What is Sánchez calling the 'Deep State'? (Francisco Rosell in El Debate)

The use of the term "Deep State" by President **Pedro Sánchez** is presented as a strategy to divert attention from investigations and criticism, comparing it to historical tactics used by leaders seeking to consolidate their power.

The political rhetoric often relies on charged concepts to mobilize support or delegitimize adversaries. One such concept, which has gained some notoriety, is that of the "Deep State." When this idea is invoked in the context of Spanish politics, and specifically regarding President **Pedro Sánchez**, the question arises as to what it truly refers to and what purpose it serves. The notion of a "Deep State" evokes the image of a hidden network of power, composed of officials, intelligence services, or elites who operate behind the scenes to influence or control governmental decisions, often against the will of the elected leader or public opinion.

## The Accusation of a "Failed Government"

In public debate, it has been argued that **Pedro Sánchez**'s invocation of the "Deep State" could be a stratagem to deflect attention from internal problems and investigations affecting his administration. The underlying idea is that, faced with difficulties, an attempt is made to generate the perception of an external enemy or a conspiracy preventing government action. It is argued that, instead of addressing the core issues, they resort to the figure of "they are after us" to portray themselves as victims of an alleged conspiracy.

This tactic, according to the description, seeks to discredit those who question or investigate government actions, including institutions that are supposed to safeguard the rule of law. This strategy is compared to that of an "impostor" who, when faced with problems, uses a "victim mask" to attribute blame elsewhere. The paralysis of certain legislative initiatives, such as the modification of the electoral census, or ongoing judicial investigations, are presented as examples of clashes with these alleged forces seeking to obstruct the government's agenda.

## The Donald Trump Precedent and "Resistance"

The concept of the "Deep State" is not exclusive to Spanish politics. It gained notable popularity in the United States during **Donald Trump**'s presidency. He used the expression to refer to a network of officials and agencies that, in his view, leaked information and obstructed his policies. In this context, a press article published anonymously in **The New York Times** titled "I am part of the resistance within the Trump administration" described the existence of "adults in the room" who attempted to contain the President's excesses. These individuals, though working for **Trump**, were unwilling to cross certain lines they considered dangerous for the nation.

The appeal to the "Deep State" has precedents in countries like Turkey or Egypt, where it has been used to describe power networks operating outside formal democratic control. In Spain, it has also been suggested that this rhetoric has been employed by other political actors, such as **Sánchez**'s independence allies, to "demonize" Spanish democracy and the civil servants who prevented Catalan independence in **October 2017**. The subsequent granting of amnesties and pardons by **Sánchez** is interpreted, from this perspective, as a move to secure his own political position.

## The "Sánchez Pitfall" and Governmental Paranoia

Against the narrative of the "Deep State" as an external threat, the existence of a predictable internal trouble—a "Sánchez pitfall"—is suggested: an operational network that reportedly reactivated due to pressure. Reference is made to ongoing journalistic and judicial investigations pointing to a power structure within the government itself, especially trinc inquiries into the so-called ‘**Begoñagate**’. In this scenario, governmental paranoia resembles the plot of G.K. Chesterton's novel "The Man Who Was Thursday," but devoid of its humor and intelligence. In Chesterton's work, the alleged conspirators were actually undercover police agents. Here, it is suggested that the "Deep State" would actually be the hidden face of the government itself, orchestrating actions to destabilize institutions and secure control.

The "they are after us" strategy is considered a recurring tactic to erode the rule of law, hoping that citizens cannot freely choose their government and that crimes go unpunished. The figure of **Santos Cerdán**, who allegedly proclaimed in a Senate committee in **December 2025** that the "Deep State" was conspiring against him, despite accusations of looting and corruption, is evoked. This rhetoric, it is argued, seeks to create a climate of confusion and mistrust regarding institutions.

## The Risk of an "Authoritarian State"

Amidst this discursive confrontation, it is warned that Spanish democracy finds itself in a delicate situation, comparable to what professors **Daron Acemoğlu** and **James A. Robinson** describe in their book "Why Nations Fail." These authors distinguish between absent, despotic, and chained states (the latter protecting liberty). The concern is that Spain is heading toward an "authoritarian state," a "unleashed Leviathan" without effective popular control. **Thomas Jefferson** is quoted, warning about the necessity for the people to remind their rulers that they hold the "spirit of resistance."

The history offers examples of how power can be manipulated. The figure of **Pisistratus** in the Athens of **Solon** is presented as a case of how a leader can, through cunning, gain absolute power. **Pisistratus** harmed himself to win the sympathy of the people and obtain a praetorian guard, which he then used for a coup. After being deposed, he returned to Athens with a theatrical staging that simulated divine intervention to legitimize his return.

A Constitution, while guaranteeing elections, is not enough if power becomes unchecked and society fails to mobilize to defend the rule of law. The final warning is clear: vigilance must be maintained regarding those seeking to consolidate their power at the expense of democratic institutions. The accusation of a "Deep State" thus becomes a smokescreen to justify an attempt at a "self-coup," meaning the dismantling of the guarantees of the rule of law from within. What is at stake, it is concluded, is not the existence of a hidden "Deep State," but the health of the rule of law itself.