Written by Nathaniel Brooks.
On Tuesday, February 18, 2025, President Donald Trump took a decisive step to reshape the federal government by signing an executive order that places independent agencies under direct White House supervision. This action marks a significant expansion of presidential authority, challenging decades of precedent and igniting a firestorm of debate over its legality and implications. For Americans accustomed to a government with checks and balances, this move signals a potential shift in how regulatory power is wielded—a shift that could affect everything from financial oversight to media regulation.
Unpacking Trump’s Executive Order on Independent Agencies
The executive order fundamentally alters the relationship between the White House and agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Historically, these bodies have operated with a degree of autonomy, insulated from direct presidential influence to ensure impartial decision-making. Trump’s directive, however, mandates that these agencies align with his administration’s priorities, effectively dismantling their independence.
Central to this change is Russ Vought, Trump’s budget director and a key architect of the order. The directive assigns Vought, as head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the authority to set performance standards for agency leaders and evaluate their efficiency. Additionally, he gains the power to adjust agency budgets to reflect Trump’s policy goals. This unprecedented oversight extends to requiring agency heads to consult regularly with White House councils, ensuring their actions mirror the president’s agenda.
For the average citizen, this could mean significant changes in everyday life. Consider a small business owner facing SEC fines for noncompliance—under this order, such penalties might now reflect White House economic priorities rather than independent regulatory standards. Similarly, FCC decisions on media fairness could shift to favor Trump’s political allies, a prospect that raises questions about impartiality in governance.
The Unitary Executive Theory Driving Trump’s Power Grab
Trump’s order rests on the unitary executive theory, a controversial legal framework asserting that the president holds sole control over the executive branch. Proponents, including Vought and other conservative advisors, argue that this aligns with the Constitution’s intent, making agencies accountable to the elected leader rather than unelected bureaucrats. The order itself states, “For the Federal Government to be truly accountable to the American people, officials who wield vast executive power must be supervised and controlled by the people’s elected President.”
However, this theory clashes with long-standing practice. Congress established independent agencies—often with bipartisan leadership and staggered terms—to shield them from political pressure. For instance, FCC commissioners serve five-year terms, outlasting a single presidential administration, to maintain continuity and neutrality. Legal experts widely view Trump’s move as a stretch beyond constitutional bounds, predicting swift challenges in federal courts.
Indeed, the administration appears to anticipate resistance. Trump has already taken bold steps, such as terminating National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chair Gwynne Wilcox and General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, as well as Office of Government Ethics Director David Huitema. Wilcox has since sued, claiming her dismissal violates her agency’s independence—a case that could set a precedent for the order’s fate. Meanwhile, Vought’s immediate assumption of control over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), where he halted funding and fired staff, previews the order’s real-world impact.
Implications for Independent Agency Oversight
The order’s reach extends across a broad swath of government, affecting agencies that regulate banking, consumer protection, and telecommunications, among others. While it exempts the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy role, it applies to its oversight of financial institutions—a distinction that could still influence economic stability. Agencies like the SEC, which recently mandated climate risk disclosures under Biden, or the FCC, probing CBS for alleged bias against Trump in 2024, now face White House scrutiny that could redirect their focus.
Moreover, the order restricts agency lawyers from advancing legal interpretations that contradict Trump or Attorney General opinions, effectively silencing internal dissent. This provision neuters their ability to act as independent watchdogs, a role critical to maintaining regulatory integrity. For taxpayers, this might translate to policies prioritizing political loyalty over public interest—say, laxer oversight of corporate mergers if it suits Trump’s economic vision.
Trump’s past actions foreshadow this approach. During his first term, he pressured the FTC to target social media firms for alleged conservative censorship, meeting with then-Chair Joseph Simons in 2020 to push the issue. Simons resisted, citing jurisdictional limits. Similarly, Trump withdrew FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly’s renomination after O’Rielly questioned penalizing online platforms, replacing him with Nathan Simington, a more compliant figure. These episodes highlight a pattern of testing agency boundaries, now formalized by the order.
In contrast, previous presidents have treaded lightly. Barack Obama, for example, faced GOP criticism for a 2014 video urging FCC net neutrality rules, yet he stopped short of direct control. His FTC chair’s 2011 White House visit amid a Google probe raised eyebrows, but it pales beside Trump’s outright takeover. This disparity underscores the order’s radical nature, setting Trump apart from his predecessors.
Our Take
President Trump’s executive order to dominate independent agencies represents a seismic shift in federal power dynamics, one that promises efficiency for some and chaos for others. By centralizing control under Vought and the White House, Trump seeks to streamline a sprawling bureaucracy—a goal that resonates with voters frustrated by government overreach. Yet, this comes at the cost of dismantling a system designed to balance political influence with expert governance, a trade-off that risks long-term stability for short-term gains.
The reliance on the unitary executive theory, while intellectually intriguing, oversteps practical boundaries Congress established for good reason. Agencies like the FCC and SEC wield immense authority—authority that, unchecked by independence, could become a tool for partisan agendas rather than public good. The swift firings of Wilcox and others, coupled with Vought’s CFPB purge, suggest a troubling precedent of retribution over reason. Legal challenges will likely curb the order’s scope, but not before it disrupts agency operations and public trust.
For Americans, this is more than a Washington power play—it’s a question of accountability. If agencies bend to Trump’s will, who ensures they serve the broader populace? The order’s intent to align government with the “people’s elected President” sounds noble, but its execution threatens the very impartiality that protects democratic integrity. As courts weigh in, the outcome will define not just Trump’s legacy but the future shape of executive authority.
