>That was started during Trump's administration, just so you're aware. All of the dates in your own source document are in 2020, when Trump was still president.

>That was started during Trump's administration, just so you're aware. All of the dates in your own source document are in 2020, when Trump was still president. The whole argument of "reactionary conservatives" is that these agencies operate according to their own agenda, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. According to this argument, if the President's agenda aligns with that of career civil servants, they cooperate. If not, rogue civil servants a.k.a. the "Deep State" will make their own decisions, take their own actions, and define their own administrative policies under the concealment of secrecy laws and White House inattention. It doesn't help when the New York Times publishes op-eds like this one, while at the same time browbeating those who believe in the Deep State "conspiracy theory:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Part_of_the_Resistance_Inside_the_Trump_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Part_of_the_Resistance_In... I don't fully buy into the Deep State argument. That said, at least a few non-political employees at FBI, CIA, etc. have been caught expressing strong partisan sentiment in their official capacity. In my personal judgement and experience, college-educated upper middle-class Americans (i.e. agency employees in leadership roles) tend to be more susceptible to the sort of media bubble that might compel one to break the law, lie to the public, risk institutional trust, and so on if that's what it takes to "save democracy." Whether democracy is/was actually at risk, or whether the scale of the risk justified burning the FBI, CIA, IRS, DOJ, etc.'s institutional credibility, is another matter.