Podcast Summary: Today, Explained — "Everyone’s fired now" (December 10, 2025)

Overview

This episode of Today, Explained dives into the Supreme Court case “Trump v. Slaughter,” a landmark showdown over presidential power, federal agency independence, and the fate of a 90-year-old legal precedent. Host Noel King, with legal experts Ian Millhiser (Vox) and Noah Rosenblum (NYU Law), breaks down why President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, an FTC commissioner, has massive implications for how much power presidents—and the courts—hold over the so-called independent arms of government. The episode explores the history and legal theory at play, the personalities involved, the Supreme Court’s likely direction, and why it all matters far beyond today’s headlines.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Case: Why Is Trump v. Slaughter Important?

• Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not for cause, but because he disagreed with her politics ([02:07-03:06]).
• The FTC, like other independent agencies, is structured by Congress to protect its commissioners from being removed at will—unless there's neglect or malfeasance.
• This case will decide if presidents can fire such commissioners at will, altering the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies.

"Trump just claims... since I disagree with your politics, I'm going to fire you."
— Ian Millhiser ([03:00])

2. What Is the Unitary Executive Theory?

• The Trump team argues for expansive presidential power, rooted in the “unitary executive theory”—the idea that all executive branch officials must be fully under the president’s control ([04:30-05:06]).
• This reading relies on vague constitutional language, especially the phrase “the executive power shall be vested in the President.”

"If there is something that some government official is doing that is executive in nature, then that person must be under the full control of the President, and the President must have the power to fire them at will."
— Ian Millhiser ([04:42])

3. The Legal Precedent: Humphrey’s Executor

• The main case on the other side is Humphrey’s Executor v. US (1935), where the Supreme Court ruled Congress can insulate independent agency officials from presidential removal ([05:14-05:25], [18:06-22:07]).
• This precedent has held for 90 years but is now being reconsidered directly.

4. How Likely Is the Supreme Court to Overturn Precedent?

• Millhiser: The conservative majority on the Court strongly favors the unitary executive theory and is very likely to back Trump—even if the president were someone else ([05:52-06:42]).

"I am certain that Trump is gonna win this case."
— Ian Millhiser ([05:52])

• He argues it's less about Trump, more about a consistent conservative legal worldview.

5. What Are the Dangers of Expanding Presidential Firing Power?

• Congress creates independent agencies for technocratic expertise and to avoid political pressure in crucial sectors, like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Reserve ([06:52-08:09]).
• Presidential power over agencies like the Fed could allow for economically reckless actions (e.g., manipulating the economy for electoral benefit).

"The Federal Reserve essentially has the power to inject cocaine into the economy… you don't want the President to control the Federal Reserve."
— Ian Millhiser ([09:09])

• The Court previously carved out the Federal Reserve as an exception but gave a vague, unconvincing legal rationale ([08:26-10:48]).

6. Who Loses Power if the President Wins?

• The major loser is Congress. Historically, Congress determined which agencies could be independent. If the Court rules for the president, it will shift that power from Congress to the executive—and, in practice, to the judiciary ([11:00-11:52]).

7. Will the Rule Apply No Matter Who Is President?

• Yes. Millhiser and Rosenblum stress that the decision, if broad, will empower all presidents, regardless of party.
• However, partisanship plays a role in how justices interpret and apply the Constitution ([12:18-13:26]).

"The Democratic Party's vision is more Democratic… The Republican Party's vision… concentrates power in the judiciary. It gives the judiciary the final word."
— Ian Millhiser ([12:18-13:26])

8. Is the Supreme Court Grabbing Power for Itself?

• Ultimately, both experts suggest the Court is increasing its own power by reserving the authority to define executive independence ([13:26-13:44]).

"That is the takeaway here."
— Ian Millhiser ([13:36])

History & Legal Theory in Depth (with Historian Noah Rosenblum)

9. The Origins of Humphrey’s Executor ([17:49-22:07])

• Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire a conservative FTC commissioner, William Humphrey, to push forward New Deal reforms.
• The Court sided with Humphrey, upholding limits on the president’s firing power for independent agency appointees.

"It thus came as a tremendous surprise when the Court unanimously went against the Roosevelt administration."
— Noah Rosenblum ([21:17])

10. The Long Life and Challenge to Humphrey’s

• The precedent held for decades. Ronald Reagan’s administration tried to challenge it (Morrison v. Olson, featuring a now-famous Scalia dissent), but only with the rise of the Roberts Court did concerted attempts to overturn it gain real momentum ([22:16-24:42]).

"[Scalia's] position is unbelievably fringe. ... William Rehnquist ... wrote ... my brother Scalia is trying to put more weight than the words will bear—so that's a gentlemanly way of saying, Scalia, you're out of your mind."
— Noah Rosenblum ([22:44-23:00])

11. What Happens If Humphrey’s Is Overturned?

• It could remove essential insulation from political pressure for major agencies, leaving vital public functions subject to the political whims of whoever is president at the time ([24:58-27:16]).
• Rosenblum warns of “telephone justice” where “every time you go to a government bureau, do you want to have to wait for the person who makes the decision to say hold on, I got to go take a phone call from the White House to figure out how to rule on your application? … That’s telephone justice. That’s what the Soviets do. That’s not what the United States does.” ([25:23])

"We have a hundred year tradition ... there's a lot to be learned from that tradition and we should be careful before we throw it out."
— Noah Rosenblum ([27:16])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Trump just claims... since I disagree with your politics, I'm going to fire you." — Ian Millhiser ([03:00])
• "If there is something that some government official is doing that is executive in nature, then that person must be under the full control of the President, and the President must have the power to fire them at will." — Ian Millhiser ([04:42])
• "I am certain that Trump is gonna win this case." — Ian Millhiser ([05:52])
• "The Federal Reserve essentially has the power to inject cocaine into the economy… you don't want the President to control the Federal Reserve." — Ian Millhiser ([09:09])
• "That is the takeaway here." — Ian Millhiser ([13:36])
• "That’s telephone justice. That’s what the Soviets do. That’s not what the United States does." — Noah Rosenblum ([25:23])

Timeline & Timestamps

• [02:07-03:06] — Why Trump fired Slaughter, and why that’s a legal issue
• [04:30-05:06] — The unitary executive theory explained
• [05:14-05:25] — Humphrey’s Executor, the precedent
• [05:52-06:42] — Predictions on Supreme Court outcome
• [06:52-08:09] — Purpose of independent agencies (NRC, Federal Reserve)
• [08:26-10:48] — Why the Fed is “special” but without a clear legal rationale
• [11:00-11:52] — Where Congress loses power, judiciary gains
• [12:18-13:26] — How partisanship shapes legal views on separation of powers
• [17:49-22:07] — The history behind Humphrey’s Executor
• [22:16-24:42] — Attempts to challenge the precedent before Roberts Court
• [24:58-27:16] — Rosenblum’s warning: “telephone justice” and consequences of overturning Humphrey’s

Conclusion

The episode presents an in-depth, accessible look at a Supreme Court case that could dramatically reshape the balance of U.S. government power. It spells out the stakes for presidents, Congress, the judiciary, and everyday Americans, all through clear historical context, legal theory, and lively expert commentary. The takeaway? The ongoing struggle over who controls America’s powerful independent agencies isn’t just about personalities or today’s politics—it’s about fundamental constitutional ideas that will affect national governance for generations.