Public Comment

The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. Slaughter that President Trump could remove Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, overturning the older Humphrey’s Executor rule that had protected some independent agency officials from removal except for cause. The ruling gives the president more direct control over agencies that enforce rules on competition, labor, finance, consumer protection, and public safety. Supporters of stronger presidential control say agencies exercise executive power and should answer to the elected president. Critics warn that independent agencies were designed to make some enforcement decisions less partisan and more stable across administrations. The president should not be powerless over agencies, but a total swing toward political control could make enforcement feel like it changes every election.

Where should the line be drawn on presidential control of independent federal agencies?

Overall results

1
63% support · excluded by 2%
7

Public reasons would not stop every political firing, but they would create a record for Congress, courts, and voters.

7

If removal is allowed, the least we can do is make the White House explain why an agency leader lost public trust.

2
61% support · excluded by 2%
7

Independence is not immunity. Congress can still define powers, fund agencies, and investigate abuses without turning every agency into a campaign instrument.

7

Markets need predictable rules. If every agency head serves at presidential pleasure, regulated industries will plan around politics instead of law.

3
41% support · excluded by 12%
4
34% support · excluded by 10%
7

Agencies write rules, enforce laws, and shape the economy. If they are exercising executive power, voters need a clear person to blame or reward.

About the author