Fired Without Cause, Freed Without Oversight
The Supreme Court just gave Trump permission to fire a sitting FTC commissioner without cause—risking a total collapse of agency independence for partisan gain.
Setting the Stage
On Monday, the Supreme Court took a swing at nearly a century of legal precedent by siding with Donald Trump’s emergency request to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission. The decision—a 6–3 split along ideological lines—sets up a December showdown over Humphrey’s Executor v. United States1, a 1935 case that has long shielded independent federal regulators from presidential purges. Until now, presidents could not fire FTC commissioners without cause—specifically, “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
But that protection has just been vaporized by the court’s conservative majority.
Trump originally fired both Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya—the two remaining Democratic appointees—months ago, with no legal justification. A lower court ruled in Slaughter’s favor, finding that Trump’s move violated long-standing limits on presidential power. But now the justices have reversed that outcome, at least temporarily, by greenlighting her removal until the court formally hears the case in December.
Justice Elena Kagan didn’t hold back in her dissent: “He may now remove—so says the majority, though Congress said differently—any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all.” Her warning is stark and systemic: this decision “extinguish[es] the agencies’ bipartisanship and independence.”
We’re not just watching one commissioner get the boot. We’re watching the first domino in what could become a total evisceration of the modern regulatory state.
The Power at Play
This case isn’t about one commissioner. It’s about who gets to say, “no” to power.
The Federal Trade Commission exists to stand up to corporate monopolies, safeguard consumer protection, and ensure fair competition. It’s supposed to be independent for a reason—because when the rules are made by those in charge, the game is always rigged. The principle behind independent agencies is that expertise and public interest, not raw political loyalty, should guide enforcement of the law.
But the conservative legal movement, turbocharged by Trump’s judicial appointees, has long sought to dismantle that firewall. For decades, right-wing legal scholars and donors have bemoaned the so-called “administrative state,” casting regulators as unelected bureaucrats who hinder business innovation. In reality, those regulators are often the last line of defense against corporate exploitation.
Now, Trump and his loyalists are trying to consolidate power over those watchdogs. The justification? That modern agencies like the FTC wield too much “executive power” to be insulated from presidential control. Solicitor General D. John Sauer claimed the commission has accumulated such power that “its structure violates the separation of powers.”
Translation: Trump doesn’t like being told he can’t fire someone for disagreeing with him.
This argument didn’t emerge from nowhere. It is a legal sequel to cases like Seila Law v. CFPB (2020), where the court ruled the president could remove the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at will. Conservative legal activists see Humphrey’s Executor as the primary obstacle to a more imperial presidency—and they’re finally in position to strike it down.
The outcome of this case will impact not just the FTC but every independent regulatory body: the SEC, FCC, NLRB, even the Fed. It’s a tidal wave aimed squarely at the concept of independent governance.
This could permanently alter the relationship between the executive branch and the regulatory apparatus it oversees. In plain terms, it hands the president the keys to agencies that were designed to say no.
A Lens of Justice
This fight isn’t just institutional. It’s personal—especially for communities that rely on agencies like the FTC to protect them from predatory business practices.
The FTC has gone to bat against anti-competitive mergers, discriminatory tech algorithms, and exploitative labor contracts. The agency’s recent work under Democratic leadership included cracking down on Big Tech’s surveillance economy and investigating healthcare monopolies that leave working-class patients with higher bills and fewer choices.
When Trump fires FTC commissioners like Rebecca Slaughter, he isn’t just asserting power—he’s silencing dissent. And more often than not, that dissent is rooted in advocacy for the public good: worker protections, racial equity in markets, oversight of corporate abuses that disproportionately harm Black, brown, and low-income communities.
Independent regulators are often the only ones in government taking those inequities seriously. By gutting their independence, Trump is making it clear: If you challenge power—especially his—you don’t get to stay in the room.
Reframing the Debate
This isn’t about “executive efficiency.” It’s about whether democracy means anything when the president can fire his critics at will.
Conservatives often frame this issue as a simple question of “accountability”—that the president, elected by the people, should be able to fire unelected officials. But what’s left unsaid is who benefits from such firings. When Trump can dismiss independent regulators over policy disagreements, accountability dies—not thrives.
Progressives must reframe this not as a procedural spat over agency structure, but as a battle over checks and balances. Because when regulators answer only to the president, they no longer answer to the public.
Building the Conversation
When engaging friends, family, or even skeptical moderates, keep the conversation rooted in shared democratic values. Try this:
Ethical Appeal: “Would you trust a president—any president—to control agencies meant to hold them accountable?”
Logical Appeal: “Why create independent agencies at all if they just become extensions of the White House?”
Emotional Appeal: “Imagine if every regulator who tried to protect you from corporate abuse could be fired just for doing their job.”
And don’t underestimate the power of examples. Mention that the FTC protects people from scams, corporate price-fixing, and monopolistic health systems. These aren’t abstract legal principles—they’re the reason your medication doesn’t cost $1,200 a month (yet).
The Counterpoint Trap
“Presidents need direct control over regulatory agencies to ensure they enforce the law.” → Technocratic Cover
This argument claims to boost efficiency, but in reality it aims to weaken enforcement against corporate wrongdoing.
Takeaway: Emphasize that true accountability requires independent enforcement—not consolidating power to undermine it.
“The FTC has become too partisan, so firing commissioners restores balance.” → False Equivalence
This frames disagreement with Trump as partisan bias. In fact, it’s the president politicizing agencies by removing anyone who resists.
Takeaway: Re-center the debate on the need for nonpartisan oversight, not presidential obedience.
“If the president can’t fire them, how do we hold these bureaucrats accountable?” → Hyper-Skepticism
This implies all regulators are rogue actors. But commissioners still answer to Congress, ethics rules, and the law.
Takeaway: Independence doesn’t mean impunity—it means insulation from political retaliation.
“This is just Trump trying to make government more efficient.” → Euphemistic Reframing
“Efficiency” is a cover for loyalty tests. This isn’t about performance; it’s about control.
Takeaway: Remind people that effective government needs expertise, not ideological obedience.
Deeper Dive
The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis
A powerful exploration of how government agencies protect us every day—and how dangerous it is when we take them for granted.
They Knew by Sarah Chayes
Exposes how corruption seeps into every level of government when checks and balances are dismantled in favor of top-down control.
Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean
Connects the dots between conservative legal theory and the strategic dismantling of public institutions.
Unmaking the Presidency by Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes
Traces how modern presidents have distorted constitutional norms—and what that means for agency independence.
The Last Laugh
When a president fires the people meant to oversee him, that’s not “draining the swamp”—it’s refilling it with yes-men and loyalists. If anti-corruption agencies can be purged for disobedience, we’re not talking about democracy anymore. We’re talking about monarchy—with better branding. And if opposing unchecked power makes you “unaccountable,” then maybe the Founders were anarchists. Because the entire idea of America was that no one person should ever hold all the cards.
A Poll For Your Thoughts
In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not remove commissioners of independent agencies like the FTC without cause. The decision created a crucial legal firewall between the White House and public-interest regulators, ensuring that expert governance could continue regardless of partisan swings. For nearly 90 years, it has protected the independence of agencies that oversee corporate power, labor rights, and public safety. Overturning it would let presidents purge entire commissions for political reasons—turning watchdogs into yes-men overnight.