Presidential Power and the Future of Independent Agencies

Presidential Power is at the center of a new Supreme Court battle that could reshape how the United States governs everything from consumer protection to financial markets and climate policy. In the 2025–26 term, the Court has agreed to hear a case about Donald Trump’s effort to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) before her term expired, testing how far Presidential Power extends over independent regulatory agencies that Congress designed to be insulated from day-to-day politics.

For more than a century, presidents of both parties have chafed at limits on Presidential Power when dealing with independent agencies such as the FTC, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Reserve and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). These entities enforce laws that can make or break powerful industries, yet their leaders traditionally enjoy legal protections against removal without cause. The current Supreme Court dispute brings those protections, and the future of agency independence, directly into question.

The Challenge to Independent Agencies and Presidential Power

Independent agencies were created to carry out technical, often politically sensitive tasks with a degree of separation from the White House. Congress typically gives their leaders fixed terms and provides that they can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That structure was upheld in the landmark 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which held that the president could not fire a Federal Trade Commission commissioner just because he disagreed with the commissioner’s policy views. Humphrey’s Executor became the cornerstone for limiting Presidential Power in this area and allowed dozens of independent commissions to operate with some insulation from partisan swings.

The current controversy traces back to Trump’s decision in March 2025 to dismiss FTC member Rebecca Slaughter years before her term was due to end, without alleging the kind of misconduct described in the statute. Slaughter sued, arguing that her removal violated the agency’s organic law and Humphrey’s Executor. A federal district court and the D.C. Circuit both concluded that the president could not simply ignore the “for cause” protection, setting up a direct clash over Presidential Power when the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Trump’s lawyers rely on the “unitary executive” theory, which takes a maximal view of presidential authority over the executive branch. They argue that Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad power to supervise and, if necessary, remove executive officials, including members of independent commissions. In their view, constraints on removal unconstitutionally interfere with the president’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Supporters say this approach to Presidential Power is necessary to ensure accountability, because voters know whom to blame when policies fail.

Opponents warn that expanding Presidential Power over independent agencies risks politicising decisions that are supposed to rest on expertise and evidence. Critics of Trump’s dismissals point out that independent agencies oversee antitrust enforcement, workplace safety, environmental rules, financial stability and other areas where businesses and political donors have strong interests. They argue that if commissioners can be fired at will for reaching inconvenient conclusions, the entire logic of independent regulation is undermined.

Humphrey’s Executor, Seila Law and the evolving boundaries of Presidential Power

The Supreme Court has grappled with Presidential Power and agency independence for nearly a century. In Myers v. United States (1926), the Court endorsed broad presidential authority to remove certain postmasters, reading Article II to give the president substantial control over executive officers. Less than a decade later, Humphrey’s Executor carved out an exception for multi-member commissions like the FTC, treating them as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial bodies whose members could enjoy protection from at-will removal.

In recent years, however, the Court has narrowed those protections. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the justices held that Congress could not shield the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — a single agency head with significant enforcement power — from at-will removal. The Court severed the removal restriction but left the agency in place, effectively expanding Presidential Power over that regulator.

A year later, in Collins v. Yellen (2021), the Court applied similar reasoning to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), ruling that the statute’s limits on the president’s ability to remove the FHFA director were unconstitutional, while again severing the removal restriction and leaving the agency intact. Together, Seila Law and Collins mark a significant shift in favour of Presidential Power to remove single-headed agency leaders.

The Slaughter case now asks whether the Court will extend this logic to multi-member commissions, directly revisiting Humphrey’s Executor. Some conservative legal commentators and business groups have urged the justices to overturn the 1935 precedent entirely, arguing that Presidential Power cannot be meaningfully exercised if key economic regulators are shielded from removal. Others, including scholars of administrative law, warn that such a move would sweep away the legal foundation for independence at more than two dozen federal agencies.

Recent Cases Expanding Presidential Power Over Independent Agencies

The fight over Rebecca Slaughter’s job is not an isolated event. It is part of a broader pattern in which Trump has attempted to remove or sideline officials at multiple independent agencies, testing how far Presidential Power can reach.

Trump v. Slaughter and the Federal Trade Commission

In the Slaughter case, Trump removed a sitting Democratic commissioner whose term was supposed to run until 2029, replacing her with a political ally. The statutes governing the FTC say commissioners may be removed only for cause, language that closely tracks the statute at issue in Humphrey’s Executor. A panel of judges concluded that the firing likely violated those protections, but the Supreme Court allowed the ouster to proceed while the case moves forward, signalling that a majority of justices may be sympathetic to a more expansive view of Presidential Power.

Business groups that favour deregulation have lined up behind the administration, arguing that commissioners who oppose their policy preferences should not be able to “hide” behind fixed terms. Consumer advocates and antitrust scholars counter that aggressive enforcement at agencies like the FTC depends on commissioners who are willing to withstand political pressure. A ruling that endorses Trump’s view of Presidential Power could make it easier for any president to reshape these commissions quickly, potentially reversing policy directions with each change of administration.

Trump v. Wilcox and other efforts to test removal limits

Trump v. Wilcox, a related dispute over the removal of National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox, offers another window into how courts are thinking about Presidential Power. In a May 2025 order, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to remove Wilcox without cause while the case proceeds, even as one justice observed that such interventions at classic independent agencies had been rare since the mid-twentieth century.

Separate litigation has challenged Trump’s attempts to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and other officials at agencies traditionally treated as independent, including the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In some of these cases, lower courts have pushed back against the administration, but appeals are ongoing. Together, these disputes illustrate a sustained effort to expand Presidential Power and reduce the legal barriers that have historically shielded independent regulators from political retaliation.

What Is at Stake for Independent Agencies

The outcome of these cases will shape not just the careers of a handful of officials but the basic architecture of the federal regulatory state. If the Court endorses a sweeping understanding of Presidential Power, any future president could replace members of energy, financial, labour and communications commissions at will, even when Congress has written “for cause” protections into law. Legal analysts note that this would affect agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees interstate electricity markets and natural gas pipelines, and the SEC, which polices securities markets.

Supporters of stronger Presidential Power say this would improve democratic accountability. They argue that unelected commissioners should not be able to block the policy agenda of a president whom voters chose, and that allowing presidents to remove them promotes a clearer line of responsibility. Critics respond that independent agencies exist precisely because day-to-day political pressures can distort expert judgment, especially when large campaign donors have billions of dollars at stake in agency decisions. They warn that eroding independence could chill aggressive enforcement and make long-term planning harder in areas such as climate policy, financial stability and workplace safety.

There is also a practical concern about continuity. Commissioners often serve staggered terms that cross presidential administrations, which helps smooth policy swings and maintain institutional memory. If Presidential Power extends to firing commissioners whenever the White House changes hands, agencies may find it harder to plan multi-year rulemakings, maintain bipartisan cooperation or resist short-term political demands that conflict with statutory mandates.

How Presidential Power Over Agencies Shapes Democracy

The debate over Presidential Power and independent agencies is not purely legal. It reflects deeper disagreements about how American democracy should function in an era of polarisation and complex governance.

Many conservatives see the rise of independent agencies as part of what they call the “administrative state” — a network of bureaucrats who, in their view, wield too much power with too little accountability. From this perspective, strengthening Presidential Power is a way to bring those agencies back under clearer political control and ensure that policy decisions align with the outcome of national elections.

Progressives and many administrative law experts defend the existing system of checks and balances. They argue that Congress has constitutional authority to structure agencies, including by limiting removal, and that Presidential Power must be balanced against the need for impartial, expert decision-making. They emphasise that independent agencies often issue rules and enforcement actions that are unpopular with powerful interests but necessary to protect consumers, workers and the environment. Weakening tenure protections, they say, could make it easier for presidents of either party to pressure regulators into favouring politically connected firms or short-term economic gains over long-term public welfare.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Presidential Power and Independent Agencies

As the Supreme Court hears arguments in the Slaughter case and related disputes, several paths are possible. The justices could issue a narrow ruling focused on specific statutory language, leaving Humphrey’s Executor largely intact. They could reinterpret the 1935 precedent to allow broader presidential removal power while still recognising some form of independence. Or they could take the most dramatic step and overturn Humphrey’s Executor, effectively allowing Congress to create far fewer constraints on Presidential Power over independent commissions.

Legal commentators from across the spectrum agree that the Court’s decisions, expected by mid-2026, will have far-reaching consequences. A strong endorsement of Presidential Power would empower future occupants of the White House, regardless of party, to reshape regulatory policy quickly by reshuffling commission memberships. A more cautious ruling that preserves key elements of agency independence would signal that, even in a period of polarised politics, the Court is not prepared to abandon the balance that has defined the relationship between presidents and independent regulators for nearly ninety years.

Whatever the outcome, the battle over Presidential Power and independent agencies will remain central to debates about how the United States should be governed — and who ultimately controls the levers of regulatory authority.

Connect with the Author

Curious about the inspiration behind The Unmaking of America or want to follow the latest news and insights from J.T. Mercer? Dive deeper and stay connected through the links below—then explore Vera2 for sharp, timely reporting.

About the Author

Discover more about J.T. Mercer’s background, writing journey, and the real-world events that inspired The Unmaking of America. Learn what drives the storytelling and how this trilogy came to life.
[Learn more about J.T. Mercer]

NRP Dispatch Blog

Stay informed with the NRP Dispatch blog, where you’ll find author updates, behind-the-scenes commentary, and thought-provoking articles on current events, democracy, and the writing process.
[Read the NRP Dispatch]

Vera2 — News & Analysis

Looking for the latest reporting, explainers, and investigative pieces? Visit Vera2, North River Publications’ news and analysis hub. Vera2 covers politics, civil society, global affairs, courts, technology, and more—curated with context and built for readers who want clarity over noise.
[Explore Vera2]

Whether you’re interested in the creative process, want to engage with fellow readers, or simply want the latest updates, these resources are the best way to stay in touch with the world of The Unmaking of America—and with the broader news ecosystem at Vera2.

Free Chapter

Begin reading The Unmaking of America today and experience a story that asks: What remains when the rules are gone, and who will stand up when it matters most? Join the Fall of America mailing list below to receive the first chapter of The Unmaking of America for free and stay connected for updates, bonus material, and author news.

Read the first chapter free

Post Views: 2

Vera2, Courts and Justice, White House & Politics

Presidential Power Gets Tested Before Supreme Court