Donald Trump made his highly anticipated return to Washington today. He now must contend with an unpredictable political and legal maelstrom that poses dire consequences to his nascent administration. Trump is participating in a roundtable event at the White House. At the same time, his administration is battling in court to defend the president’s authority to fire other appointees—specifically those from independent agencies. This case has opened the floodgates for a long-simmering, fierce battle over the separation of powers between the chief executive and independent agencies of the federal government.
In 2018, Trump made a bold move by appointing Rebecca Slaughter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This decision was indicative of his broader desire to set the tone of independent agencies’ futures. Yet now his administration is contending that a 2015 court ruling keeping the president from firing the officers should be reversed. This meritless argument ends up implicating the independence of these agencies and their accountability to the executive branch.
Beyond these legal troubles, Trump has been in the news lately for his positions on foreign policy. He even threatened that the United States would stop supporting Ukraine’s escalating war effort. His son, Donald Trump Jr., went on to say just this past Thursday that his father should do a 180 on the war entirely.
Trump’s administration has been equally criticized for its illegal immigration policy and targeting of crime—specifically targeting cities led by Democrats. In August, he sent more than 2,000 National Guard troops to Washington. He issued a public safety emergency, which placed day-to-day police operations in the hands of Attorney General Pam Bondi.
While addressing various domestic issues, Trump unveiled a $12 billion support package aimed at aiding American farmers adversely affected by his administration’s sweeping tariff policies. This action has been received critically on one side and favorably on the other from competing groups within the agriculture community.
Expansive views of the president’s authority drew a strong rebuke from Supreme Court justices. First, they asked serious questions about what would be the real effects of limiting presidential authority over independent agencies. In questioning, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson went on the attack over the rationale for prioritizing presidential control. She argued that Congress has made a choice that certain agencies should operate autonomously in the public interest.
“What I don’t understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress, which makes perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States, why that is subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything.” – Justice Jackson
The stubbornly recurrent debate accentuates the historic nature of independent agencies. Amit Agarwal correctly notes that multi-member commissions with removal protections have been constitutional since 1790. Letting these kinds of precedents be overturned, he warned, would be opening a Pandora’s box with long-lasting and dangerous effects.
“Multi-member commissions with members enjoying some kind of removal protection have been part of our story since 1790,” – Amit Agarwal
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stressed the dangers that would result from rewriting the long-accepted structure of our national government. The arguments being made in court are representative of a growing movement challenging the courts’ oversight and accountability of government.
“You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government,” – Justice Sonia Sotomayor
The Trump administration has postponed a final decision on the appeal from the Department of Justice. This further complicates the issue of presidential authority, as this request would give him the unencumbered power to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. The administration’s interpretation leads to agencies like the FTC being treated as a “headless fourth branch” of government, functioning with little to no oversight from the executive branch.
“Part of your argument seemed to revolve around this notion that there’s some kind of thing happening with the independent agency that the reason why the president needs to control it is because they don’t answer to anybody,” – Justice Jackson
Trump speaks to these multifaceted problems plainly. In parallel, he continues to focus on solidifying his political base with muscular policy and memorable, bold public pronouncements. The outcome of his legal battles concerning executive authority could reshape not only his presidency but set important precedents for future administrations.