A Legal Precedent on the Line
The case centers on Humphrey’s Executor, a landmark ruling that once rebuffed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to remove an FTC commissioner. At the time, the Supreme Court ruled that the FTC was a quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative body, not a typical executive agency, and therefore shielded from at-will removal.
Fast forward nearly a century, and Trump’s team is arguing that those protections are outdated. His March 18 termination letter, sent via White House deputy Trent Morse, echoed Roosevelt’s arguments almost word-for-word:
“Your continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my administration’s priorities. Accordingly, I am removing you from office pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution.”
Critics fear this signals Trump’s intention to leave the FTC understaffed, further weakening the agency’s ability to regulate corporate America.
The Future of the FTC in Question
With Slaughter and Bedoya gone, the FTC is now left with only two Republican commissioners—Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak—shifting the balance of power. Trump has nominated Mark Meador, a private attorney, to fill the vacant GOP seat, but his confirmation remains uncertain.
Ferguson, a staunch Trump ally, defended the firings, arguing that the FTC has evolved beyond its 1930s roots and now wields full-fledged executive authority.
“Presidential removal powers are a necessity to ensure democratic accountability,” Ferguson said Thursday. “The FTC will continue its work, and I am confident the courts will uphold President Trump’s lawful decision.”
