Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, X, Youtube, Instagram
Coral Springs — When the Founders drafted the United States Constitution, their primary objective was to prevent the consolidation of governmental power. By separating legislative, executive and judicial power into distinct and equal branches, they sought to ensure that no single faction could quietly assume control over constitutional republic.
Yet recent candidate filings signal a structural transformation that threatens this fundamental balance. Across the country, a growing wave of former military commanders, intelligence operatives and administrative officials are moving directly from administrative agencies into legislative seats.
This administrative state—often referred to as the federal bureaucracy or "deep state," in many respects making up an unconstitutional fourth administrative branch of our federal government—consists of the vast network of unelected regulatory bodies, civil service departments, and national security agencies that issue regulations, enforce laws, adjudicate disputes in their own administrative law courts, and execute government policy. These civil service agencies and departments are staffed by technocratic experts who are said to administer government in a non-partisan direction. That is demonstrably not the case, as they steer government in a progressive direction toward greater oligarchy.
While created to administer public affairs, this unelected apparatus has grown into a powerful branch of government that operates with minimal public accountability. When its veteran operatives transition into the very Congressional seats meant to oversee them, the constitutional lines between those who exercise administrative power and those who write the laws become dangerously blurred.
The misplaced concern that these members are “socialists” rather than “deep state” technocrats can be addressed through the irony of corporate militarism. While GOP attack ads are accusing these deep state candidates of being radical leftists, these candidates are sitting on boards for defense contractors, pushing high-tech asymmetric warfare, and taking money from Wall Street think tanks. If Karl Marx saw what the right calls “socialism” today, he’d ask where the revolution went, and why it looks suspiciously like a Lockheed Martin board meeting. Of course, the deep state can be leading us to creating a wealthy socialist oligarchy, like in the Soviet Union and in Cuba today.
The 2026 Slate: 67 Operatives on the Ballot
Research conducted by historian Jeremy Kuzmarov, featured in his report “Sixty-Seven Democrats with a National Security Background Are on the November Ballot,” published by Covert Action Magazine on October 21 this year, reveals the scale of this phenomenon in the 2026 midterm election cycle.
A total of 67 Democrat Congressional candidates with backgrounds in military intelligence, defense agencies or national security organs are featured on the November ballot. This figure is more than double the number of national security veterans running under that party banner in any of the previous four election cycles. This trend builds on momentum from earlier cycles, notably 2018, when 11 national security candidates won Congressional seats. Prominent figures from that initial wave include:
1. Abigail Spanberger: Former CIA operative elected as a Democrat in 2018 to the U.S. House of Representatives and then elected in 2025 as Governor of Virginia.
2. Elissa Slotkin: Former CIA intelligence analyst elected as a Democrat in 2022 to Congress, and then in 2024 to represent Michigan in the U.S. Senate.
The 2026 candidate field showcases a high concentration of veterans from elite defense, intelligence and diplomatic sectors running for Congress as Democrats, such as the following:
Candidate District / Office Executive & Intelligence Background
1. Cait Conley New York, 17th CD West Point graduate, former Special Forces operator (6 deployments to Iraq/Afghanistan), former National Security Council (NSC) director for counterterrorism, and election security official at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of DHS.
2. Rebecca Bennett New Jersey, 7th CD Former U.S. Navy helicopter pilot, experimental test pilot, and Air National Guard officer.
3. JoAnna Mendoza Arizona, 6th CD Retired U.S. Marine veteran.
4. Maura Sullivan New Hampshire, 1st CD Former U.S. Marine officer (deployed to Fallujah, Iraq), former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and Council on Foreign Relations member.
5. Frederick Wellman Missouri, 2nd CD Combat veteran of the first and second Iraq Wars.
6. Bale Dalton Florida, 7th CD U.S. Navy special operations helicopter pilot and former NASA Chief of Staff handling space-security issues, endorsed by former U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, a RINO from Orlando.
7. Eileen Laubacher Colorado, 4th CD 34-year Navy veteran, former intelligence officer, and former NSC official, retired as a Rear Admiral.
8. Shawn Harris Georgia, 14th CD 40-year Army veteran, combat commander in Afghanistan, and former U.S. Defense Attaché to Israel.
9. Alan Bradstock Pennsylvania, 14th CD Desert Storm combat veteran, former FBI special agent, and former coordinator of terrorism financing investigations at CIA headquarters.
10. Lee McInnis Alabama, 3rd CD 28-year intelligence community veteran who served in Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, and as Acting Director of Intelligence for NATO/USA Special Operations in Afghanistan.
11. Carmela Conroy Washington, 5th CD Career Foreign Service officer in Afghanistan and recipient of the CIA Agency Seal Medal.
12. N'Kiyla Jasmine Thomas Oklahoma, U.S. Senate Military spouse running on a defense and military-support platform.
In addition, Congress includes Democrat Jimmy Panetta, California, 19th Congressional District, a former Navy intelligence officer with the Joint Special Operations Command, and son of Leon Panetta, former CIA Director and Congressman.
Administrative Operatives Compromise Congressional Oversight
The influx of national security insiders into Congress introduces distinct structural vulnerabilities to government transparency and legislative accountability.
1. Institutional Loyalty Replaces Independent Congressional Oversight
Congress’s chief responsibility regarding national security is to conduct rigorous oversight—auditing Pentagon budgets, questioning intelligence operations, and reining in federal surveillance powers. When Congressional seats are held by former CIA, FBI or Pentagon officials, independent oversight is routinely replaced by institutional deference. Operatives conditioned by decades of bureaucratic secrecy bring entrenched administrative loyalties into lawmaking. Rather than interrogating intelligence directors or questioning expansive defense outlays, former insiders in Congress naturally operate as internal defenders for the agencies that trained them.
2. The Unchecked Revolving Door
While public scrutiny frequently focuses on corporate lobbyists transitioning into federal service, the rapid pipeline between intelligence agencies and Congressional office poses an equal or greater threat. When national security professionals cycle en masse from executive intelligence agencies into Congressional office, the administrative state effectively expands its reach into the lawmaking branch. The constitutional divide between those who execute security policy and those who write the governing statutes disappears, creating a self-protecting ecosystem for administrative agencies.
3. The Enfeeblement of Judicial and Congressional Safeguards
Courts rely on strict statutory guidelines enacted by Congress—such as FISA court parameters, war powers mandates, and whistleblower protections—to curb executive overreach and defend civil liberties. However, when a national security mindset dominates Congress, lawmakers repeatedly pass legislation that expands administrative secrecy, grants broad surveillance authority, and shields administrative agencies from judicial scrutiny. Without firm statutory limits established by Congress, the courts are left without the necessary legal mechanisms to protect individual constitutional rights against federal authority.
Conclusion
The presence of 67 national security operatives on the 2026 ballot reflects a systemic shift in how political pipelines are built. As intelligence and defense insiders in the administrative branch continue to transition into Congressional office, the institutional separation designed to limit federal power grows increasingly fragile. Restoring genuine Congressional oversight requires recognizing this shift and holding Congressmen accountable to the public, rather than to the administrative state.
