NPR Politics Podcast

Episode Summary: "Supreme Court Considers Vastly Expanding The President’s Powers"

Date: December 10, 2025
Host: Sarah McCammon
Guests: Mara Liasson (Senior National Political Correspondent), Andrea Hsu (NPR Reporter)

Episode Overview

This episode centers on a pivotal Supreme Court case considering whether the president, specifically President Trump in this instance, should have broad authority to fire independent federal agency heads without cause. The discussion explores not only the details of the case—with roots in the firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter—but also the broad constitutional and practical implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress, the integrity of independent agencies, and the future of the American administrative state.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Background of the Case

• Rebecca Slaughter: Former FTC Commissioner, appointed under Trump to fill a Democratic seat, re-nominated by Biden. Expected to serve until 2029 but fired by Trump in March 2025 for "inconsistencies with his priorities"—not for cause (03:27–02:11).
• Her Argument: The law establishing the FTC allows removal of commissioners only for cause (like neglect or malfeasance), not at the president's personal discretion (01:27–02:11).
• Trump Administration's Argument: Restrictions by Congress on firing such officials are unconstitutional; all executive power should rest with the president, aligned with the unitary executive theory (02:14–02:53).

The Unitary Executive Theory and Its Implications

• History and Theory: Conservatives, especially some on the Supreme Court, back the idea that the president should have the ability to control the executive branch fully—even at the expense of congressional power (02:53–03:54).

• Potential Shift: The case signals a dramatic change favoring stronger executive powers, threatening longstanding checks from independent agencies and civil service protections.

  "[We] are undergoing a change in our system of government before our very eyes that is making the executive branch more powerful at the expense of Congress."
  — Mara Liasson (02:53)

The Role and Importance of Independent Agencies

• Scope: Agencies like the FTC, Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Labor Relations Board, and Merit Systems Protection Board were designed by Congress to protect public interests independently from political pressure (04:10–04:53).

• Concerns: Dismantling their independence could revert the system to an old patronage model, prioritizing loyalty over expertise and increasing susceptibility to corruption (05:10–05:42).

  "Do you want your air traffic controllers or your food safety inspectors to be hired because of their skills or because they support the president?"
  — Andrea Hsu (05:35)

Historical and Recent Precedents

• Previous Presidents' Approach: No president before Trump has tried to completely dismantle the administrative state or fire agency heads without cause; typically, there’s been respect for the independence of these entities (05:55–06:51).

• Supreme Court’s Stance: The Court seems more open now to expanding executive power, especially under Trump, than it was with Biden:

  "They seem much more willing to expand the powers of the executive when it has to do with Donald Trump."
  — Mara Liasson (06:47)

Supreme Court Arguments and Justices’ Concerns

• Divergent Views:

  • Conservative justices, like Kavanaugh, expressed skepticism about Congress having too much power to shield agencies from presidential control (07:02–08:15).
  • Justice Sotomayor highlighted the danger of eroding fundamental government structure:

  "You're asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent."
  — Justice Sotomayor (08:15, via Andrea Hsu)

• Historical Precedent:

  • Humphrey's Executor (1935): Unanimous decision that Congress can limit the president's removal power, now under threat (08:47–09:45).
  • Recent Court actions have already begun to chip away at these guarantees, particularly with agencies led by a single director.

Special Concerns About the Federal Reserve

• The Court, through a "shadow docket" order, seemed inclined to carve out an exception for the Fed, acknowledging its unique structure. But some justices questioned whether even the Fed should be protected if presidential removal power is broadly affirmed (09:45–10:24).
• Economic Implications: If the president could control the Fed directly, it would threaten the integrity of monetary policy (10:24–10:40).

Real-World Impact of the Trump Administration's Firings

• Trump has fired numerous heads and members of independent agencies, including those overseeing labor protections, elections, equal employment, and transportation (12:06–12:43).

• Impact on Federal Workers:

  • Undermines the appeal process and civil service protections, since Trump replaced protective board members with political loyalists:

  "It really throws into question whether the decisions made by these agencies...are really in the best interests of the American people or whether those decisions are influenced by politics."
  — Andrea Hsu (12:50)

The Stakes for American Governance

• Broader Implications:

  • Could signal a return to a government run on personal loyalty to the president, risking patronage, loss of expertise, and increased corruption (13:41–14:29).
  • Critical not just for today's administration, but for every future president and the fabric of U.S. governance.

  "This really becomes a kind of throwback to the kind of government we had when we had a patronage system and the government hired people who were supporters of the president...and didn't necessarily get the most professional expert people."
  — Mara Liasson (13:41)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the transformative nature of the case:

  "We really are undergoing a change in our system of government before our very eyes that is making the executive branch more powerful at the expense of Congress."
  — Mara Liasson (02:53)

• On public trust and expertise:

  "Do you want your air traffic controllers or your food safety inspectors to be hired because of their skills or because they support the president?"
  — Andrea Hsu (05:35)

• On the historical stakes:

  "You're asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent."
  — Justice Sotomayor (08:15, via Andrea Hsu)

Key Timestamps for Segments

• [01:10] – Introduction to the Supreme Court case and Rebecca Slaughter's background.
• [02:14] – Trump administration’s constitutional argument: all executive power rests with the president.
• [02:53] – Mara Liasson explains the unitary executive theory and its consequences.
• [04:10] – Andrea Hsu explains the roles and importance of independent agencies.
• [05:10] – The broader fear: a return to patronage and loss of expertise in public service.
• [05:55] – Mara Liasson contrasts Trump’s approach with past presidents’ restraint.
• [06:56] – Observations from oral arguments; justices' positions and questions.
• [08:47] – Legal precedents: Humphrey's Executor and recent changes.
• [10:05] – The special case of the Federal Reserve and economic implications.
• [12:06] – The scope of Trump’s firings of independent agency members.
• [12:50] – The impact on public trust and federal workers.
• [13:41] – The danger of returning to a corruption-prone, patronage system.

Conclusion

This episode delivers an in-depth, balanced look at a Supreme Court case with historic ramifications for the balance of power in the U.S. government. The NPR team emphasizes that the decision will not just shape the current landscape under President Trump, but set a crucial precedent that could fundamentally alter how American democracy functions for generations to come.