President Trump addresses the media during a press conference on Tuesday at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
On Tuesday, President Trump enacted an executive order, enhancing his authority over independent regulatory bodies—entities designed by Congress to operate independently of White House influence.
The executive order specifically excludes the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors and Open Market Committee.
The Federal Reserve, responsible for monetary policy, is intentionally structured to operate independently from political pressures, a separation that is crucial for its role in maintaining economic stability.
The directive mandates that the involved agencies present all new regulations to the White House, establish White House Liaison offices, and “regularly consult with and align policies and priorities” alongside the White House. Additionally, the order grants the president and attorney general exclusive authority to interpret laws for the executive branch, marking a notable expansion of executive reach.
Expanded presidential authority
According to Daniel Farber, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, this initiative aims to secure Trump’s control over government sectors where impartiality has previously been observed. “Given Trump’s insistence on unwavering loyalty from all government officials, this strategy seeks to extend his influence into areas once viewed as nonpartisan,” he stated via email.
Trump has dismissed several top officials at independent agencies, including those at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, along with over a dozen inspectors general from various independent bodies. These actions have generated lawsuits alleging illegal firings by the administration, which could lead to further legal challenges.
For over three decades, the White House has maintained the authority to review government agency regulations, a power first established by an executive order from President Clinton. Nevertheless, independent regulatory agencies were previously exempt from this oversight.
Project 2025
Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, is central to Trump’s newly established executive order. Recently, as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he instructed all staff to “cease any work activities.”
Vought has publicly criticized the existence of independent agencies, stating in an interview with far-right broadcaster Tucker Carlson shortly after Trump’s election, “There are no independent agencies. Congress may have considered them as such, but that is not how the Constitution views them.”
Project 2025, a blueprint from the conservative Heritage Foundation aimed at reshaping government, envisions incorporating independent agencies under White House oversight.
The project cites a 1935 Supreme Court ruling, Humphrey’s Executor v. US, which determined that a president cannot dismiss the head of an independent agency. Its DOJ chapter contends that this precedent violates the principles of separation of powers.
During Trump’s first term, his administration sought a legal opinion from the Justice Department on whether he could enforce regulatory review over independent agencies, to which the DOJ responded affirmatively, although Trump ultimately did not pursue it.
A receptive Supreme Court?
Saikrishna Prakash, a law professor at the University of Virginia and a former clerk for conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, believes the president has the authority to dismiss heads of independent agencies and that the current Supreme Court may affirm this viewpoint.
Prakash noted, “The court has signaled for years that Congress cannot provide for-cause protections to these agencies. I believe the direction is clear.”
The Supreme Court, currently holding a 6-3 conservative supermajority, has been progressively diminishing the power of regulatory agencies, with five of the conservative justices having served as White House legal advisors in the past.
The implications of this executive order could be extensive, according to Farber from UC Berkeley.
“One outcome may be enhanced presidential control over the financial sector, particularly through the SEC,” he explained, adding that Trump’s influence would also extend to labor and trade via the NLRB and FTC. The ultimate consequence, he warned, could result in regulatory volatility.
“The commission system has added a degree of stability to these legal domains, ensuring that rules don’t drastically shift with every election cycle,” Farber stated. “Such stability may be disrupted under Trump’s directives.”
