Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The ‘deep state’ and ‘the swamp’ are both favorite Trump targets. Here’s the difference.

Opinion

The ‘deep state’ and ‘the swamp’ are both favorite Trump targets. Here’s the difference.

Nine days before the United States Presidential Election, supporters of former President Donald Trump flood the streets of midtown for a sold out campaign rally in Madison Square Garden, October 27, 2024, in New York City, New York.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

Donald Trump has promised to do many things once he reoccupies the White House. Among the most famous, and most desired by his biggest fans, is his vow to “drain the swamp” and “ demolish the deep state.”

The first and arguably most important challenge for such a project is definitional. What is the deep state? And what is the swamp? Are they different? How so?


Trump doesn’t have a clear answer. He often uses the terms interchangeably. And he’s not alone. Many in the media do the same.

That’s understandable if you try to put yourself inside Trump’s head (something I don’t necessarily recommend). During his first administration, he was repeatedly undermined by leaks and other schemes from within the federal bureaucracy, including his own Cabinet. Whether this was the work of the deep state or the swamp is something of a tomayto-tomahto distinction for someone who divides the world into friends and enemies. But any serious effort to get rid of either one requires making distinctions.

As the metaphor implies, the swamp is a hot, humid, malarial ecosystem teeming with all manner of critters, each with its own self-interested agenda. (And if you’ve spent a summer in D.C., you know the term has more than figurative verisimilitude.) The idea of the nation’s capital being a pestilent redoubt where politicians go native once they contract “ Potomac fever ” has been around for generations. George W. Bush’s administration even issued a handy memo to his staff on how to spot signs of infection.

The term “deep state,” on the other hand, conjures a colder, more sterile image of disciplined, professional, secretive operators networked across government and united around a single, nefarious agenda.

The biggest difference between these two concepts is the most important one: The swamp exists; the deep state doesn’t.

My Dispatch colleague Kevin D. Williamson has likened the deep state to the term “Vikings,” a catchall for a disparate “collection of pirates, traders, slavers, settlers, squabbling potentates” and others. Vikings fought Vikings all the time because the Vikings were not a monolithic or unified group.

And neither are the warring factions and fiefdoms that make up Washington. For instance, the Wall Street Journal recently reported intense infighting among and within various intelligence agencies over the origins of COVID-19. The FBI — deep state HQ, according to many in Trump World — was fairly convinced that the pandemic started with a lab leak, the newspaper reported, but competing agencies conspired to keep that verdict from reaching the president’s ears.

The whole idea that the deep state is an evil organization, like Hydra in the Marvel comics or SPECTRE in the James Bond movies, is little more than a conspiracy theory. It’s based on the bizarre assumption that government bureaucrats and political operatives are incredibly competent and disciplined at doing super-secret stuff but fairly incompetent and lazy in their day jobs.

Then there’s the swamp. This catchall term describes something real: Washington’s vast, cacophonous conglomeration of favor-dealing, rent-seeking, back-scratching, self-dealing, special-pleading interests. The founders called them “factions.”

What makes the swamp so hard to drain is the collusion between the state and these factions. Real savings won’t come from purging the federal bureaucracy, a workforce that hasn’t grown appreciably since the 1960s. As the political scientist John J. DiIulio Jr. recently noted, a huge share of the bureaucracy consists of contract managers for private-sector firms. Businesses and nonprofits — including defense contractors and healthcare systems — employ more than three times as many people who ultimately get paid by taxpayers as the federal government does.

Those factions are also political constituencies. And that’s why I suspect we will hear a lot more about fighting the deep state in 2025 than we will about draining the swamp. The nice thing about conspiracy theories is that they can’t be disproved. Blaming failures on shadowy forces is standard fare for politicians because angering their constituencies is hard.

Besides, there’s little evidence that Trump has any desire to drain the swamp so much as to reward those swamp creatures he likes. Industrial policy and protectionism, two of his top priorities, are among the oldest forms of swampiness because they create vast new markets for exemptions, subsidies and anti-competitive lobbying. Indeed, the proliferation of Big Tech moguls and cryptocurrency speculators around Trump makes it seem as if Mar-a-Lago is subsiding into the Everglades before our eyes.

The ‘deep state’ and ‘the swamp’ are both favorite Trump targets. Here’s the difference was first published by the Tribune Content Agency, and was republished with permission.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast.


Read More

Voters cas ballots in Ohio

Voters cast their ballots inside a polling location in the social hall at St Patrick's Church on November 3, 2026 in Youngstown, Ohio.

(Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

The Election Night TSUNAMI Wasn’t Blue - It Was Independent

Election night turned into what Shawn Griffiths calls a "bloodbath," and our hosts could barely contain themselves reacting live: Troy Jackson just knocked off 30-year Senate fixture Susan Collins in Maine, and that was only the beginning.

Chad, Cara, Shawn, and Ethan break down a stunning wave election that saw James Talarico take the victory over Ken Paxton in Texas and Troy Jackson upset Susan Collins in Maine. Showcasing the open primary in California, Democratic Socialist candidates got crushed by other Democrats, but moderate Republicans survived. Here’s the part the mainstream media will miss: the driving force behind this wave was independent, not blue.

Keep ReadingShow less
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson,

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Republican from Louisiana, holds up the gavel after he won the vote for Speaker of the House, during the first day of the 119th Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 3, 2025.

(Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)

The Unfortunate Decline of Congress as a Deliberative Body

My ballpark estimate: In the recently concluded midterm campaign season, Democrats ran roughly eleventy-bajillion ads accusing Republican office-holders of voting — 98%, 99%, or 100% of the time — “with Donald Trump.”

Calling your opponent a “rubber stamp” is a smart tactic when the president is historically unpopular, as President Trump is.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Sen.-elect James Talarico (D-TX) and Texas gov.-elect, State Rep. Gina Hinojosa toast with a fountain beverage at a Whataburger restaurant with a crowd of people around them taking photos.

U.S. Sen.-elect James Talarico (D-TX) and Texas gov.-elect, State Rep. Gina Hinojosa toast with a fountain beverage at a Whataburger restaurant at the conclusion of a midterm election night watch party at the Long Center on November 3, 2026 in Austin, Texas.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Fear Politics Lost. Voters Chose a Different Future

Fear is the easiest message in American politics. It is cheap to produce, quick to spread, and usually reliable on Election Day.

For years, this fearfulness has told Americans that the person next door is the enemy. On Tuesday, a great many of them stopped listening. In places almost nobody expected, voters turned away from candidates who vowed to tear things down and rewarded those who treated the country as something worth rebuilding and their opponents as people to persuade.

Keep ReadingShow less
A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed behind U.S. President Donald Trump.

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cartography of Convenience: Why Rushed Renaming Erodes Public Trust

In tough economic times, governments often reach for the easiest kind of progress: a new name on an old sign. Wage stagnation, inflation, crumbling roads, and rising rents are hard problems that take years and real money to fix. Renaming a street, a lake, or a strait is not. It costs a fraction as much and lets officials point to something they “did.” A new name never fixes a pothole or lowers a grocery bill. This year offered an unusually rich catalogue of the habit, reaching from a city council in Texas to a wartime waterway in the Persian Gulf.

A Concept Borrowed From the Cremation Ground

Indian philosophy has an old idea called shmashana vairagya, describing the sudden clarity a person feels standing at a cremation ground, when ordinary ambitions look small. The feeling fades once the mourner goes home. Public policy has its own version of this cycle. In the raw hours after a tragedy, a scandal, or a surge of national feeling, officials decide, sometimes within a single social media post, what belongs on a map or a sign forever. The emotion passes in hours. The bill, when there is one, stays for years.

Keep ReadingShow less