The “national security state” refers to the bureaus that provide the executive branch with exclusive intelligence about real and potential adversaries and the ability to apprehend those adversaries (Dean, 1). These could include the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of Defense (DOD), or Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI). “Cultures of secrecy” refer to the increasing importance of and support for the security state and its industrialization in American politics, as well as the struggles for power that have resulted from the national security state. The cultures of secrecy have resulted in reduced effectiveness of democracy and increased opportunity for government corruption, due to an imbalance in the branches’ powers, which in turn have resulted in widespread distrust in the government by the public.
In rural Nevada and Utah, for example, the national security state could be seen very clearly in the actions of the Atomic Energy Commission during the Cold War. From the Nevada Test Site’s inception, its operations were kept very secret, and military leaders believed that local distrust in the testing was itself a threat to national security (Fox, 2). As such, they dismissed any claims that their experiments were causing any harm to U.S. civilians. Despite the farmers in that area evidently experiencing the effects of nuclear fallout as well as other weapon tests, the federal government refused to admit fault, and was very adamant about covering up the effects of the testing. They painted the farmers as ignorant and unintelligent, and passed off the deaths of their livestock as due to malnutrition. This led to growing distrust of the government in the local rural communities. Even among Mormon communities, there was some anger exhibited towards the government, which was notable considering that “the LDS church aligned itself strongly with the federal government during much of the Cold War years” (Fox, 17).
I think the national security state still exists today, but perhaps not in the same way as it did during the Cold War era. In my opinion, once something like that is in place, it would be hard to remove, especially combined with the culture of secrecy. In 2013, for example, Edward Snowden leaked information about the U.S.’s mass surveillance programs targeted towards U.S. citizens, which were intended to aid national security. Regardless of whether someone thinks that this was a good move or a bad one, it still showed that the national security state prevailed, even after the Cold War had ended. If it existed for that long, I am sure it is still in effect now. Regardless of there being a national security state, the governmental distrust that was seen during the Cold War era is very much still around. In recent years, citizens from both sides of the American political spectrum have been voicing their distrust in the election systems. Additionally, there are still many different theories about government conspiracies in general. If anything, the effects of the national security state on the public’s trust in the democratic process is still very prevalent, but the national security state itself is likely still around as well.
Will Wright 
I like that you point to Edward Snowden as proof of the existence of the national security state in the 21 century. With Snowden in mind, I remembered that he is now living in Russia. As a professor I had in London said, ‘Snowden needed to escape the US, and where better to hide than within enemy territory.’ I wonder if Snowden’s actions reveal that the national security state not only operates within this culture of secrecy, betraying the privacy of the American people, but also retaliates against those who subvert their operations. You also mention widespread distrust in the government, which I think interesting to see today because people contradict themselves in choosing who or what they do or do not distrust. Take MAGA supporters, for example, who condemned the 2020 election as rigged but are satisfied with the 2024 election when it falls in their favor. Dare I say it’s almost like there is distrust and maybe even hypocrisy within a party when they don’t hold all the cards.
LikeLike