change prioritizing loyalty could disrupt operations and morale.
• Political commentators have noted that the shift towards these nominees signals a potential hardening of Trump’s approach. This isn’t just an administration realignment; it’s a clear message of reprisal. Some in the media have framed the appointments as a “biggest F-you to the Deep State Swamp,” emphasizing the intent to reset the relationship between the executive branch and entrenched government institutions.

What’s next

• The Senate confirmation process will serve as a key indicator of whether Trump’s "deep state" strategy succeeds or faces formidable resistance. The stakes are high: if confirmed, these appointees could lead the most partisan and radically restructured national security apparatus in modern US history. Their mandates could include enforcing wide-ranging purges of perceived disloyal elements within their agencies, potentially through revived executive orders that make federal employees more easily dismissible.
• This anticipated purge recalls Trump’s 2020 executive order that aimed to reclassify thousands of federal employees, stripping them of civil service protections. While President Biden reversed this order, Trump has pledged to reinstate it on his first day back in office. Such moves could severely undermine morale within federal agencies and accelerate an exodus of experienced personnel, weakening the institutional capacity of key security departments.
• Trump’s narrative of an omnipresent “deep state” resonates with a portion of his base, framing his presidency as a battle against an unseen power structure. How these confrontations play out will determine not only his legacy but the future of US governance, setting the stage for a consequential second term that could redefine the boundaries of presidential influence over federal agencies.

(With inputs from agencies)