In a dramatic expansion of executive power, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order asserting control over independent federal agencies, stripping them of the autonomy granted by Congress.
The move vastly increases his authority and is certain to spark legal battles. In his order, Trump declares that “only he and the Attorney General have the right to interpret the law,” mandating that independent agencies follow his directives. While Congress retains the power to pass laws and allocate funding, Trump now claims the authority to modify or freeze those funds at will. With both the Senate and House under Republican control, no one is standing in his way.
The executive order, issued after Trump dismissed the heads of all independent agencies, requires such agencies to submit their regulations for White House review. The president has also claimed the power to decide which projects receive funding, prioritizing those aligned with his political agenda.
The agencies targeted include the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees Wall Street to protect investors; the Federal Trade Commission, responsible for consumer protection and antitrust enforcement; the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates telecommunications and media; and the National Labor Relations Board, which enforces labor rights.
Trump’s order builds on a 1981 directive from President Ronald Reagan, which required agencies to submit regulations for review by the White House budget office. However, Reagan’s order explicitly excluded agencies that Congress had designated as independent—a safeguard Trump is now disregarding.
The directive hands enormous power to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, the controversial architect of “Project 2025,” a blueprint for an authoritarian transition. Under the new order, Vought can strip funding from projects and initiatives that do not align with Trump’s agenda.
Conservative Washington Post columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner George Will has warned, “This disaster was created by the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court can fix it.”
Last summer, after the nation’s highest court ruled that a president enjoys absolute immunity for official acts, NPR noted that opposition parties and the judiciary would be powerless to curb the expansion of executive authority.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that “courts cannot investigate a president’s motives,” effectively shielding any potential criminal intent behind presidential actions from legal scrutiny.
In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court’s conservative majority of inventing “an unjustifiable immunity that places the president above the law.” She also argued that the ruling failed to consider the consequences of a president’s “unofficial” conduct. In response, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas signaled their willingness to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, the precedent that limits a president’s ability to remove agency officials for reasons not approved by Congress. That 1935 decision had unanimously held that the president lacked such power.
