If you have ever looked at the federal government and thought, “You know what this place needs? More impulsivity and less adult supervision,” then boy, does the Supreme Court have a treat for you. The high court is currently preparing to hand Donald Trump the keys to the regulatory state, effectively allowing him to treat independent agencies less like watchdogs and more like a stack of greasy takeout boxes he can crush whenever he’s finished with them.
The case in question, Trump v. Slaughter, sounds like a bad 80s action movie, but it is actually the mechanism by which the conservative majority intends to strip the “independent” out of “independent agencies.” At stake is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the body responsible for ensuring that companies don’t poison you, rip you off, or form monopolies so large they possess their own gravitational pull. For decades, the leaders of these agencies have been protected from being fired at the President’s whim. This was a feature, not a bug. It was designed to prevent exactly the kind of revenge-fantasy governance we are currently witnessing.
But the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom and limitless appetite for unitary executive theory, appears ready to decide that “independence” is just a typo in the Constitution. They are poised to rule that the President—this President, specifically—should be able to fire FTC commissioners for any reason, or no reason at all. Did the commissioner block a merger between a donor’s company and a Bond villain? Fired. Did they suggest that maybe insulin shouldn’t cost as much as a used Honda? Fired. Did they look at the President the wrong way during the Easter Egg Roll? Gone.
The “You’re Fired” Doctrine
The legal argument being advanced by the administration and entertained by the justices is that the President must have total control over every single person who works in the executive branch. They frame this as “accountability.” If the President wins an election, they argue, he should be able to direct the entire government to do his bidding.
This sounds democratic until you realize that “his bidding” might involve turning the consumer protection apparatus into a concierge service for his friends. The entire point of agencies like the FTC, the SEC, and the Federal Reserve is that they are supposed to be insulated from politics. They are the referees. They are the ones who call fouls even when the home crowd is booing.
By removing these protections, the Court is not “restoring accountability.” They are handing the whistle to the coach of the team that is currently winning. They are saying that if the President wants to legalize pyramid schemes because a guy in a multi-level marketing suit bought a membership at Mar-a-Lago, the FTC commissioner who tries to stop him is technically insubordinate.
The Vendetta as Policy
Let’s be clear about the catalyst for this: Donald Trump’s personal annoyance with Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner. Trump fired her without cause, simply stating that her service was “inconsistent with his Administration’s priorities.” In Trump-speak, “inconsistent with priorities” is a euphemism for “she didn’t kiss the ring.”
This isn’t about regulatory philosophy. It’s about dominance. It is part personal vendetta, part blueprint for a broader purge. Trump views the administrative state not as a complex machine that keeps planes in the sky and water clean, but as a collection of people who either like him or hate him. He wants to turn the civil service into a loyalty test.
If the Court allows this, every independent agency becomes a political spoil. The Federal Reserve could be pressured to lower interest rates to boost the President’s poll numbers before an election. The FCC could be ordered to punish news networks that run unflattering stories. The Consumer Product Safety Commission could be told to ignore exploding toasters if the toaster manufacturer donates to the right Super PAC.
The War on “Junk Fees” and Other Freedoms
So what happens when the referees are fired? The game gets dirty, fast.
Under the Biden administration, the FTC went on a tear. They banned non-compete agreements that trapped workers in low-paying jobs. They cracked down on “junk fees”—those surprise charges that make your hotel room cost $50 more than the advertised price. They investigated Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) for artificially inflating drug prices.
To the average American, these are good things. We generally like knowing the price of things. We like being able to switch jobs. We like not dying because we can’t afford medicine.
But to the corporate class that has the President’s ear, these are “burdens.” They are “regulatory overreach.” And if Trump gets to fire the people enforcing these rules, you can kiss them goodbye.
Imagine a world where your non-compete clause comes back, locking you into your job at Sandwich King for two years. Imagine a world where your concert tickets have a “Convenience Fee,” a “Processing Fee,” and a “Because We Can Fee.” Imagine a healthcare system where the middlemen are explicitly authorized to gouge you because stopping them would be “bad for business.”
That is the world the Supreme Court is building. They are framing it as a high-minded debate about Article II of the Constitution, but the practical effect is that your life is about to get more expensive, more annoying, and less safe.
The Loyalty Test
The deeper danger is the chilling effect. If every regulator knows they serve at the pleasure of a President who treats loyalty as the only virtue, they will stop regulating. They will self-censor. They will look at a merger that creates a monopoly and think, “Is this worth losing my health insurance over?”
We are moving toward a system of Schedule F governance, where expertise is replaced by sycophancy. You don’t need to know antitrust law to work at the Trump FTC; you just need to know who the enemies are. You don’t need to understand data privacy; you just need to understand that we don’t investigate the guys who buy ads on Truth Social.
It is the hollowing out of the state. It is the replacement of competence with cronyism. And it is happening in broad daylight, with the blessing of the highest court in the land.
Conclusion: The Referees Are Leaving the Building
There is a grim irony in the fact that conservatives spent decades railing against the “unelected bureaucrats” of the administrative state. They argued that these agencies were unaccountable tyrants. Now, they are handing absolute power over those agencies to a single man. They aren’t destroying the administrative state; they are weaponizing it.
The Supreme Court is about to sign away the country’s referees at the exact moment the game is being rigged. They are telling us that the only check on presidential power is the next election, which works great until the President uses his newfound power over the agencies to tilt that election in his favor.
So the next time you get hit with a surprise fee, or your insurance denies a claim, or your internet bill goes up because there’s no competition, remember this moment. Remember when the Supreme Court decided that “liberty” meant the freedom for the President to fire the people protecting you.
The guardrails are gone. The watchdogs have been put to sleep. And the guy in charge just ordered a very large, very greasy takeout meal, and he’s expecting you to pick up the check.
Receipt Time
The bill for this judicial activism will be paid by you, every single day. You will pay it in higher prices. You will pay it in lost wages. You will pay it in the degradation of the services you rely on. The receipt will show a surcharge for “Executive Privilege” and a discount for “Corporate Donors.” And at the bottom, in fine print, it will say: No refunds. Management reserves the right to fire anyone who complains.