If we don’t confront the Deep State head-on, we will continue to live under its rule

The Deep State is a network of unelected officials, powerful institutions, and corporate elites that operate beyond democratic control. It involves bureaucratic, military and intelligence actors who shape national and global policies for their own benefit.

The Deep State is no longer just a theory – it’s a reality. And until we confront it head-on, we will continue to live under its rule, writes Australian Professor Ian Brighthope.

By Professor Ian Brighthope

Hidden Power Structures of the Deep State and Mass Surveillance.

The term “Deep State” has gained significant traction in recent years, particularly within political discourse. Its meaning varies depending on who you ask, but it generally refers to a group of unelected officials and powerful institutions operating behind the scenes, exerting influence over government policy and decisions. While critics often dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, others argue that the Deep State is a tangible and complex network of bureaucratic, financial and military actors who shape national and global policies for their own benefit, largely detached from democratic processes.

In an era where global distrust of governments is at an all-time high, the term “Deep State” has become more than just political jargon – it represents a disturbing reality for many. It describes the growing belief that a shadowy network of unelected officials and powerful institutions dictate the direction of nations, regardless of who is ostensibly in power. While critics are quick to dismiss the Deep State as a conspiracy theory, an increasing number of citizens, journalists, and even political insiders argue otherwise. They believe the Deep State is a very real, deeply entrenched system that operates beyond the control of democratic institutions, shaping the future according to its own interests.

The Deep State refers to a collection of bureaucrats, military leaders, intelligence agencies and corporate elites who hold immense, unaccountable power over government decisions. It is an alliance that transcends party lines, operating in secrecy to protect its interests – often at the expense of democratic principles. While elected officials are subject to public scrutiny, elections and term limits, Deep State actors work behind closed doors free from such constraints. Their influence extends across political, financial and military sectors, driving policy decisions that affect billions of lives. Whether pushing for endless wars, mass surveillance, bull-sh*t sciences such as mRNA-vaccinology and climate change or Big-Corporate-friendly legislation, the Deep State serves a select few while undermining the democratic ideals upon which nations were built.

The birth of the Deep State is not a new phenomenon. Its roots can be traced back to the early 20th century in countries like Turkey and before, where a network of military leaders and political elites controlled government policy in defiance of elected leaders. Over time, the concept has morphed and expanded, appearing in many nations, including the United States.

In the US, suspicions of a Deep State have been fuelled by decades of government secrecy and unaccountable power. The military-industrial complex, which President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of in his 1961 farewell address, is often considered one of the earliest manifestations of the Deep State. Eisenhower foresaw how defence contractors and the Pentagon would use fear of external threats to expand their influence, often at the expense of civilian oversight. His warnings went largely unheeded, and today, the military-industrial complex is bigger and more powerful than ever, a key component of what many now call the Deep State.

It is claimed that the Deep State isn’t composed of shadowy figures meeting in secretive boardrooms (a claim I contend) – at least, not entirely. Instead, it is a network of bureaucrats, military officials, intelligence agencies and corporate leaders who all share a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and increasing their power. These entities function in tandem to steer national and global policies, without the knowledge or consent of the public.

The CIA, NSA, and FBI are often regarded as the backbone of the Deep State. These organisations, designed to protect national security, have repeatedly overstepped their mandates, engaging in covert operations, surveillance and manipulation of both foreign and domestic affairs. Their activities are shrouded in secrecy, hidden behind walls of classified information that the public – and often even elected officials – cannot penetrate. The nexus between the defence industry and the Pentagon is a cornerstone of the Deep State. Through lobbying, defence contractors exert enormous influence over US foreign policy, pushing for military interventions and endless wars that serve their financial interests. Politicians, reliant on campaign contributions from these companies, are often complicit, turning a blind eye to the corruption within.

Big corporations, especially in sectors like finance, energy and technology, have entrenched themselves within the power structures of government. By funding political campaigns, lobbying for favourable laws and securing government contracts, these corporations ensure that policies are enacted to protect their bottom lines. The rise of Big Tech – companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook – has added a new, dangerous layer to this equation as these corporations now control the flow of information, shaping public perception and government policy.

Career bureaucrats who stay in power across multiple administrations often wield disproportionate influence over policy. Their knowledge and institutional memory allow them to control the flow of information and undermine elected officials, subtly manipulating decisions in favour of the Deep State’s goals.

In recent years, Big Tech has become an alarming new arm of the Deep State. Companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon have accumulated unprecedented power and influence, controlling vast amounts of data and shaping the (mis-, dis- and mal-) information landscape. With billions of users worldwide, these platforms now dictate what information is seen, shared and believed. This control over data and information has profound implications for democracy, as it allows these corporations to manipulate public opinion, suppress dissent and influence elections.

Moreover, the close relationship between Silicon Valley and intelligence agencies like the NSA further deepens concerns. Edward Snowden’s revelations about mass surveillance exposed how these tech giants often collaborate with government agencies to collect and share personal data, violating privacy rights on an unprecedented scale. The question is no longer whether Big Tech is part of the Deep State, but to what extent it is shaping the future of governance and democracy.

Thus, democracy and human rights are in crisis from the Deep State eroding accountability. The most concerning aspect of the Deep State is its direct threat to democracy itself. Elected officials, ostensibly accountable to the people, are increasingly beholden to Deep State actors who operate within democracies but outside the democratic process. The result is a government that serves the interests of a select few rather than the broader population.

One of the most visible consequences of the Deep State’s influence is the perpetuation of endless wars. Military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and the Ukraine, for example, have drained trillions of dollars from national coffers while enriching defence contractors. These conflicts continue, despite public opposition, because they serve the Deep State’s interests – massive economic profits for defence contractors and geopolitical power for intelligence agencies. Keeping us in a state of perpetual fear.

The Deep State has also given rise to an era of mass surveillance. In the name of national security, intelligence agencies like the NSA have built an unprecedented surveillance apparatus, tracking citizens’ phone calls, emails and online activity. These programmes operate with little to no oversight, and whistleblowers like Snowden have shown that this data is often used for purposes far removed from its stated intent of preventing terrorism.

Mass surveillance is a growing concern in Australia, and parallels can be drawn to the surveillance apparatus built by intelligence agencies like the NSA in the US. In recent years, Australia has implemented several laws and policies that have expanded the government’s ability to monitor its citizens in the name of national security. These laws have increasingly granted intelligence agencies broad surveillance powers, raising alarm about privacy, civil liberties and democratic oversight.

In 2015, the Australian government passed the  ‘Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act’, which requires telecommunications companies to store metadata from phone calls, text messages and internet usage for two years. This data includes information such as who you communicate with, when and where the communication takes place and the websites visited. While it doesn’t capture the content of communications, metadata can reveal a detailed picture of a person’s behaviour, associations and daily routines.

Initially introduced to combat terrorism and serious crime, this law allows a wide range of government agencies – including law enforcement and intelligence services – to access this data without a warrant. Critics argue that it creates a form of mass surveillance, as the data of millions of Australians is continuously stored and potentially accessible to authorities.

The Australian Signals Directorate is Australia’s primary intelligence agency responsible for electronic intelligence and cybersecurity. It has significant surveillance capabilities and operates in close cooperation with foreign counterparts, including the NSA, as part of the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence alliance which also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand. Through this partnership, Australia participates in the collection and sharing of global signals intelligence (“SIGINT”), which includes monitoring communications, internet traffic and metadata globally.

Whistle-blower Edward Snowden revealed the extent to which the Five Eyes countries collaborate in spying on their own citizens and each other’s populations. This cooperation has raised concerns that Australian citizens may be subjected to mass surveillance through foreign intelligence-sharing mechanisms, bypassing domestic legal restrictions.

The ‘Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018’, commonly known as the “Encryption Act,” is legislation that compels technology companies to assist Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies in accessing encrypted communications. It allows the government to require companies to build “backdoors” into their products, undermining encryption protections that are supposed to keep communications private.

While the government justifies this as necessary for combating terrorism and organised crime, critics have warned that it compromises the privacy and security of all Australians, making them more vulnerable to hacking and unauthorised surveillance. Technology companies and privacy advocates argue that such measures could also set a dangerous global precedent for weakening encryption.

‘The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021’ is a controversial law that gives the Australian Federal Police (“AFP”) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (“ACIC”) sweeping powers to hack into computer networks, take over online accounts and disrupt activities without much judicial oversight. These powers, which can be applied to suspected criminals but also potentially to activists and journalists, have been described as unprecedented in a democratic country.

The law allows three new types of warrants:

• ‘Data disruption warrants’: Enable law enforcement to add, copy, delete or alter data to frustrate criminal activity.
• ‘Network activity warrants’: Allow access to entire networks of computers to collect information.
• ‘Account takeover warrants’: Enable authorities to take control of a person’s online accounts for investigative purposes.

Civil liberty advocates have expressed grave concerns that these laws could be used for purposes far removed from the prevention of terrorism, much like the surveillance abuses revealed by Snowden in the US.

One of the most significant criticisms of Australia’s mass surveillance programmes is the lack of transparency and independent oversight. Much of the surveillance is conducted in secret, with minimal public or parliamentary scrutiny. Even though agencies like the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (“ASIO”) are supposed to operate within legal frameworks, the complexity and secrecy surrounding their work makes it difficult to hold them accountable.

Moreover, the broad definition of “national security” in these laws has led to concerns that surveillance powers could be misused for political purposes, targeting journalists, activists or political opponents. For example, in 2019, the Australian Federal Police raided the offices of the ABC and the home of journalist Annika Smethurst in response to investigative reporting that embarrassed the government. This action highlighted how surveillance laws and anti-leak policies could be used to silence legitimate journalism and public interest reporting.

As a member of the Five Eyes alliance, Australia plays a key role in the global surveillance network, which involves sharing intelligence across borders. The Five Eyes alliance allows member countries to circumvent their domestic laws by sharing surveillance data with one another, making it easier to bypass restrictions on spying on their own citizens.  Snowden’s revelations showed that the NSA and its Five Eyes partners engage in massive data collection programmes, hoovering up communications and internet traffic on a global scale. While the Australian government insists that its intelligence-sharing agreements are crucial for national security, critics warn that this global surveillance network erodes privacy and civil liberties at home and abroad.

Mass surveillance in Australia is very real, driven by a series of sweeping laws passed in the name of national security. While these measures are justified by the government as necessary tools to combat terrorism and serious crime, the broad powers they confer on intelligence agencies, law enforcement and even private corporations have raised deep concerns about privacy and accountability.

Just as in the United States, where whistleblowers like Snowden exposed the extent of government surveillance, Australia’s growing surveillance state is operating with little public scrutiny or meaningful oversight. Without greater transparency and stricter limits on these powers, the risk of misuse or abuse remains high, threatening the democratic freedoms and privacy rights of all Australians.

Furthermore, the existence of the Deep State challenges the very foundation of democratic governance. If power truly lies in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, military officials, intelligence agencies and corporate elites, then democracy is a facade. The Deep State’s grip on power has only tightened over the years, growing more sophisticated in its methods of control. As citizens, it is our responsibility to remain vigilant and question the motives of those in power. The Deep State thrives in the shadows, feeding off secrecy and disinformation. Only by shining a light on these hidden power structures can we begin to dismantle them and reclaim our democratic institutions.

The Deep State is no longer just a theory – it’s a reality. And until we confront it head-on, we will continue to live under its rule.

About the Author

Professor Ian Brighthope is an Australian physician with 49 years of practice, an academic, an agricultural scientist and a postgraduate fellowship in nutritional and environmental medicine.

He is the founder and past president of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. He has over 40 years of experience in lobbying for reform of the pharmaceutical-dominated medical industry. He is also an honorary council spokesman for The Aligned Council of Australia.

He regularly publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘Ian Brighthope’s Substack’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.