Mar. 18, 2025, 7:09 pm ET
In a bold and controversial move, President Donald Trump fired two Democratic commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on March 18, 2025. The firings of Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter have sparked immediate backlash and raised concerns about the independence of federal agencies.
The dismissals occurred despite a longstanding Supreme Court precedent that protects independent agencies from direct presidential control. The FTC, an independent agency founded 111 years ago, is now left with only two Republican-appointed commissioners, raising questions about its ability to function effectively and maintain accountability.
The firings are seen as an escalation in Trump’s administration’s efforts to assert control over independent agencies, potentially to reduce opposition and oversight. Bedoya and Slaughter have had disagreements with the Trump-appointed chair, Andrew Ferguson, and their removals could allow for greater favoritism towards powerful corporations.
“The FTC is an independent agency founded 111 years ago to fight fraudsters and monopolists. Now, the president wants the FTC to be a lapdog for his golfing buddies,” Bedoya stated, highlighting the perceived threat to the agency’s independence.
Slaughter echoed this sentiment, asserting that her firing was illegal and in violation of Supreme Court precedent. “Today the president illegally fired me from my position at the Federal Trade Commission, violating the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent. Why? Because I have a voice. And he is afraid of what I will tell the American people,” she said.
The firings directly challenge the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., which established that the president cannot remove commissioners of independent agencies without cause. Bedoya and Slaughter have stated their intention to challenge the legality of their firings, citing violation of Supreme Court precedent and statutory language.
With only two commissioners remaining, the FTC lacks the quorum needed to perform certain functions, potentially hindering its ability to regulate and enforce consumer protection laws. The move is seen as an escalation in Trump’s administration’s efforts to control independent agencies, raising concerns about the erosion of checks and balances within the government.
The firings mirror the conflict in the 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., where President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to fire an FTC member over political differences. This is part of a broader pattern of Trump’s administration challenging the independence of federal agencies.
The FTC’s role in safeguarding consumers and fostering competition is a key element of economic strategy, which has been a point of contention between different political factions. The removals could reduce accountability and oversight within the FTC, allowing for potential favoritism towards powerful corporations.
Experts warn that the Trump administration’s actions could give the president extraordinary powers to investigate and penalize private businesses and individuals, tilt elections, and use monetary policy for political purposes. The firings have raised concerns about the potential erosion of checks and balances within the government and the independence of federal agencies.
Trump administration officials argue that statutes created by Congress cannot limit the president’s removal powers, similar to arguments made during the Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. case. However, the firings have been met with strong opposition from experts and legal scholars who view them as a direct challenge to established legal precedents.
Bedoya encouraged his supporters on X to “Fight back,” highlighting the public outcry and resistance to the firings. The move has sparked a broader debate about the independence of federal agencies and the limits of presidential power.
The firings have also raised questions about the operational impact on the FTC. With only two commissioners remaining, the agency may struggle to perform its regulatory functions effectively. The move has been seen as an attempt to consolidate power and reduce opposition within the FTC.
The political ramifications of the firings are significant. The move is seen as an escalation in Trump’s administration’s efforts to control independent agencies, raising concerns about the erosion of checks and balances within the government. The firings have sparked a broader debate about the independence of federal agencies and the limits of presidential power.
The legal implications of the firings are also significant. Bedoya and Slaughter have stated their intention to challenge the legality of their firings, citing violation of Supreme Court precedent and statutory language. The move has raised questions about the limits of presidential power and the independence of federal agencies.
The firings have sparked a broader debate about the independence of federal agencies and the limits of presidential power. The move has raised concerns about the potential erosion of checks and balances within the government and the independence of federal agencies. The firings have also highlighted the ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and independent federal agencies.
