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

Why Trump’s antics don’t work on our allies

From left to right: Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and France's President Emmanuel Macron hold a meeting during a summit at Lancaster House on March 2, 2025, in London, England.

(Justin Tallis/WPA Pool/Getty Images/TNS)

Why Trump’s antics don’t work on our allies

It is among the most familiar patterns of the Trump era. First, the president says or does something weird, rude or otherwise norm-defying. Some elected Republicans object, and the response from Trump and his minions is to shoot the messenger. The dynamic holds constant whether it’s big (January 6 pardons) or small (tweeting “covfefe” just after midnight).

The essence of this low-road-for-me-high-road-for-thee dynamic rests on the belief that Trumpism is a one-way road. Insulting Trump, deservedly or not, is forbidden, while Trump’s antics should be celebrated when possible, defended when necessary, or ignored when neither of those responses is possible. But he should never, ever face consequences for his own actions.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close-up of the petrol station's gasoline pumps and fuel nozzles.

A deep dive into the return of stagflation fears in the U.S., comparing today’s rising inflation, oil shocks, and economic slowdown to the crises of the 1970s, and analyzing whether history is repeating itself.

Getty Images, Jackyenjoyphotography

With Oil Prices Rising, Is Dreaded Stagflation Making a Comeback?

Remember back in the 1970s, when the headlines blared warnings about an economic disease plaguing the U.S. economy? It was called “stagflation.” It’s a rare economic affliction in which inflation is high, unemployment is rising, and overall economic growth is slowing, all at the same time. Five decades ago, it caused major havoc to the national economy because it’s a tough disease for the economic doctors to cure. And now, like the hockey-masked villain in those Friday the 13th movies that seems to never die, a number of economic experts fear that: “Stagflation is baa-aaack!”

The U.S. last experienced stagflation starting in 1973, which seems like a long time ago back when Tony Orlando and Dawn’s "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree" was top of the charts. That's when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), run by Middle East oil-producing nations, imposed an oil embargo, cut production, and banned exports to the U.S. and other nations supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. That action caused oil prices to quadruple, leading to severe oil and gas shortages and long-term changes in energy policy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Government Cyber Security Breach

An urgent look at the risks of unregulated artificial intelligence—from job loss and environmental strain to national security threats—and the growing political battle to regulate AI in the United States.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

AI Has Put Humanity on the Ballot

AI may not be the only existential threat out there, but it is coming for us the fastest. When I started law school in 2022, AI could barely handle basic math, but by graduation, it could pass the bar exam. Instead of taking the bar myself, I rolled immediately into a Master of Laws in Global Business Law at Columbia, where I took classes like Regulation of the Digital Economy and Applied AI in Legal Practice. By the end of the program, managing partners were comparing using AI to working with a team of associates; the CEO of Anthropic is now warning that it will be more capable than everyone in less than two years.

AI is dangerous in ways we are just beginning to see. Data centers that power AI require vast amounts of water to keep the servers cool, but two-thirds are in places already facing high water stress, with researchers estimating that water needs could grow from 60 billion liters in 2022 to as high as 275 billion liters by 2028. By then, data centers’ share of U.S. electricity consumption could nearly triple.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Cracks in the Nonprofit System Are Built into Its Foundation
1 U.S.A dollar banknotes

The Cracks in the Nonprofit System Are Built into Its Foundation

Across the nonprofit sector, signs of strain are becoming more visible. Staff turnover is rising, compliance demands are increasing, and community needs are growing more complex. Yet the funding structures that support this work remain largely unchanged. What appears today as instability is not a sudden disruption. It is the predictable outcome of a model that has relied on endurance rather than investment.

For decades, nonprofit organizations have been tasked with addressing society’s most persistent challenges. Domestic violence, homelessness, behavioral health, and poverty depend heavily on nonprofit infrastructure to deliver services and stabilize communities. The sector has sustained this responsibility not because it was designed to be durable, but because the people working within it continued to adapt under pressure. Commitment filled the gaps where investment was limited. That approach is now reaching its limits.

Keep ReadingShow less