The NPR Politics Podcast - Supreme Court Considers Vastly Expanding The President’s Powers

Episode Date: December 10, 2025

The Supreme Court is considering whether President Trump should be able to fire the head of the Federal Trade Commission and other independent agencies without cause. We discuss why Congress created these independent agencies in the first place and the broader impact of the court eroding the 90-year-old precedent that protects them from presidential politics.This episode: political correspondent Sarah McCammon, labor and workplace correspondent Andrea Hsu, and senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This message comes from Bayer. Science is a rigorous process that requires questions, testing, transparency, and results that can be proven. This approach is integral to every breakthrough Bayer brings forward. Innovations that save lives and feed the world. Science Delivers.com. Hi, this is Chelsea. And this is Jeremy. And we're from Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania.

After nearly 100 days in the NICU, we're on our way to go pick up our son and bring him home. Wow. This podcast was recorded at 136 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 10th. Things may have changed by the time you hear this, but we will finally have all three of our children at home with us. Enjoy the show. Wow, 100 days. Yeah, what a relief. Congratulations. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast.

I'm Sarah McCammon. I cover politics. And I'm Mara Liason, Senior National Political Correspondent. And we also have NPR's Andrea Shoe with us today. Welcome back, Andrea. Thanks for having me. And today on the show, the Supreme Court is considering whether President Trump has broad authority to fire independent agency heads without cause. Andrea, you've been following this case. It was brought by a woman named Rebecca Slaughter.

Who is Rebecca Slaughter? And what is she arguing? Yeah, so she was a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission. And actually, she was President Trump's pick to fill a Democratic seat back in 2018. And then she was re-nominated by former President Biden, and she was supposed to serve until 29, but then President Trump fired her in the middle of March this year. He told her her continued service would be inconsistent with his priorities. And she sued saying that was illegal. She pointed out that when Congress created the FTC, it said that commissioners could

only be fired for cause for things like neglect of duty and malfeasance. administration isn't saying that there was some neglect of duty in this case. That's right. The president didn't give her any such reason. So what is the Trump administration's argument in this case? In a nutshell, that Congress never should have put restrictions on the president's power to remove officials like Rebecca Slaughter, that all executive power rests with the president. That's what the founders wanted, they say, and that's how they read the Constitution. And here's how they explain it. They say, you know, the people elected the president. But he is just one person. And so he can't do everything himself.

So he delegates his executive power to others who help him with his duties. And if they refuse to help him carry out his vision, then he must be able to remove them because otherwise, how can he accomplish the things that he promised to the people? You know, the buck stops with him. That's the administration's argument. You know, what's so interesting about this case is this is about something very big, and it's something that predates Donald Trump. And for a very long time, conservatives, especially a lot of them who are on the Supreme

court today, believe in something called the unitary executive theory, that the president should have powers at the expense of Congress to control everything in the executive branch. And we really are undergoing a change in our system of government before our very eyes that is making the executive branch more powerful at the expense of Congress. In this case, Congress created these agencies, gave them a certain amount of independence. They thought that would be better to shield them from political influence, but conservatives think that's just wrong. And that guardrail of democracy is being demolished by the unitary executive theory. And also what that means is that the professional civil service, which is also a guardrail, is also being demolished because if the president can

fire the heads of these agencies, he certainly can fire all the people who work in them. Yeah, and I want to talk a little bit more about what these agencies do. This case is about agencies and boards, as you noted, Mara, created by Congress, to be somewhat independent from politics. Andrea, what kinds of agencies are we talking about? And why are they important? Yeah, well, let's start with the Federal Trade Commission. You know, Congress tasked the FTC with protecting American consumers and businesses from unfair competitions. So its commissioners oversee, you know, investigations into the practices of big companies, including big tech companies like Amazon and X. They can make rules and issue fines. And then there's the

Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is supposed to protect Americans from faulty products and unsafe products. You know, they issue recalls. And then there are also a couple independent agencies that enforce labor laws and ensure that workers get due process. These are, you know, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. There's a couple dozen of these independent agencies. And Andrea, do you think that this is signaling a return to the kind of system we had like over 150 years ago where government jobs were handed out as patronage, not to experts and professionals. Is that where this is going? This is what a lot of critics of the administration are concerned about. And, you know, I've had a lot of people explain it to me

this way. You know, there was a shift away from the patronage system in order to ensure that the people got the best services and the best services would be provided by people who were hired for their skills, for their expertise, not based on who they voted for. And, you know, people raise examples like, do you want your air traffic controllers or your food safety inspectors to be hired because of their skills or because they support the president? So in more recent history, I mean, how does the Trump administration's approach to these independent agencies compare with that of past presidents? Have other presidents decided that they had this kind of latitude to fire agency heads? No other president has wanted to destroy.

the administrative state in the way that the Trump administration does. Other presidents might have been frustrated by some of these independent agency heads, but nobody has ever tried to fire tens of thousands of civil servants, say that they can fire heads of agencies, not for cause, but just because, as the Trump administration has said, they don't align with the administration's priorities. And what's really interesting about this is that the Supreme Court, and Andrea can correct me here, It sounds like they are ready to overturn this president, that they are ready to side with the administration.

They weren't ready during the Biden administration. They ruled against Biden time and time again on the vaccine mandates, on student loan forgiveness. They ruled against him when he tried to expand the powers of the executive. But they seem much more willing to expand the powers of the executive when it has to do with Donald Trump. I mean, Andrea, you were listening to these arguments before the Supreme Court. what did you notice? The thing that really stood out to me is that the two sides disagree fundamentally on what the founders envisioned when creating the three branches of government. You know, the administration, as Mara says, argues for a far more powerful executive branch with all of the power vested in the president and him alone.

And they argued that Congress is encroaching on that power with these independent agencies. Several of the conservative justices seemed really worried about this power that Congress has now. Several of the justices asked questions about this, including Justice Kavanaugh. Let's listen. Could Congress convert all these departments into multi-member commissions, the Commerce, EPA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, convert them all into multi-member commissions, and make them removable only for cause? Now, the other side, the attorney representing the fired FTC commissioner, argued that there's a rich history and tradition of independent agencies from the start of the republic, and that clearly Congress thought that the people would be better served by agencies that are free from politics and free from presidential control. Justice Sotomayor sounded really alarmed by what the Trump administration has asked the court to do. You're asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take. away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.

So you heard Justice Kavanaugh, they're concerned about, you know, the Congress essentially overreaching. Others are concerned about executive overreach. I mean, what has the court said in the past about the limits of executive power when it comes to these kinds of independent agencies? Yeah, with a famous decision that has been quite a repeating. this year is called Humphrey's executor. You know, in that case from 1935, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress could limit the president's power to remove officers of the Federal Trade

Commission. This is the precedent that the Trump administration has now asked the court to overturn. And, you know, already in recent years, the court has chipped away at that 1935 decision, saying, for example, it doesn't apply to independent agencies that only have one person at the head, rather than a board or a commission. And then this year, the Supreme Court issued a shadow docket order that had a very brief mention of another independent agency, the Federal Reserve. You know, legal scholars and economists have been warning if the court decides the president can fire FTC commissioners, that there would be nothing to stop him from firing members of the Fed, and that would be disastrous for the economy. So what the conservative majority on the

Supreme Court, you know, said in the shadow docket order, it was kind of like a carve-out for the Fed. It said, you know, the Fed is a uniquely structured quasi-private entity that follows in this distinct historical tradition. And so this is a real question. Are they going to make an exception for the Fed? Do you think it sounds like some of the justices do think there shouldn't be an exception made for the Fed, which is pretty interesting? In other words, are they worried about a president, Trump or another president having the control over interest rates that could hurt the economy, why wouldn't the Fed be included and treated just like all these other agencies? I mean, absolutely there are concerns that, you know, the run up to the election. If the president

wants to boost the economy, he could order, if he had control over the Fed, he could order the Fed to lower interest rates. I mean, there's a lot of concerns that that would just undermine the country's economy. All right. We're going to take a quick break. We'll have more in just a moment. This message comes from Wise, the app for using money around the globe. When you manage your money with Wise, you'll always get the mid-market exchange rate with no hidden fees. Join millions of customers and visit Wise.com. T's and C's Apply. Support for this podcast comes from Dignity Memorial. For many families, remembering loved ones means honoring the details that made them unique. Dignity Memorial is dedicated to professionalism and compassion in every

detail of a life celebration. Find a provider near you at DignityMemorial.com. There's a lot going on right now. Mounting economic inequality, threats to democracy, environmental disaster, the sour stench of chaos in the air. I'm Brooke Gladstone, host of WNYC's on the media. Want to understand the reasons and the meanings of the narratives that led us here and maybe how to head them off at the pass? That's on the media. specialties. Take a listen wherever you get your podcasts. And we're back. We've been talking about the case the Supreme Court is considering that looks at whether the president should be able to fire the heads of independent agencies without

cause. This case is about the head of the Federal Trade Commission, as you said, Andrea. Who else has Trump fired or tried to fire? Lots of people. So, you know, Democratic members of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the National Labor Relations Board. We talked about the Consumer Product Safety Commission, also the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal Election Commission, the Surface Transportation Board, and many more.

So lots and lots of members fired. And what do these firings mean for federal workers or for Americans, more broadly? Well, I think it really throws into question whether the decisions made by these agencies, the rules they make or the companies they go after, whether those are really in the best interests of the American people or whether those decisions are influenced by politics.

And for federal workers specifically, you know, Trump has fired a lot of federal workers. And, you know, normally the normal process for them would they could appeal their firings to the Merit Systems Protection Board. But Trump did fire the sole Democrat left on that board, and he has appointed a Republican. So it's not to say that those Republican board members that are seated now wouldn't treat the cases

fairly. But if the president can fire them for any reason, you can see how there could be doubts about how they might approach any case. And Mara, I mean, what would it mean if the president could fire these agency leaders for any reason at all? It means that the executive branch power becomes more personalized. In other words, this is about the president and what he wants on a given day. If his powers are expanded and the checks and balances of independent agency heads are taken away. It means that he can govern on a whim. And you have seen this president change his mind from day to day on various things. But this really becomes a kind of throwback to the kind of government we had when we had a patronage system. And the government hired people who were

supporters of the president or relatives of the president. And they didn't necessarily get the most professional expert people. And also, you will hear critics of this move say that a patronage system was much more susceptible to corruption. Whatever happens with this case before the Supreme Court, it obviously will have major implications for presidential power going forward for this president and for others. All right, we're going to leave it there for today. Thank you so much for being with us, Andrea. Thanks for having me. I'm Sarah McCammon. I cover politics. And I'm Mara Liason, senior national political correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.

You come to the New Yorker Radio Hour for conversations that go deeper with people you really want to hear from, whether it's Bruce Springsteen or Questlove or Olivia Rodriguez, Liz Cheney, or the godfather of artificial intelligence, Jeffrey Hinton, or some of my extraordinarily well-informed colleagues at The New Yorker. So join us every week on the New Yorker Radio Hour, wherever you listen to podcasts.