Letters from an American - The Unitary Executive

Episode Date: June 30, 2026

June 29, 2026In the case of Slaughter v Trump, Trump claimed he has the right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission even though the Court has long said the president does not have the power to fire members of independent agencies except in extreme cases, The argument is an attempt to establish the idea of the unitary executive which asserts the power of the president and diminishes the power of Congress, The theory proposes that the president cannot be reined in by the other two branches of government, In a 6-3 vote the Supreme court decided in Trump’s favor, Dissenting justices wrote that the Court is undoing centuries of practice, elevating the president above his once coequal branches, The decision gives Trump power he clearly has no inclination to give up.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

June 29, 26. To show the importance of the slaughter case, 90 years of precedent, has been completely and unequivocally overturned, greatly increasing presidential power at a time when it is most needed, President Donald J. Trump wrote this afternoon. He continued, Today's historic slaughtered decision by the Supreme Court is the greatest increase in presidential power in the last 100 years. Such a monumental ruling at such an important time. Political theorist Jacob T. Levy posted in response, no, see, overruled 90 years of precedent in order to expand presidential power is the way critics describe it. Your side says resisting intrusion into core executive functions, protecting the sanctity of the separation of powers, and acknowledging

that the president has been whittled away. But Greg Sargent of the New Republic countered that Trump constantly and explicitly holds up his naked corruption as a badge of honor that his supporters are supposed to thrill to and see benefit for themselves in. He thinks corruption is the highest form of winning. The case of Slaughter v. Trump

began in March 2025 when Trump fired the last remaining Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter. Since 1935, the Supreme Court has said the President does not have the power to fire members of independent agencies created by Congress, except for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Although Trump himself initially appointed Slaughter, he claimed he fired her because her continued service on the Independent Commission was inconsistent with the administration's priorities and that he had the right to do so under the authority granted to him by Article 2 of the Constitution. Despite the fact, Congress set up the position in such a way that it would be shielded from presidential politics.

This argument is an attempt to establish the idea of the unitary executive. A theory the right wing has pushed since the 1980s when it began. began to distrust the will of voters as they expressed it through Congress, and thus tried to find ways to assert the power of the president and reduce the power of Congress. The theory of the unitary executive says that since the president is the head of one of the three independent branches of government, those are the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. He has sole authority over the executive branch and cannot be reined in by the two other branches. Trump has leaned into this idea since 2019 when he told attendees at the

Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit being held in Washington, D.C., I have an article two, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president. The Supreme Court's 2024 Donald J. Trump v. United States decision supported Trump's reading of the powers of the president when it took the radical position that a president could not be prosecuted for crimes committed in the course of official presidential duties. In his second term, Trump has worked to fit his power grabs within the contours of that decision. Now the Supreme Court has given him another win by finding the president has complete control over the officers in the executive branch, including the independent agencies established by Congress, but which Congress has been placing in the executive branch since the administration

of President George Washington. Representing the government, Solicitor General John Sauer told the court that the president must be able to remove officials in the agencies because the president must have the power to control, and the one who has the power to remove is the one who is the person that they have to fear and obey. In hearings on the case like, December, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson suggested that this political destruction of the independent agencies Congress had established to provide nonpartisan expertise on issues like how to regulate pollutants would hurt the country. Having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything

is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States, she said. Today, in a six to three vote, the Supreme Court decided the case in Trump's favor. Now, even if the American people elect members of Congress who create agencies to protect our interests, the president can gut them and turn them to his own purposes. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson dissented, They noted that throughout our history, both Congress and the President have agreed that some of government's functions should operate outside of party politics. Financial management, workplace safety, consumer safety, addressing environmental hazards, and managing nuclear energy, for example, should not depend on who is in office, much less on who is disfavored or owed a favor by those in office, but also on judges. expertise, and the public good. Since the founding, Congress has created agencies that in various

ways have embodied this goal of independence. Over the last 140 years, especially, the political branches have done so by establishing agencies like the Federal Trade Commission or FTC, bipartisan multi-member bodies with for-cause removal protections. This structure allows the agencies to address complex problems while enjoying some independence from presidential removal and thus absolute partisan control. Today, though, they write, this court undoes centuries of political practice and concludes that all three branches of government have been acting in open defiance of the Constitution all this time. Its conclusion is wrong. The court gives the president a power unknown even to the English crown against which the founders revolted,

elevating him above his once-co-equal branches by transforming a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws. Senator Andy Kim, a Democrat of New Jersey, explains, The FTC or the Federal Trade Commission, is an independent government agency that is supposed to protect you, the American consumer. They fight fraud, ensure businesses are making accurate claims in their advertising, and enforce data privacy and security. The independence of the agency ensures that the FTC doesn't make decisions

at a whim of any one president or political party, but instead acts in your best interest. For example, the FTC put more money back into the pockets of Americans by banning junk fees for short-term lodging and live event activity. Kim notes that we've seen Trump target, fire, prosecute civil servants perceived as political enemies. We've seen him install members of his inner circle, including his own family, campaign donors, and people with personal loyalties to him. And we've seen him attack federal agencies and federal employees, gutting critical programs

and firing the people who run them. With the Supreme Court's decision, Trump now has unchecked power to remove any head of any independent agency, get the agencies to bend to his will, to play by his rules. As legal analyst Barb McQuaid notes, Trump's new powers will let him fire commissioners

at agencies including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, the Securities and Exchange Commission,

and the Nuclear Safety Board. Federal employees have been free from political interference for 150 years. But now, she writes, the spoils system is back, baby. The court's decision in Trump vizance, slaughter gives Trump power, he clearly has no inclination to give up. When asked today if he would sign the popular bipartisan housing bill that passed Congress with overwhelming support, Trump said he hadn't

decided and called the bill a yawn. He wants Congress to pass the voter ID law that will essentially guarantee that voters cannot turn Republicans out of office, making the United States a one-party state in which Congress simply rubber stamps the actions of the president. It appears he is willing to hold the housing bill hostage until he gets it. To me, he said, compared to the Save America Act, just about everything is a big yawn. Letters from an American was written and read by Heather Cox Richardson. It was produced at Soundscape Productions, Dead of Massachusetts, Recorded with music composed by Michael Moss.