"Steady State" Made in USA: Historical Roots and Italian Parallels

In the United States, a group called “Steady State” has emerged (literally “stable state,” but more properly interpreted as institutional resistance ): a network made up of former officials from the intelligence community and the State Department , determined to counter the internal reorganization desired by the Trump administration .

Their real objective is not simply to criticize certain decisions, but to prevent the implementation of the president's strategic choices and to preserve the pre-existing power structure , in which the military-industrial component and other key sectors of the state apparatus maintain not only operational but also ideological prevalence, expressing a transversal political-strategic vision : in some cases aligned with the Democratic area , in others convergent with the neoconservative Republican wing , especially with regard to the doctrine of "endless wars" and the global military projection of the United States.

This approach transforms the group into a de facto political-ideological actor, operating within institutions and exploiting its network of contacts, experience, and access to the media to influence the national agenda, defending the power structure consolidated over decades.

The choice of the name is not accidental: it serves to avoid direct association with the “Deep State” , a term now loaded with negative connotations linked to covert manipulation and bureaucratic sabotage, replacing it with a narrative of reliability and institutional stability, ultimately a guardian of the State capable of guaranteeing balance and predictability in uncertain times (see Intelligence Online ).

A change of strategy: discretion and self-protection

To clarify, in the February 17, 2025 issue, Intelligence Online — written by Raphaël Ramos — describes the group's strategic turning point:

"Aware of the consequences of taking positions in the media, former US intelligence officials have adopted a more low-key strategy. Not only to carry more weight, but also to protect themselves from reprisals."

This statement shows how choosing to operate away from the spotlight is not a sign of weakness, but a calculated move to preserve effectiveness and personal safety.

From confidentiality to coordinated visibility

And on June 17, 2025, the same newspaper reported a change of pace:

"The Steady State, a group of intelligence veterans from the CIA and other agencies that opposes the Trump administration's national security policy, is gaining momentum. The collective now intends to use its growing membership and resources to become more visible."

From now on, the group aims to no longer just operate behind the scenes , but to intervene openly in the public and media space.

The meaning of “rebranding”

This image campaign has a specific objective: to legitimize the actions of the Steady State in the eyes of public opinion, presenting it not as a clandestine actor , but as the guardian of the state and guarantor of balance and predictability in a period of strong political instability.

Trump's Purges: The Context of Birth

The emergence of the Steady State must be understood within the context of Trump's massive shakeups at key agencies like the FBI and the State Department , often replacing experienced figures with politically loyal but inexperienced loyalists . According to the Washington Post , these moves have disjointed established networks of expertise , prompting many former officials to resign or reorganize into structured opposition groups.

The changes Trump wanted also had other consequences, including:

• Politicization of Intelligence Under Trump Foreign Affairs highlights how, despite public statements about depoliticizing the intelligence community, the Trump administration has effectively politicized the intelligence community, undermining professional impartiality. )

• The Poison of the “Deep State” and Effective Administration An analysis by Government Executive shows the paradox of Trump's anti-“Deep State” rhetoric, which however would have suffered from the absence of expert figures, highlighting the risks of wiping out the technical capital within the agencies. (

Real roles and goals

Analysis of the Steady State's activities shows three central functions:

• Maintaining and mobilizing resources : safeguarding existing contacts, know-how, and channels of influence.

• Horizontal coordination : connecting segments of the bureaucracy concerned about Trump's political agenda.

• Building an alternative agenda : deploying experts, media, and legal professionals to block or divert administration initiatives.

It is therefore not a question of a change of ideology , but of a tactical evolution : moving from an occult power to a “charismatic guarantor” of the State.

A new front in the political conflict

The initiative marks a qualitative leap in the internal warfare in American politics : dissent is no longer expressed only in the media or within political parties, but is structured within the state apparatus . Highly competent professionals operate as an internal opposition , capable of sabotaging decision-making processes and influencing public perception behind a mask of institutional legitimacy .

The paradox of politicization

Foreign Affairs emphasizes that, despite official statements about his intent to depoliticize intelligence, Trump has actually accentuated the politicization, eroding professional impartiality. An analysis by Government Executive , reported by Vanity Fair , highlights the paradox: in attempting to dismantle the "Deep State," Trump has created competence gaps , weakening the agencies' operational effectiveness.

The Voice of the Steady State

The group itself, on Medium (2020), clarified its position as follows:

“President Trump, unfit for the presidency, presents a clear and present danger to America's safety and security.”

And he reiterated his desire to act publicly:

“…will write and speak on issues where our experience and expertise can inform Americans…”

The phenomenon represented today in the US by the "Steady State" is not unique. Throughout history, in different contexts and under various regimes, segments of the bureaucracy, the military, or the security services have acted to hinder, neutralize, or redirect the policies of formally legitimate leaders. These operations, often undeclared, are based on a self-attributed moral legitimacy : presenting themselves as guardians of the state , not as political opponents.

A case in point occurred in the final years of the Soviet Union . Mikhail Gorbachev , determined to open up the system with perestroika and glasnost , faced internal opposition from the KGB and the military-industrial complex . These openings, seen as an existential risk, led to the coup d'état of August 1991 , with an attempt to isolate Gorbachev in Crimea: direct use of security structures to block the summit line.

In post-Franco Spain , during the democratic transition , sectors of the armed forces sought to preserve the regime's legacy . The culmination was the coup of February 23, 1981 ( Tejerazo ), when armed soldiers stormed Parliament. This was not silent sabotage, but a direct threat , leveraging the military hierarchy to bend politics.

More recently, there was the “silent resistance” put up by sectors of the Pentagon and the CIA to Barack Obama's line (2013–2016). Despite indications of disengagement from the Middle East , especially in Syria, support programs for armed groups continued . Former officials interviewed by The Intercept and The Grayzone spoke of operational “persistence” independent of official directives:

“Even when the administration wanted to disengage, parts of the security apparatus kept their own agenda running.”

Republican Turkey offers another paradigm: between the 1960s and the 2000s, Kemalist ideology—secular and nationalist—was defended by a true "deep state" composed of the army and intelligence services. Any government that deviated from it faced coups (1960, 1971, 1980) or extra-parliamentary pressure (1997). The military apparatus proclaimed itself the guarantor of the founding identity , thus legitimizing its own intervention.

Brexit also encountered resistance. After the 2016 referendum, segments of the British upper-crust bureaucracy and diplomatic service viewed leaving the EU as damaging. With selective press briefings, procedural delays , and delaying interpretations, attempts were made to mitigate the process . As one official admitted:

“Civil servants saw their role as mitigating the damage, even if it meant bending the instructions.”

In Nixon 's United States , the press spoke of an "opposition bureaucracy." During Watergate , State Department and intelligence insiders—the famous "Deep Throat" —leaked information and blocked initiatives considered dangerous: leaks as a typical lever in democracy.

The Italian parallels Institutional Resistance: Historical Roots and Italian Parallels

The phenomenon represented today in the United States by the "Steady State" is neither a recent invention nor unique to America. Throughout history, in diverse contexts and under regimes of various kinds, segments of the bureaucracy, the military, or the security services have acted to hinder, neutralize, or redirect the policies of formally legitimate leaders. These operations, often undeclared and conducted behind the scenes, are always based on a common premise: the moral legitimacy of those who participate, who present themselves not as political opposition but as guardians of the state .

A case in point occurred in the final years of the Soviet Union . Mikhail Gorbachev , determined to open up the system through the reforms of perestroika and glasnost , faced solid opposition within the KGB and the military-industrial complex . These overtures, seen as a mortal threat to the survival of the Soviet state, led to the coup d'état of August 1991 , when a group of leaders attempted to isolate Gorbachev in his dacha in Crimea. At that juncture, resistance manifested itself not through public statements or campaigns, but through the direct use of the security structures and state administration to block the political line of the leadership.

Another significant episode occurred in post-Franco Spain . After the death of Francisco Franco, the country began a process of democratic transition . However, sectors of the armed forces and the security apparatus sought to preserve the regime's legacy . The most notorious moment of this resistance was the attempted coup of February 23, 1981 , the so-called Tejerazo , when a group of armed soldiers stormed Parliament during a session. Here, the lever was not silent sabotage, but direct threats , exploiting the army's hierarchical weight to influence the political direction.

More recent is the story of the "silent resistance" put up by some sectors of the Pentagon and the CIA to Barack Obama 's foreign policy between 2013 and 2016. Despite the administration's clear desire to reduce direct involvement in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, programs supporting armed groups continued to operate . Former officials interviewed by outlets such as The Intercept and The Grayzone spoke openly of an operational "persistence" independent of official directives:

“Even when the administration wanted to disengage, parts of the security apparatus kept their own agenda running.”

Republican Turkey offers another paradigmatic example. Here, from 1960 until the early 2000s, Kemalist ideology—secular and nationalist—was defended by a veritable "deep state" composed of the army and secret services. Whenever an elected government attempted to deviate from that line, a coup d'état (1960, 1971, 1980) or extra-parliamentary pressure was triggered, such as the "post-modern coup" of 1997. The military apparatus proclaimed itself the guarantor of the state's founding identity , legitimizing its actions as protection of the nation.

Brexit , too, experienced a form of institutional resistance in the United Kingdom. After the 2016 referendum, a significant portion of the senior bureaucracy and diplomatic service believed leaving the EU would be harmful to the country. Through selective press briefings, procedural delays, and delaying interpretations of political instructions, these actors attempted to influence the exit process. As one official admitted in an interview:

“Civil servants saw their role as mitigating the damage, even if it meant bending the instructions.”

Finally, in the United States , the Nixon administration had to deal with what contemporary commentators called the "opposition bureaucracy." During the Watergate scandal, officials within the State Department and intelligence agencies—including the infamous "Deep Throat" —passed classified information to the press and blocked political initiatives deemed dangerous. The main lever was leaks , a classic tool of pressure in democratic contexts.

While these international examples demonstrate how transversal the phenomenon is, Italy offers two emblematic cases of institutional resistance . The first is the Mani Pulite investigation (1992–1994), which dismantled the system of illicit party financing—the so-called Tangentopoli —leading to the collapse of the First Republic and the birth of a new political order. Some critical readings, such as the one published by Il Riformista in 2022, argue:

"It was not a moral revolution, but a redistribution of power through the selective use of justice." "It was not a moral revolution, but a redistribution of power through the selective use of justice." From this perspective, the investigating magistrates, backed by strong media support , acted not only to attack corruption but also to reshape the political balance .

The second case concerns the crisis of the Berlusconi government in 2011, in the midst of the sovereign debt storm. With the BTP-Bund spread above 500 points , Berlusconi resigned on November 12 and was replaced by a technical government led by Mario Monti , appointed senator for life a few days earlier. According to some observers, including Maurizio Blondet , this was no ordinary parliamentary crisis:

"It was not a parliamentary crisis, but a financial regime change operation, conducted under the banner of emergency." "It was not a parliamentary crisis, but a financial regime change operation, conducted under the banner of emergency." Pressure from Brussels, the ECB, and the markets would have played a decisive role, in coordination with the Presidency of the Republic .

In all these cases, beyond the historical and institutional differences, common elements emerge: the use of non-elected channels —the judiciary, bureaucracy, intelligence, technical apparatus—to influence political direction; the capacity for structural obstructionism , through delays, reinterpretations, or leaks; and a narrative of "safeguarding," which presents the action as a defense of the Constitution, stability, or the historical line of the state.

The American “Steady State” is therefore part of a much older tradition: that of the permanent conflict between formal power and real power , a duel that changes language and instruments depending on the era, but which retains its underlying logic intact.

Case	Main actors	Pressure instruments	Declared objective	Implicit objective
Steady State (USA, 2025)	Former intelligence officials and State Department	Media networks, institutional lobbying	Safeguarding institutional stability	Limit Trump's agenda
Clean Hands (Italy, 1992-1994)	Investigating magistrates, media	Judicial investigations, news leaks	Cleanse politics of corruption	Restructure the political system
Berlusconi-Monti Crisis (Italy, 2011)	Presidency of the Republic, EU, ECB, markets	Economic pressure, emergency narrative	Reassuring EU markets and partners	Change of government and political line
KGB vs Gorbachev (USSR, 1985-1991)	KGB, military-industrial complex	Security and Armed Forces Control	Defending the Soviet System	Block Gorbachev's reforms
Estado Mayor (Spain, 1975-1982)	Franco's army sectors	Threat of coup, hierarchical pressure	Protecting Franco's legacy	Slowing down democratization
Pentagon vs. Obama (USA, 2013-2016)	Pentagon, CIA	Business continuity, bureaucratic inertia	Preserve national security	Maintain foreign military influence
Turkish Deep State (1960-2000)	Army, Kemalist secret services	Coups, political intimidation	Maintain Kemalist principles	Containing political Islam and its adversaries
Brexit Opposition (UK, 2016-2020)	High bureaucracy and diplomatic service	Procedural slowdowns, selective briefings	Implementing Brexit in a 'controlled' way	Mitigating the impact of EU exit
Opposition Bureaucracy (USA, 1969-1974)	State Department, FBI, insider	Leaks, media leaks	Protect institutional integrity	Weaken the incumbent president