So I'll put the executive summary at the top of the post:
IMO: Is there a deep state as in a cabal of D&R civil servants that wants to protect the status quo at all costs? I've never seen one. What I saw was more of an entrenched bureaucracy that leaned heavily left across most agencies I worked with, with a couple of exceptions. So they, across all GS levels, enthusiastically helped dem administrations achieve their goals, but were not so enthusiastic, and in some cases you could use the word "sabotage" when dealing with the Bush administration directives. You might be able to call the latter "deep state", though it was more of an unethical and entrenched partisan bureaucracy IMO. Not any coordinated effort, just a lot of people who think the same way.
I started out in the last term of Clinton, so only have that as my baseline. Everyone pretty happily carried out the philosophy of and tried to meet the goals of Clinton appointees. One thing I noticed was that there sure were a lot of SES (Senior Executive Service) employees that used to be things like the director of the Ocean Conservancy and other former higher ups of other enviro NGOs.
Then Bush came along. I remember getting a talking to for playing "Hail to the Chief" in my office. Other people were saying vile things about Bush or doing the, "I'm moving to Canada" thing. That was all okay and just venting. People were very grumbly. Anytime I was at an interagency meeting, people would always be complaining about either some Bush directive or something their Department Secretary (Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Interior, etc) initiated. The only exceptions were DOD and DHS people, who I guess were making out under that admin or else were smart enough to keep their complaints to themselves. Those Clinton SES people were still there, and didn't mind talking trash about Bush, which made it easier for the lowly GS-7 to come up with reasons not to do their job. "Hey man, my Director says Bush is an ass, so why should I put effort into this Bush admin directive? He and his appointees will be out after one term anyway."
Two terms later, Obama came along. Celebration by all. Enthusiasm by all. Obama appointed his secretaries. Then in my and other departments I worked with, I noticed a lot of new SES and GS-15s who got hired by their secretary or undersecretary and were assigned to direct some office or other. Same as with Clinton, they came from NGOs, Academia, and other left-leaning organizations. They got to hire new FTEs that were GS-12s. 11s, 9s, etc. Often people who worked in those same organizations they came from. Maybe some of that happened under Bush from the conservative side, but I sure didn't see it in my circles.
So most of what I saw was basically "biased hiring" that creates something of a left-leaning bias in the overall makeup of the Civil Service. I just especially noticed it during the Obama admin. I can't help but think it happens under most dem admins, since they like to grow the gov. Conservatives like to cut gov, so there are usually fewer FTEs hired under those admins. Eventually you get the left-leaning bias and people who hang around for 20-30 years.
Not being around for Trump, I can only assume all the SJW civil servants blew a gasket at his election and are off doing the same things I saw under Bush but at 10X.
So is that "deep state"? Or is that unethical and spoiled sore losers who can't stand that someone not establishment (which I would argue that Bush was) is shaking up their lives?
Either way, many of the things we have seen since Trump got in are certainly worth getting fired over, and likely, even under current government rules, people could get fired. I've actually seen civil servants fired, so it can be done.