Trump Expands Presidential Power, Undermining Agency Independence
This is a big deal folks. Please read and take action.
Summary
Trump’s latest executive order represents a dangerous expansion of presidential power, directly undermining the independence of regulatory agencies that were designed to operate free from political influence. By asserting White House control over these agencies, Trump is disregarding longstanding legal precedents and violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
His insistence on absolute loyalty, coupled with past purges of independent officials, signals an alarming effort to consolidate authority in a way that could erode checks and balances. Legal challenges are likely, but with a sympathetic Supreme Court, this move threatens to reshape the balance of power in government.
DISCLAIMER: This is an investigative opinion piece and does not provide legal, financial, tax or investment advice. Always do your own due diligence and consult with an experienced professional in your state, region or country.
The Problem
President Donald Trump’s February 18, 2025, executive order, which mandates White House oversight of independent regulatory agencies, represents a profound constitutional crisis and a direct threat to the separation of powers. By requiring agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to submit regulations for presidential review, establish White House liaison offices, and align policies with executive priorities, the order undermines the foundational independence of these bodies—a independence Congress deliberately designed to shield them from partisan manipulation. Legal scholars, lawmakers, and advocacy groups have condemned the move as an unconstitutional power grab that destabilizes the balance of power, erodes democratic accountability, and risks transforming nonpartisan regulatory functions into extensions of Trump’s political agenda.
Constitutional Violations and the Unitary Executive Theory
The Legal Basis for Independent Agencies
Independent regulatory agencies derive their authority from congressional statutes, not executive prerogative. The Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States explicitly affirmed that Congress may insulate certain agencies from presidential control to ensure their impartiality in executing specialized mandates, such as financial regulation or consumer protection. This precedent recognizes that agencies like the SEC and FTC require insulation from political pressures to fulfill their missions effectively. Trump’s order disregards this framework, asserting that Article II’s vesting of “executive Power” in the president grants unilateral authority over all federal entities—a claim rooted in the unitary executive theory, a fringe legal doctrine that conflates the president’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” with unchecked control over the entire executive branch.
The administration’s reliance on recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Trump v. United States, to justify this expansion is misleading. While these rulings affirmed presidential removal power over single-headed agencies, they did not nullify Humphrey’s Executor or authorize the wholesale subordination of independent bodies to White House directives. As UC Berkeley law professor Daniel Farber notes, the order reflects Trump’s “insistence on complete loyalty” from all government actors, even in domains Congress deliberately insulated from partisan interference.
Erosion of Congressional Authority
By compelling independent agencies to align with White House priorities, the executive order encroaches on Congress’s constitutional authority to structure the federal bureaucracy. Under Article I, Congress possesses the sole power to create and define the scope of regulatory agencies. The order’s requirement for agencies to “regularly consult with and coordinate policies” with the executive branch effectively nullifies congressional intent, substituting legislatively mandated independence with presidential control. This overreach violates the separation of powers by allowing the executive to rewrite statutory mandates through fiat, a precedent that could enable future presidents to dismantle any agency deemed inconvenient.
Threats to the Separation of Powers
Judicial Independence Under Fire
The Trump administration’s disdain for judicial oversight exacerbates the constitutional crisis. Following the order’s announcement, Vice President JD Vance and Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk openly attacked federal judges who blocked aspects of Trump’s agenda, with Musk calling for a judge’s impeachment and Vance claiming courts lack authority to restrain executive actions. Such rhetoric undermines the judiciary’s role as a check on presidential overreach, a principle enshrined in Marbury v. Madison. If sustained, this assault on judicial legitimacy could cripple the courts’ ability to uphold constitutional boundaries, effectively collapsing the tripartite system into executive supremacy.
Consolidation of Executive Power
The order centralizes authority in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought, a key architect of Project 2025—a Heritage Foundation initiative advocating the dismantling of independent agencies. By granting Vought power to set “performance standards,” review budgets, and align agency actions with Trump’s priorities, the order transforms OMB into a political enforcer, weaponizing bureaucratic processes to suppress dissent. For example, Vought’s abrupt firing of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) staff and freezing of its operations previews how similar tactics could paralyze other agencies. This consolidation mirrors authoritarian playbooks, replacing nonpartisan expertise with loyalty tests and ideological conformity.
Project 2025 and the Long-Term Agenda
Blueprint for Autocracy
Project 2025’s influence on the order cannot be overstated. The initiative’s chapter on the Department of Justice explicitly calls for overturning Humphrey’s Executor and asserts that independent agencies violate separation of powers by resisting presidential control. Vought’s role in both Project 2025 and the order’s implementation reveals a coordinated strategy to reshape the federal bureaucracy into an extension of Trump’s will. The order’s requirement that agencies refrain from promoting legal interpretations contradicting the president or attorney general further entrenches this vision, effectively criminalizing dissent within the civil service.
Precedent for Future Abuse
If upheld, the order would establish a template for future executives to neutralize checks on their power. By asserting exclusive authority to interpret laws for the executive branch, Trump claims a monarchical prerogative to ignore congressional statutes and judicial rulings. Legal scholar Saikrishna Prakash warns that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority may endorse this view, citing its recent expansion of presidential immunity in *Trump v. United States. Such a ruling would erode Congress’s ability to create independent watchdogs, leaving no mechanism to hold presidents accountable for abuses in domains like election oversight or corporate regulation.
Legal and Democratic Repercussions
Pending Legal Challenges
The order faces immediate legal challenges. Lawsuits filed by fired agency heads, including National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chair Gwynne Wilcox, argue that Trump’s removals violate statutory “for-cause” protections. These cases will likely hinge on whether courts uphold Humphrey’s Executor or side with the administration’s unitary executive theory. Meanwhile, the order’s directive for OMB to control agency budgets conflicts with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which reserves appropriations authority to Congress. A protracted legal battle could paralyze critical regulatory functions, creating uncertainty for markets and consumers.
Democratic Erosion and Corporate Capture
Independent agencies serve as bulwarks against corporate malfeasance by enforcing regulations free from political interference. Subjecting them to White House control risks transforming bodies like the FTC and SEC into tools of corporate favoritism. For instance, the FTC’s ongoing investigations into Elon Musk’s companies could be quashed under the order’s mandate for alignment with Trump’s priorities. This subordination of public interest to private power undermines the very purpose of regulatory independence, privileging loyalty to the president over accountability to citizens.
What Can You Do Right Now?
Here are three concrete steps everyday citizens can take to push back against this expansion of presidential power over independent agencies:
1. Call Your Representatives – Contact your Senators and House Representatives to express your opposition. Demand they take action to protect the independence of regulatory agencies by introducing legislation or holding hearings. You can find their contact information at www.congress.gov.
2. Support Legal Challenges & Watchdog Groups – Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Brennan Center for Justice fight against executive overreach. Donating, signing petitions, or spreading awareness about their lawsuits can help strengthen the legal pushback.
3. Raise Public Awareness – Many Americans don’t realize the impact of losing independent oversight. Share credible news articles, write letters to the editor, and use social media to educate others. Public pressure can influence lawmakers and the courts to act.
These actions may seem small individually, but together, they build the pressure needed to stop this kind of government overreach.
Conclusion: A Crisis for Constitutional Governance
President Trump’s executive order represents an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers, leveraging fringe legal theories and Project 2025’s authoritarian roadmap to consolidate unchecked executive authority. By dismantling the independence of regulatory agencies, silencing dissent within the bureaucracy, and undermining judicial review, the order threatens to permanently distort the balance of power enshrined in the Constitution. Legal scholars, civil society groups, and congressional leaders must mobilize to challenge this overreach in courts and through legislative action. The survival of American democracy depends on resisting the normalization of presidential supremacy and reaffirming the constitutional safeguards that prevent any single branch from dominating the others.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
This post is free.
But free doesn’t build the future.
Independent journalism only works when people like you choose to lean in—not just with attention, but with support.
If this work matters to you, today’s a great day to take the leap.
$5 a month. $50 a year. For you or gift to a friend.
A small investment in something bigger than all of us.
