Would it be safe to say that CIA (and NSA and other parts of the intelligence community) is the actual "State within the State" (i.e., the so-called "Deep State")? "National security", almost at any cost, became the paramount prerogative of US intelligence agencies. However, they seem to be using a military criteria in a civil environment, which was supposed to be transparent enough for accountability.
I'd argue today's situation is, despite many problems, still comparatively better than the past: the Hoover era, as the most salient example, was vastly more corrupt and undemocratic. It's crucial in this regard to distinguish two issues: (a) to what degree do these institutions wield power unchecked by democratically-elected/legitimized institutions (President/Congress/Courts), and (b) those institutions commanding…
The whistleblowers mostly got put into prison for the current executive branch to save face. At least those that we heard about from. There also weren't any repercussions for the mass surveillance we are still subjected to.
I don't think there is evidence of the situation improving at all. This is not a problem confined to America and these specific agencies, of course.
The state having access to all forms of digital communication is a too powerful tool to suppress democratic dissent and I think we have recently seen bad actors in leading positions. The security benefits these mechanisms provide are marginal, so regulation should be the rational way to go.