Deep State, Anti-Bureaucratic Revolution and Its Consequences – From Muskoism Myth to Chaos Part 1

By Maciej Lesiak

March 9, 2025 - 27 minutes read - 5574 words

Ten artykuł jest dostępny również po polsku:
Deep State, rewolucja antybiurokratyczna i jej skutki – od mitu Muskoizmu do chaosu cz. 1

What's in this article

Introduction

Let’s examine the two meanings of the term ‘deep state.’ The first is commonly used by journalists, mainly in a pejorative sense, as an element of conspiracy theories, which leads to the simplification of complex socio-political mechanisms. This approach, in my opinion, obscures the image of real processes, causing both participants in these phenomena and the audience of their presentations (e.g., in social media) to miss the real meaning of ongoing social processes - at least in their declarative sphere.

Before the final stage of the US presidential election, I analyzed the Project 2025 document, pointing out key vectors of change. I did this because I was surprised that so many journalists, commentators, and specialists were claiming with absolute certainty that it was just a plan and would not be implemented. It was supposed to be just a supplementary document. After going deep down the rabbit hole through podcasts about conspiracy theories in the US, I had different feelings. I sensed a breath of radicalism and was rather convinced that it was an expression of the declaration of accelerationists who want to burn down the house (federal offices, institutions, authorities) to rebuild it anew.

In this context, I would like to examine the two meanings of the word deep state, because in my opinion, Project 2025, which we now know is being fully implemented to the horror of some Americans and the world, actually aims to dismantle the deep state. Progressive media present this as an expression of conspiracy theories. However, I believe that such a perspective does not allow for understanding the arguments of the other side and is limited.

Is the deep state a mythical enemy, or perhaps something we unjustly demonize, losing sight of the real threats?

Two Faces of Deep State

The MAGA environment made no secret of its animosity. They constantly exposed their negative approach to central power in Washington (the swamp), but also to federal offices, which in their opinion were an extension of corrupt authority. That’s why Project 2025 is not just a political manifesto, but to put it delicately, a plan for thorough reform, or to be blunt, the dismantling of the current political system. It’s worth understanding the significance of this statement. The main assumption is to “cleanse” government structures of alleged enemies. Officials, procedures, experts are perceived as opponents of the conservative political agenda. The Deep State, in this understanding, ensures the continued existence of policy vectors despite political changes. This is ensured by civil servants, experts in government agencies, procedures and standards of operation, long-term state policies (such as USAID, which is an extension of soft power in geopolitics), or the armed forces and intelligence services.

According to this meaning of the deep state, the elements I’ve described, which are the main target of Project 2025, are a natural element of any developed country - they are the permanent administrative and expert structure. This meaning is academic-analytical.

In academic literature, the concept of “deep state” as an administrative-bureaucratic structure has several key theoretical sources. Peter Dale Scott from UC Berkeley introduced the term “state within state” to analyze the institutional continuity of the USA. Michael J. Glennon developed the concept of “double government” showing how bureaucracy related to national security functions independently of political changes. Hugh Heclo introduced the concept of “government of strangers” describing the relationship between permanent officials and political nominees. As far as I’m aware, this concept has existed in political science for a long time. Max Weber analyzed how bureaucracy becomes a self-sustaining power structure, though he obviously didn’t use the term “deep state.” The concept of education in sociology as social reproduction and so on.

There is also a second, populist-conspiratorial meaning, which unfortunately dominates in media and social media, portraying it as an allegedly hidden center of power acting against the interests of real Americans. Although Donald Trump and many of his acolytes use this second formulation, the political project implemented by P2025 targets the first understanding and concretizes the goals of change. Elon Musk, with his chainsaw and Occam’s razor, has gotten to work and is implementing the accelerationists’ postulates of dismantling the current system. I have the unfortunate impression that opponents of the current government and changes, by laughing at the second conspiratorial meaning, are losing touch with the real threat. There is a classic underestimation of the opponent. Besides, Donald Trump and Musk, by pumping conspiracy theories and disinformation, perfectly introduce chaos into the ranks of Democrats, who are paralyzed by the speed of changes, focusing on meaningless elements. This is a well-thought-out strategy of Muskoism.

Accelerationism as a Strategic Method - Introduction to Muskoism and Cultural Revolution 2.0

To better understand the current situation, that is, what is really happening, this flood of changes, it’s worth looking at the concept of accelerationism, which seems to be the key to the strategy implemented by the Trump administration and Musk. Accelerationism is not an ideology in the traditional sense here. It is rather a strategic orientation and method. Its goal is to accelerate the collapse of existing political, economic, and social systems. Let’s burn down the house and rebuild it anew. Let’s drain the swamp.

In the American context, accelerationists aim to dismantle the current state structures, believing them to be fundamentally corrupt and unreformable. What distinguishes accelerationism is its ability to unite different, often conflicting groups under the common goal of destroying the existing order - it is a kind of “anti-ideology.” This is clearly visible in BBC’s The Coming Storm podcasts about conspiracy theories in the USA.

Arguably one of the greatest achievements of accelerationists, aside from the current victory of Trump and the Republicans, was the storming of the Capitol. Brian Hughes and Cynthia Miller-Idriss in the article “Uniting for Total Collapse: The January 6 Boost to Accelerationism” note:

“Accelerationism is an ideological style and strategic method, aimed at bringing about the failure of ideologies that dominate in a given system or country at this particular moment. […] As a strategy and style, the goal of accelerationism is nothing less than the destruction of the dominant liberal-democratic order of the United States.”

In my opinion, this is clearly visible in the coalition that supported Trump. From traditional conservatives to libertarians (crypto cowboys), from the religious right to calculating technological visionaries like Musk. Although their visions of a “better America” differ drastically, there is a connecting pattern, namely the belief that the current system must first be dismantled.

Project 2025, which I have already analyzed in the context of Climate Change, fits perfectly into this logic - it is a systematic plan to remove the hated structures that guarantee the continuity of the state regardless of political changes. Paradoxically, although MAGA uses conspiratorial rhetoric about the “deep state,” their actual actions are aimed at objective, real structures of professional administration that exist in every developed country.

The case of Elon Musk is particularly interesting here. As a leader of “tech bros,” Musk promotes his own brand of accelerationism - technological libertarianism #freespeech, which perceives state regulations and bureaucracy as the main brakes on “progress.” His Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is nominally focused on “efficiency,” but in practice acts as a tool for dismantling federal institutions from within. We will look at motivations in detail in the next article.

Mao, Trump Fighting Bureaucratism

An excellent example of this approach is Thomas Fingar’s analysis in the article “How Trump, Musk, and DOGE are undermining US intelligence and national security.” Fingar describes how the Trump administration, supported by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative, actively attacks professional bureaucracy, including intelligence services. I recommend this article for consideration, as it is an excellent analysis and warning. In the MAGA narrative, these institutions are presented as a conspiratorial deep state – a mysterious, hostile force operating in the shadows to sabotage the president’s political goals. However, in reality, as Fingar notes, these actions are not aimed at combating a hidden clique, but at dismantling structures based on expertise and objectivity. There is a clear understanding of conspiratorial trends by Gabriel Gatehouse, who saw an accelerationist trend in these movements.

But let’s return to Fingar. He notes that through the reduction of employment in the CIA, uncontrolled access of DOGE to sensitive data, or emphasis on loyalty to the president, the administration aims to take full political control over key areas of the state. This is not a fight against a mythical enemy, but a systematic weakening of the foundations of professional management, which Project 2025 wants to sanction as an official strategy.

What I liked most was Fingar’s pointing out the similarities between Trump and Mao, indicating their contempt for experts, bureaucracy, and government institutions. Trump very willingly refers to common sense and the voice of the people, which is supposed to legitimize the most absurd conspiracy theories. Fingar presents the effects of Mao’s policy in China as a warning for the USA.

These similarities are striking and crushing if understood in a historical context. Mao during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) also conducted a campaign against “bureaucratism” and “experts,” perceiving them as obstacles to his vision. Similar to Trump with the slogan of “draining the swamp,” Mao mobilized ordinary people against “elites” and “enemies of the revolution.” Both rhetorics appeal to the populist belief that state institutions are corrupt and serve their own interests, not the good of the nation.

As Fingar writes:

“As a long-time China scholar, watching the first days of Trump’s presidency, I cannot help but be reminded of the Chinese Communist Party’s assertion in the 1970s that everything Mao said or did was correct and beyond challenge. Donald Trump’s approach to government reforms resembles Mao Zedong’s misguided attempt to achieve ‘better, faster, cheaper’ results through ex cathedra pronouncements, disparagement of experts and bureaucratic procedures, and the dismantling of government institutions.”

It’s worth noting that in both cases, this anti-bureaucratic rhetoric served to consolidate power in the hands of the leader, not actual democratization. Mao used the Red Guard to eliminate political opponents and independent centers of power. Similarly, Trump, with the help of Musk, aims to replace independent experts with loyalists, which is particularly evident in DOGE’s approach.

The effects of Mao’s policy are well documented - destruction of state institutions, purges among competent officials and experts, administrative chaos, and as a consequence - enormous suffering of the population and backwardness. Fingar rightly sees this as a warning for the USA. Especially in an era of growing threat from Russia and China.

Historical Analogies and Modern Tools - Muskoism 2.0 Platform

Analogies between historical Maoism and the contemporary anti-bureaucratic movement of Trump and Musk go deeper than just rhetoric. This also applies to tools of propaganda and mobilization.

In the 1970s, Maoist movements in Western Europe, inspired by Mao Zedong’s ideology, found their medium in Radio Tirana. The station broadcasting from Albania became a propaganda tube for radical, anti-bureaucratic rhetoric. Albania under Enver Hoxha’s rule, which remained faithful to the Maoist line even after China began to moderate its policy, offered ideological support through Radio Tirana for Western Maoists who rejected both capitalism and Soviet “revisionism.”

Today, a similar role to Radio Tirana is played by Platform X under the direction of Elon Musk. Just as Radio Tirana served to spread radical Maoist ideas beyond Albania’s borders, so X has become the main medium for anti-system and anti-bureaucratic narratives of the MAGA movement. The takeover of the platform by Musk and the change in its moderation policy opened space for content that would be restricted on other platforms, similar to how Radio Tirana broadcast content that could not break through “mainstream” media.

Another analogy I see, of course with awareness of differences in development, is the “Great Leap Forward” as a concept - Mao’s economic campaign from 1958-1962, which was intended to accelerate China’s transformation from an agricultural to an industrial economy. It was based on radical decentralization of management, rejection of expertise, and the belief that revolutionary energy of the masses alone would be sufficient to overcome objective economic limitations. The effects were catastrophic - it is estimated that between 15 and 55 million people died as a result of the ensuing chaos and famine.

Project 2025 can be seen as a kind of “Great Leap Forward” for the American administration. Like Mao’s plan, Project 2025 assumes a radical transformation in a short time, marginalization of experts in favor of ideological loyalists and the belief that political energy alone is sufficient to overcome the complexity of state management. As Fingar notes, China’s experiences should be a warning for Americans.

Technology has significantly changed the dynamics of these processes. In the era of social media, algorithms, pumping fake news and disinformation, the spread of radical ideas is much faster and more “democratic” than in Mao’s times. What once required state control over media can now be achieved through algorithms promoting emotional and polarizing content. This creates new challenges, but also increases the destabilizing potential of contemporary anti-bureaucratic movements.

Threats to the Intelligence Community

CNN published information that demoralized employees of federal agencies with connections to the intelligence, security, and military segments are targeted by Chinese and Russian intelligence services for recruitment. I think today we can say that the warnings from Fingar’s text, where he indicates that the Trump administration, supported by Musk and DOGE, is striving to reduce employment in government agencies, including the CIA, which may weaken the US ability to detect threats early and provide objective analyses. Above all, this is the threat of getting rid of experienced experts and potential violation of data security rules (DODGE access to intelligence databases). He also talks about politicization and loss of objectivity. I think that removing the list of woke words from NSA servers, among which was BIAS, is excellent proof of degradation and the progressive Cultural Revolution in the name of the Great Leap Make America Great Again.

Fingar indicates that staff reductions can weaken intelligence and increase vulnerability to external threats. I perceive CNN’s information about recruitment as empirical support for his predictions.

Fingar fears that emphasizing loyalty to the president instead of objectivity will turn intelligence into a propaganda tool, which will reduce its credibility and usefulness. Additionally, he points to the enormous danger in the unclear delegation of powers for DODGE. This office NOT BEING a formal government department has received wide access to computer systems of government agencies. Fingar rightly points out the lack of transparency and competence (certification and verification) of people involved in the initiative. Recently, a list of people servicing DODGE informatically and controversies related to this was revealed. At the same time, officials writing about irregularities regarding DODGE were subject to doxing attacks (revealing private data) being an element of silencing and hate attacks straight from kiwifarms and DIGG alt right systems.

Particularly worrying is the approach to intelligence services, which in their essence must remain objective and professional to effectively protect national security. Intelligence that becomes a political tool loses its most important value - the ability to provide reliable, non-political analyses.

Countries such as Russia and China are aware of this dynamic and actively exploit it. CNN’s reports about attempts to recruit frustrated employees of American agencies are not a coincidence. It’s a systematic exploitation of the weakness created by the Trump administration’s policy, because there is no better material for recruitment than a frustrated dismissed high-level employee with access to the greatest secrets. The history of intelligence knows many cases where demoralization and politicization of services led to serious security breaches and spectacular recruitments.

It’s also worth noting the unprecedented access of DOGE to sensitive government systems. As Fingar notes, DOGE is not a formal government department, and its employees do not undergo standard verification procedures. In practice, this means that people without appropriate security certificates have access to systems containing extremely sensitive data - from intelligence information to personal data of Americans. This is a situation that can be compared to letting unknown people into a vault with keys to all locks in the state.

Revenge List - 60 Enemies of FBI Director Kash Patel

How far will the Revolution go? Will we erect the scaffold? Below I present the list of 60 names by Kash Patel. It was originally included in the book “Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy” (published in 2022). Patel describes the list as a catalog of “members of the deep state in executive structures.” He created this list as part of the MAGA movement’s narrative, which creates a super conspiracy theory about the existence of a hidden group of influential people in the government and state institutions. They allegedly act in an organized manner against Trump and his supporters. Because this list was presented as a “list of enemies” on whom Patel and the MAGA movement are to seek revenge - people from this list before Trump’s election took a series of actions to secure themselves against potential revenge. I’m not discussing this thread because it goes beyond the scope of the article below, but I created a list with a brief specification of what the person did to deserve such ennoblement. There is also a certain pattern, which is why I additionally made a segmentation grouping thematically (categories). I think there really is no need for a comment, because this is a real revenge list.

Segmentation of Sins - What They Got on the Revenge List For

Here’s an explanation of the categories used in the segmentation:

Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials: People associated with the Democratic Party or the administrations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, perceived as political opponents of Trump.
Former Trump Collaborators: People who worked in the Trump administration, but later criticized him, refused to support his actions, or were considered “traitors.”
FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials: People associated with the FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ), or CIA, involved in investigations concerning Trump (e.g., “Russiagate,” January 6) or other activities perceived as contrary to his interests.
Witnesses and Whistleblowers: People who revealed incriminating information about Trump, testified against him, or were perceived as sources of leaks.

List of Names with Segmentation

The segmentation I proposed aims to better understand the mechanisms of the Revolution I describe and is based on four categories that reflect each person’s affiliation based on their role and actions. Some people may belong to more than one category.

Why Did These People End Up on Kash Patel’s List?

Michael Atkinson – Former Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. Reported a whistleblower complaint about Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which led to Trump’s first impeachment. For MAGA, he is a symbol of “betrayal” in intelligence structures.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials, Witnesses and Whistleblowers)
Lloyd Austin – Secretary of Defense during Biden’s presidency. As a high-ranking official in the Biden administration, he is perceived as part of the establishment opposed to Trump.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Brian Auten – FBI analyst overseeing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. His role in “Russiagate” makes him a target for Patel, who considers this investigation a conspiracy against Trump.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
James Baker – Former FBI legal counsel and former Twitter deputy legal counsel. At the FBI, he was involved in the “Russiagate” investigation, and at Twitter, he oversaw content moderation decisions, which MAGA views as censorship of conservative voices.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Bill Barr – Former Attorney General under Trump. Although he was loyal to Trump, he refused to support his unfounded claims of electoral fraud in 2020, which made him a “traitor” in the eyes of MAGA.
(Former Trump Collaborators)
John Bolton – Former National Security Advisor to Trump. After leaving the administration, he criticized Trump publicly, which is the main reason for his presence on the list.
(Former Trump Collaborators)
Stephen Boyd – Former head of legislative affairs at the FBI. Warned against a memo authored by Patel that was intended to undermine the “Russiagate” investigation, which may have irritated Patel personally.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Joe Biden – President of the United States. As Trump’s political rival and leader of the Democrats, he is an obvious target of MAGA revenge.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
John Brennan – Former CIA Director under Obama. Criticized Trump and supported the Russia investigation, making him an enemy in the “deep state” narrative.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials, FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
John Carlin – Former head of the national security division of the DOJ under Trump. His role in overseeing national security could have been perceived as an obstacle to Trump’s goals.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Eric Ciaramella – Former National Security Council employee. Considered by some in MAGA to be the whistleblower who initiated the Ukraine affair, although his identity has not been officially confirmed.
(Witnesses and Whistleblowers)
Pat Cipollone – Former White House Counsel under Trump. Rejected Trump’s attempts to undermine the 2020 election results and testified before the January 6 committee, which made him a “traitor.”
(Former Trump Collaborators, Witnesses and Whistleblowers)
James Clapper – Former Director of National Intelligence under Obama. Oversaw reports on Russian interference in the 2016 election, which is a major point of contention for MAGA.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials, FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Hillary Clinton – Former Secretary of State and Trump’s rival in the 2016 election. Her email investigation and the MAGA narrative about a “setup” make her a key enemy.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
James Comey – Former FBI Director. Fired by Trump in 2017 for conducting the “Russiagate” investigation, he is a symbol of resistance to Trump in the FBI.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Elizabeth Dibble – Former Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in London. Informed by the Australians about contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia, which links her to “Russiagate.”
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Mark Esper – Former Secretary of Defense under Trump. Opposed Trump regarding the use of the military against protesters in 2020, which led to his conflict with the president.
(Former Trump Collaborators)
Alyssa Farah – Former Director of Strategic Communications under Trump. After leaving, she criticized Trump publicly, which is the reason for her presence on the list.
(Former Trump Collaborators)
Evelyn Farkas – Former Pentagon official under Obama. Criticized Trump and warned about his policy towards Russia.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Sarah Isgur Flores – Former DOJ Communications Director under Trump. Her departure and moderate stance may have irritated Patel.
(Former Trump Collaborators)
Merrick Garland – Attorney General under Biden. Oversees investigations against Trump, which makes him a main target of MAGA.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials, FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Stephanie Grisham – Former White House Press Secretary under Trump. After leaving, she criticized Trump, which is the main reason for her presence.
(Former Trump Collaborators)
Kamala Harris – Vice President of the United States and Democratic candidate in 2024. As Trump’s political rival, she is an obvious target.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Gina Haspel – Former CIA Director under Trump. Opposed Trump’s attempts to install Patel in a high position at the CIA.
(Former Trump Collaborators, FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Fiona Hill – Former National Security Council employee. Testified during Trump’s impeachment regarding Ukraine.
(Witnesses and Whistleblowers)
Curtis Heide – FBI Agent. His role is not widely known, but he may have been involved in investigations related to Trump.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Eric Holder – Former Attorney General under Obama. Critic of Trump and a figure associated with the Obama administration.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Robert Hur – Special Prosecutor for Biden’s documents. His investigation could have been perceived as not harsh enough towards Biden in the eyes of MAGA.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Cassidy Hutchinson – Former Assistant to Trump’s Chief of Staff. Testified before the January 6 committee, revealing incriminating information about Trump.
(Witnesses and Whistleblowers)
Nina Jankowicz – Former head of the Disinformation Governance Board under Biden. Her role in combating disinformation was attacked by MAGA as censorship.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Lois Lerner – Former IRS official under Obama. Accused by conservatives of abuses against Tea Party groups.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Loretta Lynch – Former Attorney General under Obama. Oversaw investigations that MAGA considers biased.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Charles Kupperman – Former Deputy National Security Advisor under Trump. Refused to verify staff loyalty to Trump during the Ukraine affair.
(Former Trump Collaborators)
Gen. Kenneth McKenzie (Ret.) – Former CENTCOM commander. Criticized Trump’s policy towards the military.
(Former Trump Collaborators)
Andrew McCabe – Former Deputy FBI Director. Conducted the “Russiagate” investigation after Comey’s dismissal.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Ryan McCarthy – Former Secretary of the Army under Trump. His role in events after January 6 could have been perceived as disloyalty.
(Former Trump Collaborators)
Mary McCord – Former head of the national security division of DOJ. Criticized Trump and his policy.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Denis McDonough – Former Obama Chief of Staff, current Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Figure associated with the Obama and Biden administrations.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Gen. Mark Milley (Ret.) – Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Opposed Trump regarding the use of the military and was sharply criticized by MAGA.
(Former Trump Collaborators)
Lisa Monaco – Deputy Attorney General under Biden. Oversees investigations against Trump.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials, FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Robert Mueller – Former FBI Director and Special Prosecutor for “Russiagate.” His investigation is the main object of MAGA’s anger.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Bruce Ohr – Former DOJ official. Linked to the Steele dossier regarding Trump and Russia.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Nellie Ohr – Former CIA employee, wife of Bruce Ohr. Worked for Fusion GPS, which links her to the Steele dossier.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Lisa Page – Former FBI counsel. Her messages with Peter Strzok were used by MAGA as evidence of a “conspiracy” in the FBI.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Pat Philbin – Former Deputy White House Counsel under Trump. Testified before the January 6 committee.
(Former Trump Collaborators, Witnesses and Whistleblowers)
John Podesta – Former Obama advisor, current Biden climate advisor. Key figure in the Democratic establishment.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Samantha Power – Former US Ambassador to the UN under Obama, current head of USAID. Criticized Trump.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Bill Priestap – Former FBI Counterintelligence Chief. Oversaw the “Russiagate” investigation.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Susan Rice – Former National Security Advisor to Obama. Figure associated with the Obama administration.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Rod Rosenstein – Former Deputy Attorney General under Trump. Oversaw Mueller’s investigation, which makes him a target.
(Former Trump Collaborators, FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Peter Strzok – Former FBI Counterintelligence Agent. His messages with Lisa Page were used as evidence of a “conspiracy” against Trump.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Jake Sullivan – National Security Advisor under Biden. Key figure in the Biden administration.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Michael Sussman – Former DNC lawyer. Accused of involvement in “Russiagate.”
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Miles Taylor – Former DHS official under Trump. Author of an anonymous article criticizing Trump in the “NYT.”
(Former Trump Collaborators, Witnesses and Whistleblowers)
Timothy Thibault – Former FBI agent. His role is not clear, but he may have been involved in investigations related to Trump.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Andrew Weissman – Mueller’s deputy in “Russiagate.” Key figure in the investigation against Trump.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Alexander Vindman – Former National Security Council official. Testified regarding the Ukraine affair.
(Witnesses and Whistleblowers)
Christopher Wray – Current FBI Director. Nominated by Trump, but criticized for lack of loyalty to him.
(FBI/DOJ/CIA Officials)
Sally Yates – Former Deputy Attorney General under Obama. Fired by Trump for opposing his immigration policy.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)
Adam Schiff – Senator-elect and former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Led the investigation regarding Trump’s impeachment.
(Democrats and Obama/Biden Administration Officials)

Analysis of this list reveals a systematic pattern - it is de facto a list of people perceived as obstacles to Trump’s political goals, regardless of their actual role or position. There are 21 officials from the Obama/Biden administration, 14 former Trump collaborators, 30 FBI/DOJ/CIA officials, and 7 witnesses and whistleblowers.

Most striking is that the second most numerous group of people on the list are former collaborators of Trump himself, who in any way opposed his actions. This shows that the definition of “deep state” in the understanding of the MAGA movement includes not only political opponents, but anyone who shows loyalty to the law, constitution, and ethical standards instead of personal loyalty to Trump.

This list essentially constitutes a roadmap of purges, which we are currently observing in the American federal administration, and perfectly illustrates how the populist-conspiratorial understanding of “deep state” serves as a tool to legitimize these actions.

Role of Musk and “Tech Bros” in the Anti-Bureaucratic Revolution

Elon Musk occupies a special place in the current anti-bureaucratic revolution. As one of the richest people in the world and owner of several powerful technological enterprises, he has both the means and the platform to effectively promote his vision. Musk belongs to a group that can be described as “tech bros,” technological entrepreneurs with libertarian views, deeply skeptical of government regulations and bureaucracy.

I propose the name Muskoism for his philosophy. It combines several key elements. On one hand, it’s a deep skepticism towards government regulations, which he perceives as a brake on innovation and technological progress. On the other - faith in the power of technology as a solution to social and political problems. Add to this a specific communication style - direct, provocative, often saturated with memes and references to internet culture, which makes him extremely effective in reaching younger generations and problematic to deconstruct. The dynamics of social media rather do not give chances for rational debate.

The takeover of Twitter (now X) was a key moment that allowed Musk to more widely disseminate his views and support the MAGA movement. He’s not doing this without reason, which I will discuss in the next article. Platform X has become the center for the distribution of anti-establishment narratives, including conspiracy theories about the “deep state.” The change in content moderation policies opened space for radical voices that were previously restricted.

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) represents the institutionalization of Musk’s libertarian vision within federal administration structures. The nominal pursuit of “efficiency” masks, or rather – after reading posts from X – “musks” a deeper deregulatory agenda, whose aim is to fundamentally limit the role of the state in the economy and society. As Fingar points out, the problem is that DOGE operates outside standard oversight and control mechanisms, which creates threats to data security and the integrity of state institutions.

It’s worth noting that the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the growth of influence of “tech bros.” Social isolation and the transition to remote work increased the role of digital platforms, while simultaneously weakening traditional media. This created an information vacuum, which was filled by alternative sources, often promoting conspiracy theories. Musk and other “tech bros” skillfully used this dynamic to increase their influence.

In the broader context, “tech bros” and their libertarian philosophy constitute, in my opinion, an interesting alliance with more traditional elements of the MAGA movement like Fox News.

Summary and Predictions

In undertaking this painful analysis of the “deep state” phenomenon and its various interpretations, I wanted to show how a fundamental terminological misunderstanding can lead to real and dangerous political consequences. What we are currently observing in the USA under the Trump administration is not a fight against a mythical, conspiratorial “deep state,” but a systematic dismantling of professional state structures, which are an essential element of any functioning democratic state. This is just the beginning.

Project 2025, DOGE under Musk’s leadership, and Patel’s “revenge list” are not isolated initiatives - they are elements of a coherent accelerationist strategy, which aims to replace professional administration with cadres loyal to one man. Historical parallels with Maoist China should be a warning for us - there too, the fight against “bureaucratism” and “experts” led to catastrophic consequences.

Particularly worrying are the threats to NATO, the reputation of the USA, and the intelligence community and national security of the USA. The politicization of intelligence, access of unverified persons to sensitive data, and the demoralization of professional cadres is a recipe for serious violations of national security. Reports about attempts to recruit American officials by foreign services are just the first symptom of a deeper problem. The dismantling of USAID is already approved and will lead to a permanent reduction in the soft power of the USA.

In the longer perspective, if this trend continues, it threatens a serious erosion of the American state’s ability to function effectively. Historical experiences, including the catastrophic consequences of Maoist experiments in China, suggest that radical dismantling of state structures leads to dysfunction, corruption, and potentially - serious crises.

Particularly worrying is that in the era of social media and digital propaganda, this process can occur much faster and deeper than in the past. Platform X under Musk’s control constitutes a powerful tool for shaping public opinion and legitimizing radical actions.

In subsequent articles, we will look at the acolytes of the MAGA Revolution and analyze Musk’s motivations. An interesting year is coming, not to mention a decade.