Former FTC Commissioner REVEALS Trump's DESPERATE POWER GRAB

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was created in 1914 by Congress with a specific structure: five presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed commissioners, with no more than three from the same party, serving seven-year terms. This design aimed to provide expertise, continuity, and independence from political pressure in its dual mission of stopping unfair competition and deceptive acts.

The FTC was established in 1914 by Congress with five commissioners, no more than three from the same party, serving seven-year terms. This framework was intended to give the commission expertise, continuity, and independence from political pressure in its work on competition and consumer protection.

In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Humphrey's Executor that an FTC commissioner could not be removed by the President without 'cause' (inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance). This established a critical precedent for the independence of such agencies, affirming Congress's power to limit presidential removal authority for officers performing quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said that not only does the FTC act say that commissioners can only be removed for cause, that is actually valid and constitutional. It is a lawful execution of Congress's power.

President Trump attempted to remove Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter via email, stating her priorities were inconsistent with the administration's, directly mirroring the circumstances of the Humphrey case. Despite a district court ruling in her favor, the Supreme Court, through its 'shadow docket,' allowed her termination and others to proceed, signaling a potential overturning of the Humphrey precedent without full merits review.

Commissioner Slaughter was removed by President Trump essentially in an email saying that her appointment was no longer consistent with the administration's priorities... the Supreme Court allows the terminations including your own to go forward... on the shadow docket without the benefit of full briefing and full oral argument.

Independent agencies make critical economic decisions, such as approving mergers or enforcing consumer protection laws, which significantly impact the U.S. economy and public welfare. Their independence ensures these decisions are made on the merits, based on law and facts, rather than political influence or fear of presidential reprisal, which could otherwise lead to corruption or instability.

We don't want commissioners making decisions out of fear of getting fired for failure to do a favor for the president's friends or allies... when you have some independence at these agencies, then you can ensure... that decisions are being made on the merits and not due to political influence.

Rebecca Slaughter's case garnered significant bipartisan support, including amicus briefs from prominent Republican appointees and legal scholars. This demonstrates that the principle of agency independence is not a partisan issue, but a fundamental aspect of institutional integrity and the constitutional design, protecting against unchecked power regardless of the party in office.

I was extremely impressed with and gratified by that brief and the more than two dozen other amicus briefs that were filed in support of our physician in this case... that collection of Republican appointees who signed on to the brief... recognize that this is not about me or my job. It is very much about these really important principles.