Deep State Claims and the Civil Service

What Is the Deep State

The deep state is the claim that a hidden network of unelected officials, usually career civil servants and intelligence and military staff, secretly steers government policy and works against elected leaders. In U.S. politics the phrase is used most often by supporters of President Trump, who say career officials have tried to block his agenda. Critics call it a conspiracy theory that recasts a lawful, visible civil service as a secret enemy.

The phrase blends three questions that have different answers: where the idea came from, what people believe, and what the civil service is and how it has changed since 2025.

Three Meanings of Deep State

The same two words describe three different ideas, and most arguments about the deep state turn on which one is meant.

The third meaning is the one in today’s news, and it is the focus of this page. It is sometimes confused with the “administrative state,” a term for the federal agencies that write and enforce rules. The administrative state is a description of how government is organized. The deep state claim adds an accusation: that those agencies act in secret against the people’s elected choice.

Where the Phrase Came From

The American fight over who controls federal jobs is much older than the phrase.

1. 1881 Garfield is shot by a job seeker Charles Guiteau had been refused a European consulship.
2. 1883 Pendleton Act creates the merit system Jobs filled by exam, and no firing for political reasons.
3. 2014 Lofgren's "Anatomy of the Deep State" A former congressional staffer brings the term into U.S. debate.
4. 2017 The phrase enters mainstream politics Trump allies use it to describe officials they say oppose the president.
5. 2023 A plan to "shatter the Deep State" Trump's campaign releases a ten-point plan.
6. 2025 The plan begins Schedule F is revived and 17 inspectors general are fired.
7. 2026 About 8,000 jobs become at-will The first career positions move into Schedule Policy/Career.

Sources: Miller Center; National Archives; BillMoyers.com; Agenda47; Government Executive; Federal Register.

From the spoils system to the deep state claim, 1881 to 2026: 1881: Garfield is shot by a job seeker (Charles Guiteau had been refused a European consulship.). 1883: Pendleton Act creates the merit system (Jobs filled by exam, and no firing for political reasons.). 2014: Lofgren's "Anatomy of the Deep State" (A former congressional staffer brings the term into U.S. debate.). 2017: The phrase enters mainstream politics (Trump allies use it to describe officials they say oppose the president.). 2023: A plan to "shatter the Deep State" (Trump's campaign releases a ten-point plan.). 2025: The plan begins (Schedule F is revived and 17 inspectors general are fired.). 2026: About 8,000 jobs become at-will (The first career positions move into Schedule Policy/Career.).

1881: At 9:20 a.m. on July 2, 1881, Charles Guiteau shot President James Garfield in the back at Washington’s Baltimore and Potomac train station. Guiteau had wanted a European consulship and had been turned down. Garfield died on September 19 (Miller Center). Under the spoils system of the time, each new administration handed federal jobs to its supporters, and office-seekers crowded the White House.

1883: Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, approved January 16, 1883. It required that federal jobs be filled “on the basis of merit” through competitive exams, and it made it unlawful to fire covered employees “for political reasons.” At first it covered only about 10% of the government’s 132,000 workers (National Archives). Coverage grew over the next century until most federal jobs were in the merit system.

2014: Mike Lofgren, a former Republican staffer on the House and Senate budget committees, published “Anatomy of the Deep State.” He defined it as “a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed.” He added that his essay was “not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal” (BillMoyers.com).

2017: The phrase moved into mainstream politics during Trump’s first term, when the president and his allies used it to describe officials they said were working against him. By September 2017, Government Executive was running a feature on what the term did and did not describe (Government Executive).

2023: On March 21, 2023, the Trump campaign released “President Trump’s Plan to Dismantle the Deep State,” with the line “I will shatter the Deep State, and restore government that is controlled by the People” (Agenda47).

2025: On his first day back, the president revived Schedule F by executive order. On January 24, 2025, the fifth day of his term, he fired 17 inspectors general, the independent watchdogs inside federal agencies (Government Executive). Our inspector general explainer covers what those offices do and how many are still empty. Reviving Schedule F was a written proposal in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan.

2026: About 8,000 career positions moved into Schedule Policy/Career on June 3, 2026, which lets agencies fire the people in them at will. Our Schedule F explainer covers that rule in detail.

What Polls Show People Believe

Most Americans in one 2018 poll said a deep state probably exists, even though most had never heard the term. Monmouth University described it to respondents as “a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy.”

The belief crossed party lines in that poll. The share who said a deep state definitely exists was 31% among Republicans, 33% among independents, and 19% among Democrats. Concern that appointed officials have too much influence was almost identical in every group, at 59% of Democrats, 59% of Republicans, and 62% of independents (Monmouth University, March 2-5, 2018, 803 adults).

One caution about the number. The poll’s wording describes a secret group, but people who agree may mean different things, from covert plotting to the ordinary pull of experienced officials who outlast any one administration.

The Civil Service by the Numbers

Whatever one believes about its motives, the federal workforce is counted and published. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the government’s human resources agency, tracks where federal employees work.

Most federal civilian workers are nowhere near Washington. In September 2024, about 7 in 100 had a duty station in D.C. itself.

7.1%

80.7%

12.1%

• District of Columbia (7.1%) 162,489 employees
• States and territories (80.7%) California, Virginia, Maryland, and Texas each had more than 130,000
• Location withheld (12.1%) Security-sensitive jobs whose duty station OPM does not publish

Source: OPM FedScope data as of September 2024, compiled by the Congressional Research Service (R47716). Shares derived from CRS's state totals; figures exclude the Postal Service and some agencies. Some agencies' workers in the D.C. suburbs are recorded as D.C.

The career workforce is also far larger than its political leadership. The Plum Book, the government’s list of jobs a president can fill without competition, covers “over 7,000” positions (GovInfo). That is about 1 in 325 federal civilian jobs. More than 1,300 of them require Senate confirmation (Partnership for Public Service). Everyone else is hired through the merit system and stays from one administration to the next.

The size of the on-payroll workforce has also held fairly steady for decades. John DiIulio, a University of Pennsylvania political scientist, notes it has stayed around 2.2 million since the Reagan years, while about 7 million people working for contractors and grantees are also paid through federal money (Brookings).

That changed in 2025. Across 22 major agencies, nearly 378,000 employees left during the year and about 127,000 were hired. The total fell by nearly 256,000, more than 11%, from December 2024 to January 2026. The Department of Education lost more than 45% of its staff (GAO, June 17, 2026). The same year, federal unions lost bargaining rights at whole departments.

Where the 2023 Deep State Plan Stands

The campaign’s 2023 plan listed ten steps. The first was to “re-issue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to fire rogue bureaucrats.” The sixth was to make every inspector general’s office “independent from the departments they oversee, so that they do not become protectors of the deep state.” The ledger tracks the actions taken in the name of that plan.

Where the Plan's Main Actions Stand

As of September 25, 2026

• At-will firing for some career jobs (Schedule Policy/Career) In litigation, in effect

  About 8,000 positions moved on June 3, 2026. Suits by unions and advocacy groups are pending; none has stopped it. (source)

• Firing of 17 inspectors general In litigation, not reinstated

  A judge ruled on September 24, 2025 that the firings broke the notice law but refused to reinstate the IGs. In July 2026 she set a pre-motion process for summary judgment on the remaining claims, including back pay. On October 14, 2026, the day set for the pre-motion conference, the court set deadlines for government status reports on October 16 and 23 and a joint status report on November 9. (source)

• Mass layoffs and reorganizations (EO 14210) Agency action, allowed to proceed

  The Supreme Court lifted an order blocking the plans on July 8, 2025. Justice Jackson dissented. (source)

• Workforce size Agency action

  Down nearly 256,000, more than 11%, across 22 major agencies from December 2024 to January 2026. (source)

• Firing heads of independent agencies Final ruling, allowed

  Trump v. Slaughter, June 29, 2026, 6-3: the FTC's protection of commissioners from removal except for cause "is contrary to the separation of powers." (source)

• Saving the Civil Service Act (H.R. 492, S. 134) Proposal

  Would require Congress's approval before jobs leave the protected service. In committee. (source)

Source: Federal Register; Government Executive; Supreme Court docket 24A1174; GAO-26-108583; Supreme Court opinions; Congress.gov

The Honest Disagreement

People who use the phrase and people who reject it are often describing different things. Both sides point to evidence.

The case that career officials resist elected leaders. The 2023 plan argued that firing “underperforming employees takes a year or longer” and that “rogue bureaucrats” were protected. Supporters point to documented friction during Trump’s first term. A 2017 Government Executive report described career Justice Department lawyers who declined to sign a brief reversing an Obama-era position, and it cited a Republican staff report from the Senate Homeland Security committee that counted seven times as many leaks in the first 126 days as in the two prior administrations (Government Executive). The executive order moving jobs into Schedule Policy/Career says barely two-fifths of federal supervisors believe they could remove an employee for serious misconduct.

The case against the claim. Critics say none of this shows a coordinated secret network. The same 2017 report found similar tension under President Reagan, when career staff at the EPA clashed with his appointees, which suggests friction between new leaders and career staff is common rather than a plot against one president. Lofgren, who popularized the term, wrote that his version was “not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal.” DiIulio argues the larger machinery of federal spending runs through millions of contractors, grantees, and state governments, not a hidden cadre of civil servants. Critics also note that a career worker who refuses a lawful order can already be disciplined, and that leaking classified information is already a crime.

Both sides accept part of the other’s point. Firing a federal worker is slow, and career staff do have views. The dispute is whether that calls for more political control of the workforce or for the merit protections Congress chose in 1883.

What the Deep State Debate Leaves Out

• Not every complaint about bureaucracy is a conspiracy claim. Slow hiring and firing, agency rulemaking, and the influence of experts are real subjects that scholars study without any claim of secret coordination.
• The phrase means something different where it began. In Turkey it described intelligence, military, and security networks, a narrower idea than the U.S. political use.
• Intelligence agencies are a separate debate. Some scholars argue that national security agencies have gained power that no president fully controls. That argument concerns secrecy and oversight, and it is different from the claim about the wider civil service.
• Polls about a “deep state” measure belief, not fact. The 74% figure shows how many people accept the idea as described to them. It cannot show whether such a group exists.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the term deep state mean?

It means a hidden network of unelected officials, usually career civil servants and intelligence and military staff, said to secretly steer government and work against elected leaders. The term was coined in Turkey, and its U.S. political use spread during President Trump’s first term.

What is another word for deep state?

A common near-synonym is “shadow government,” the phrase in the subtitle of Mike Lofgren’s book The Deep State. The “administrative state” is sometimes used the same way, as when Stephen Bannon promised its “deconstruction” in 2017, but it describes the ordinary system of federal agencies, without a claim of secret control.

Who is said to be in the deep state?

In U.S. politics the claim is aimed at career federal employees. Government Executive’s 2017 report described it being applied to suspected leakers in the intelligence community and to career Justice Department staff. The federal civilian workforce had about 2.28 million people in September 2024, and the Plum Book lists over 7,000 jobs that may be filled without competition, about 1 in 325.

Is the deep state real?

The civil service it refers to is real, counted, and governed by law. Whether its members secretly coordinate against elected leaders is the disputed part. Supporters point to leaks and resistance by individual officials. Critics quoted by Government Executive call the term a conspiratorial one that “does not correspond to reality” and note that career staff clashed with new appointees under President Reagan too.

What You Can Do

1. Ask for specifics when you hear the claim. Which office, which official, which action, and what record shows it? Inspector general reports, posted at Oversight.gov, are the government’s own record of misconduct inside agencies.

2. Comment on OPM’s proposal by November 17, 2026. A September 18 proposed rule would let student and recent-graduate hires convert directly into Schedule Policy/Career. Anyone can comment.

3. If you are a federal employee, know your protections. Our Hatch Act guide covers what you can and cannot do politically at work, and the Office of Special Counsel takes whistleblower complaints.

4. Tell Congress where you stand on the merit system. The Saving the Civil Service Act would require Congress’s approval before jobs leave the protected service. The letter below asks your representative to back it.