Protecting America’s Independent Agencies from Presidential Overreach (Trump v. Slaughter)

Independent agencies provide important services to the American people, including making sure our elections are safe, secure and accurate. Congress and past presidents have agreed that insulation from the president is sometimes necessary to ensure that agencies prioritize their mission, rather than catering to the political whims of the president.  

Independent agencies are designed by Congress to operate outside of the president’s direct control, which is typically achieved through tenure protections for agency leaders so that the president cannot fire them merely for a policy disagreement.  

In March 2025, President Trump fired both Democratic commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), an independent agency. This firing was just one part of the Administration’s effort to dismantle the independence of agencies that Congress carefully designed. For example, President Trump: 

• Issued an executive order that would grant the President broad powers to oversee the regulations and proceedings of independent agencies;
• Issued an executive order that unlawfully attempts to direct the EAC to make changes to voter registration requirements for federal elections;
• Illegally fired agency heads of other independent agencies, just because they are not political loyalists. For example, President Trump removed Ellen Weintraub from her position as Chair of the FEC. 

Independent agencies are meant to function autonomously to carry out federal laws and serve the American people, not the president’s political interests. But President Trump’s actions threaten this important and long-standing framework.

The commissioners at the FTC sued the president because their firing violated the tenure protection that Congress had provided. The U.S. Supreme Court is now deciding whether the president’s firing of the commissioners was lawful. Campaign Legal Center (CLC), alongside Trevor Potter, CLC’s president and former Republican chair of the FEC, filed an amicus brief explaining the importance of independence for federal election agencies. Drawing on Potter’s experience at the FEC and CLC’s long history of practicing before the FEC and EAC, CLC’s brief demonstrates that independence is especially critical when the president’s past campaigns and future election activities are subject to the FEC and EAC’s oversight.

The FEC is the only agency that regulates money in federal elections, including elections for president. Although commissioners are appointed by the president, Congress purposefully did not give the president the power to fire FEC commissioners to protect the FEC’s authority to regulate the executive branch on campaign finance matters. In fact, the FEC was created in response to Watergate, in part because of the problem of presidential interference in the enforcement of campaign finance laws.

The EAC is the agency responsible for maintaining the federal voter registration form and helping states guarantee that elections are safe, secure and accessible. Like the FEC, the EAC was designed by Congress to be independent so that no president could put a thumb on the scale to favor their own campaign or political party.

In our brief, CLC and Potter argue that agency independence advances democratic values, such as the consideration of opposing views and enhanced transparency. CLC and Potter also warn about the experience of authoritarianism abroad, where leaders have used control over election agencies to consolidate and entrench their own power.  

Congress designed both the FEC and EAC to be bipartisan, expert, and impartial. Allowing the president to fire anyone at these agencies that he disagrees with would undermine our nation’s system of checks and balances and threaten the integrity of our elections.

Campaign Legal Center and Trevor Potter urge the Supreme Court to rule that the president cannot fire independent agency leaders, including leaders at the FEC and EAC, just because they are not political loyalists. This ruling will have massive implications for the control that the president can exert over more than two dozen independent agencies.