The public record names real officials in real documents, and it also contains claims that are still allegations. This list ranks ten officials by how much the declassified and public-record material actually shows, so you can separate documented conduct from rumor.
- Ten officials appear repeatedly in declassified and public-record files on Russia-probe surveillance, intelligence assessments and unmasking.
- Kevin Clinesmith is the only one here with a guilty plea tied to the Carter Page FISA process.
- Most others were criticized in inspector general or congressional findings, not convicted of anything.
- Deep state insiders declassified documents claims are only as strong as the document behind them: check the date, the author and the stamp.
Best-documented overall: Kevin Clinesmith. Best for the FISA story: Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Best for the intelligence-assessment story: John Brennan and James Clapper. Everyone else on the list sits between those poles. The ranking tracks the record, not the outrage.
Why this matters in 2026
"Deep State" is a label for the alleged network of unelected career officials in intelligence, law enforcement and the civil service who act against elected leadership. National File, an independent news outlet covering politics and investigations, uses the term. Whether it describes a coordinated network is a political argument. Whether a named official appears in a declassified document is a factual question you can check.
That difference decides what you can trust in 2026. Viral threads name dozens of people. Only a handful appear in documents that carry a release date, an issuing office and a public citation.
You can pull many of these files yourself. National File's guide on how to request public records about government surveillance walks through the process.
What makes a credible Deep State insider entry
Every name below was scored on the same five tests:
- Named in a primary document. An inspector general report, court filing, declassified memo or congressional release, not a screenshot.
- Dated. The release date and the date of the underlying events are both stated.
- Specific conduct. The document describes what the person did, not just that they existed.
- Official finding or legal outcome. A plea, a firing, an IG conclusion or a declination. Allegations without findings rank lower.
- What the record leaves open. Every entry states what the file does not prove.
The ten at a glance
| Rank | Official | Role at the time | Best for understanding | Main record | Limit of the record |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kevin Clinesmith | FBI attorney | FISA application integrity | Guilty plea, 2020 | One altered email, not a wider scheme |
| 2 | Peter Strzok | FBI counterintelligence agent | Investigation bias claims | IG report and texts | IG did not tie bias to specific decisions |
| 3 | Lisa Page | FBI lawyer | Same texts, different role | IG report and texts | No finding she altered evidence |
| 4 | Andrew McCabe | FBI deputy director | Candor findings | IG finding, 2018 firing | DOJ declined to prosecute |
| 5 | John Brennan | CIA director | The 2017 assessment | Intelligence assessment record | Contested sourcing, no charge on the public record |
| 6 | James Clapper | Director of National Intelligence | Surveillance testimony | 2013 Senate testimony | Statement later called erroneous, not charged |
| 7 | James Comey | FBI director | Leadership accountability | IG reports | Findings address process, not a conspiracy |
| 8 | Bruce Ohr | DOJ official | Outside-source contacts | IG report | Failure to disclose, not a crime |
| 9 | Susan Rice | National security adviser | Unmasking | Declassified Jan 2017 email | Unmasking requests were a lawful process |
| 10 | Bill Priestap | FBI counterintelligence head | Flynn interview handling | Handwritten notes, 2020 release | Notes show deliberation, not a decision |
1. Kevin Clinesmith: best-documented name on the list
Best for: readers who want a name with a legal outcome.
Clinesmith was an FBI attorney. In 2020 he pleaded guilty to a false-statement charge for altering an email that supported a renewal application for surveillance of Carter Page. He was sentenced to probation in early 2021.
Clinesmith pros (strength of record):
- A court-adjudicated outcome, not an allegation
- The altered document itself is part of the public file
- Directly tied to the FISA process, a core Deep State claim
Clinesmith cons (limits):
- The plea covers one altered email, not an organized plot
- No court has found others directed it
Verdict: Read the record.
2. Peter Strzok: the texts and the Flynn file
Best for: understanding why bias allegations stuck.
Strzok was a senior FBI counterintelligence agent on the Russia probe. His personal text messages were released through the Justice Department inspector general process. The FBI fired him in 2018.
Strzok pros:
- The texts are public and dated
- He was removed from the special counsel team after they surfaced
Strzok cons:
- The inspector general did not conclude the messages changed specific investigative decisions
- Texts show opinion, not proof of falsified evidence
Verdict: Read the record, then separate opinion from action.
3. Lisa Page: same messages, different role
Best for: readers who need the context behind the texts.
Page was an FBI lawyer who exchanged those messages with Strzok. She left the FBI in 2018.
Page pros:
- Her messages are in the public inspector general record
- She appears in the timeline of the investigation's opening
Page cons:
- No finding that she altered or withheld evidence
- Frequently lumped in with Strzok without separate evidence
Verdict: Hold. Cite the texts, not the rumors.
4. Andrew McCabe: the candor finding
Best for: a documented personnel outcome.
McCabe was FBI deputy director. An inspector general review found he lacked candor about a media disclosure, and he was fired in March 2018. The Justice Department later declined to prosecute.
McCabe pros:
- A formal finding exists
- The firing is documented
McCabe cons:
- The finding concerned a media disclosure, not the Russia surveillance
- No criminal charge followed
Verdict: Hold. The finding is real; the broader claim needs separate proof.
5. John Brennan: the intelligence assessment
Best for: the January 2017 assessment dispute.
Brennan directed the CIA through January 2017 and helped produce the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference. Declassified releases and congressional reviews dispute how the Steele material fit into that process. The public record does not show a charge against him. Check the current docket and any referrals before repeating a claim.
Brennan pros:
- Central role in a document that is now widely debated
- Multiple released records mention his office
Brennan cons:
- Disagreements over sourcing remain contested between reviewers
- Allegation is not finding
Verdict: Wait for primary documents on any new claim.
6. James Clapper: the 2013 testimony
Best for: the surveillance-honesty argument.
Clapper led the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. In 2013 he told the Senate the government did not collect data on millions of Americans, then later called his answer clearly erroneous. National File's explainer on when government surveillance requires a warrant covers the legal line that made that exchange matter.
Clapper pros:
- Public transcript and public correction
- Ties directly to surveillance oversight
Clapper cons:
- No charge resulted
- He framed the answer as a misunderstanding of the question
Verdict: Read the record. It is the cleanest example of a testimony dispute.
7. James Comey: leadership accountability
Best for: the question of who answered for the FBI's process failures.
Comey headed the FBI during the Carter Page applications. The Justice Department inspector general's December 2019 report found 17 significant errors or omissions across those applications. It did not find a documented conspiracy.
Comey pros:
- The 17-error finding is public and specific
- Leadership responsibility is a legitimate oversight question
Comey cons:
- The report criticized process failures at multiple levels
- Later legal proceedings change quickly; verify the current status
Verdict: Read the IG report, not the summary threads.
8. Bruce Ohr: the outside-source contacts
Best for: the Steele connection.
Ohr was a senior Justice Department official who stayed in contact with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The inspector general found he should have reported certain contacts and handled them through proper channels.
Ohr pros:
- Specific, documented contacts
- Formal criticism in the IG report
Ohr cons:
- Failure to follow procedure is not a crime
- Family employment ties are alleged in public records but do not prove a scheme
Verdict: Hold. Document the contacts; do not stretch them.
9. Susan Rice: the unmasking record
Best for: understanding how unmasking works.
Rice served as national security adviser. Unmasking is the process by which an official asks to learn the identity of a U.S. person named in intelligence reporting. A January 2017 email she wrote to herself was later declassified and released by Senate Republicans.
Rice pros:
- Primary document is public
- Shows how officials documented decisions in the final days of the administration
Rice cons:
- Unmasking requests are a lawful, routine procedure
- No finding of illegality
Verdict: Skip any claim that treats the request itself as the crime.
10. Bill Priestap: the Flynn interview notes
Best for: a view of internal FBI deliberation.
Priestap led FBI counterintelligence. Handwritten notes from January 2017 were released in 2020 as part of the Michael Flynn case. They show officials questioning the goal of the Flynn interview.
Priestap pros:
- Handwritten contemporaneous notes
- Directly relevant to the Flynn case record
Priestap cons:
- Notes capture a question, not a decision
- Context from other attendees matters
Verdict: Read the notes, but note who wrote them and when.
Pull the documents yourself
Step-by-step guide to filing public records requests.
How the ranking works
Entries are ordered by the five tests above: primary document, date, specific conduct, official finding and stated limits. A guilty plea outranks an inspector general finding. An inspector general finding outranks a congressional release. A congressional release outranks a social media thread. Nothing here is ranked by popularity or political heat.
Two cautions apply in 2026. First, legal status changes. Always check current dockets before repeating a claim about charges. Second, a document that names someone is not the same as a document that proves wrongdoing by that person.
Which entry should you start with?
If you read one record, read the Carter Page inspector general report and the Clinesmith plea. Together they show the strongest documented failures in the surveillance process. If your question is about intelligence assessments, start with Brennan and Clapper, then pull the primary assessments. If your question is about the Flynn case, start with Priestap's notes.
FAQ
What is the Deep State?
Deep State is a political label for unelected career officials alleged to act against elected leadership. It is an argument, not a legal category, so each claim needs its own document.
Which official on this list has a guilty plea?
Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI attorney, pleaded guilty in 2020 to altering an email used in a Carter Page surveillance renewal. He received probation in early 2021.
What did the 2019 inspector general report find?
The Justice Department inspector general found 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page surveillance applications. The report did not conclude there was a documented conspiracy.
Is being named in a declassified document proof of wrongdoing?
No. A name in a document shows involvement, not guilt. Look for a finding, a plea or a conclusion tied to specific conduct.
What is unmasking?
Unmasking is a process where an official requests the identity of a U.S. person named in intelligence reporting. It is lawful and routine, so the request alone proves nothing.
How can I check a declassified document myself?
Find the issuing agency, the release date and the original file. National File's public records guide explains how to file requests for surveillance-related records.
Were any of these officials criminally charged?
Clinesmith was charged and pleaded guilty. For the others on this list, the public record shows findings or criticism rather than convictions, but check current dockets.
One last thing
The strongest entry on this list is also the smallest: one altered email. The weakest claims are the biggest ones. Documented, narrow facts survive scrutiny. Sweeping claims need sweeping proof, and the files are where you find out which one you have.
