Overview

Presidential Control of Independent Agencies

The Executive Order and Its Scope

President Trump issued the "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" executive order on February 18, 2025, establishing a policy of "presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch," issued in response to the administration's stated view that previous administrations had allowed so-called independent regulatory agencies to operate with minimal presidential supervision. The order established a degree of oversight and control of the SEC and other independent agencies that is without historical precedent.

The order required that all executive departments and agencies—including those granted some independence from the presidency by Congress—submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs before publication in the Federal Register. It also mandated that independent agency leaders regularly consult and coordinate with the presidential administration, establish White House liaisons in their agencies, and create agency strategic plans to be approved by the OMB director, which would also establish performance standards and adjust agencies' funding allocations to advance the president's priorities. The order applied to the Federal Reserve only with respect to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.

The Firings of Agency Commissioners

Trump fired two Democratic EEOC commissioners and an NLRB board member in late January 2025, hobbling two independent agencies tasked with enforcing worker protections. He also fired Democratic NLRB board member Gwynne Wilcox, an unprecedented move she vowed to fight in court. On March 18, 2025, the Trump administration sent letters to the two Democratic commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission saying they were removed as commissioners effective immediately, with at least one letter stating that the commissioner's continued service was "inconsistent with my administration's priorities."

Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter were the two Democratic FTC commissioners who received termination emails on March 18, 2025. Although Bedoya's claims were later dismissed, Slaughter's claims remained and became the vehicle for the definitive legal challenge. In a letter dated February 12, 2025, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris advised the Senate that the Department of Justice had determined that certain for-cause removal provisions applying to members of multimember regulatory commissions are unconstitutional, and that the department would no longer defend their constitutionality.

The Constitutional Stakes

The constitutional foundation at issue was Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), in which the Supreme Court upheld the FTC Act's limitations on the president's ability to remove commissioners, finding that the FTC's duties were "not executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative." That framework gave businesses a crucial assumption that regulatory priorities at independent agencies would remain relatively stable regardless of which party controlled the White House. The Trump administration challenged this framework directly, contending that Article II of the Constitution vests all executive power in the president and that Congress may not create a "fourth branch" insulated from presidential control.

Significance and Impact

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2026, held in Trump v. Slaughter that for-cause removal protections for FTC commissioners and similar independent agency members violate separation of powers, overturning decades of settled precedent. The 6-3 decision overruled Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which for nine decades had prevented presidents from removing FTC commissioners without statutory cause. In a companion decision—Trump v. Cook—the Court preserved limited removal protections for Federal Reserve governors, creating a narrow but significant carve-out for the country's central bank.

The ruling eliminated for-cause removal protections for commissioners at the FTC, National Labor Relations Board, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Merit Systems Protection Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and other independent agencies. The 6-3 ruling, which struck down a law prohibiting the president from firing members of the FTC except for cause, was the logical endpoint of a fifteen-year series of cases that had steadily chipped away at Humphrey's Executor.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that "independent agencies are not 'independent' in the sense that they are free of the President and thus responsive 'only to the people of the United States.'" The decision significantly expands presidential authority over independent federal agencies and is poised to reshape how labor and employment agencies like the NLRB and the EEOC operate going forward.

Reactions and Debate

Supporters of the administration's position framed the drive to subordinate independent agencies as a matter of democratic accountability. If executive power is vested in the president by the Constitution, the argument runs, then regulatory bodies exercising that power cannot be insulated from the only official the public elects to wield it. The February executive order asserted broad presidential authority to supervise and control all officials within the executive branch, relying on the Constitution's vesting of executive power in the president and his duty to faithfully execute the laws—and made clear that this authority extends not merely to traditional Cabinet departments but also to agencies that Congress has insulated from direct presidential control by statute.

Critics argued that the independence of multi-member commissions was deliberately designed to foster expertise, stability, and insulation from partisan pressure. The removal protections that previously shielded independent agency officials were specifically designed to foster stability and insulate agencies from direct political pressure, along with staggered terms and requirements for partisan balance. Opponents of the firings also questioned the immediate operational consequences: removing commissioners mid-term threatened to leave agencies without the quorum required to conduct certain official business.

The Slaughter ruling may affect the degree to which leaders of independent agencies align with the president's policy objectives, and enforcement priorities, policy direction, and regulatory posture may shift more significantly with changes in administration. Critics see that volatility as a problem; defenders see it as accountability. The three dissenting justices—whose precise reasoning will be examined extensively in administrative law scholarship—rejected the majority's reading of Humphrey's Executor and its constitutional underpinnings.

Outlook

The immediate legal controversy over the specific firings has been resolved by the Supreme Court, but the broader institutional consequences are still taking shape. Labor relations policies, including union election procedures, joint employer standards, and unfair labor practice enforcement, are now subject to more rapid shifts, and employers should anticipate that NLRB precedents may be reversed or modified more frequently as leadership changes. Similar dynamics are likely at the FTC, the EEOC, and the FCC.

Compliance programs built on assumptions of regulatory continuity will need to be reconsidered in light of Trump v. Slaughter. For regulated industries, the practical implication is that an agency's enforcement posture, rulemaking agenda, and legal interpretations are now more directly tied to the priorities of the sitting administration—and can shift accordingly when administrations change. This represents a fundamental alteration of the operating environment that business and legal planners had assumed for nearly a century.

Whether Congress will seek legislative responses—including restructuring agencies, adjusting their statutory mandates, or attempting to codify other forms of independence—remains an open question. The Slaughter ruling is the latest in a series of opinions in which the current Court has overturned precedent it found had either been wrongly decided or incompatible with established law. The durability of that approach, and whether future courts or congresses will revisit the boundaries the Court has now drawn, will likely define the next chapter of administrative law in the United States.