The Dictatorship
The consequences of John Roberts’ FTC pronouncement will be felt long after Trump
On Monday, the Supreme Court turned a blind eye to President Donald Trump’s unlawful termination of a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. In doing so, the court further strengthened the hand of an administration intent on tightening its grip on every aspect of the federal government. Once again, the nation’s highest court used its shadow docket to overturn two lower court rulings with minimal explanation — or, in this case, with no explanation at all. Once again, Trump asked a highly partisan Supreme Court to rubber-stamp a blatantly political action, one that clearly violates the spirit and letter of the law — and the court obliged.
This ruling, however, is bad not only for Trump’s critics but also for the viability of independent agencies. By rewriting the rules for Trump, the court has opened the door for future presidents of both parties to exploit its precedent. This decision signals the beginning of the end of these agencies that were created to protect the interests of the American people, not serve the political whims of whoever occupies the Oval Office.
Allowing a president to fire commissioners or board members who refuse to do his bidding eviscerates an agency’s autonomy.
The Federal Trade Commission is an independent watchdog agency created in 1914 to protect the public from deceptive or unfair business practices. For more than a century, the FTC has sought to be an objective referee of the marketplace by promoting competition, preventing monopolies and stopping scams and frauds. Congress specifically designed the FTC to be bipartisan and independent. The five commissioners have staggered seven-year terms, no more than three can be from the same political party, and they can be removed by the president only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
The only previous time a president attempted to remove an FTC commissioner was in 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt fired William Humphrey — who was appointed by Roosevelt’s predecessor, Herbert Hoover — over policy differences. Humphrey challenged his dismissal, and in the landmark 1935 case of Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the restriction on the president’s removal power to be constitutional and declared Humphrey’s termination illegal. The court explained that the president’s power over the executive branch is not without limits and that Congress’ authority to create independent agencies not subject to the president’s control “cannot well be doubted.”
That was then.
In March, Trump fired Democratic commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, whom he himself had appointed in 2018, claiming her service is “inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” Slaughter sued, and in July, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled in her favor, citing Humphrey’s nearly identical case from 90 years earlier.
But in between Slaughter’s filing her lawsuit and AliKhan’s ruling, the Supreme Court weakened the independence of other federal agencies. In May, it paused lower court rulings reinstating members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board whom Trump had fired without cause, in violation of the applicable laws. The Supreme Court did not consider the appeals of those rulings — which had been upheld by an appellate court — in its usual manner of extensive briefing and oral argument. Instead, it used its emergency docket — also known as the “shadow docket” — to stop the rulings from being implemented while offering scant accounting of its reasoning. In a two-page ruling (the judicial equivalent of condensing a John Grisham novel into a tweet), the Court’s majority indicated that the for-cause removal restrictions for the NLRB and the MSPB were unconstitutional.
On Monday, only six days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C., approved the lower court’s reinstatement of Slaughter’s going into effect, Chief Justice Roberts issued a two-sentence orderwith no explanation, that reversed course and permits Slaughter’s removal.
Supreme Court precedent, of course, outlasts any administration.
Humphrey’s Executor is on life support. That presumably means nothing to the majority of Americans, but they will certainly feel the impact of its loss. Congress established many independent agencies with express limits on the president’s removal authority. Examples include the National Transportation Safety Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Federal Reserve, just to name a few. (In its May ruling, the Supreme Court’s majority expressly distinguished the Federal Reserve from the NLRB and the MSPB. Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent welcomed that distinction “to avoid imperiling the Fed” but noted it was “out of the blue” because the Fed’s independence rests on the same legal foundation as that of those and other agencies.)
As the Supreme Court explained in Humphrey’s, for-cause removal goes hand in hand with an agency’s independence. Allowing a president to fire commissioners or board members who refuse to do his bidding eviscerates an agency’s autonomy. With Monday’s ruling, the Supreme Court is not merely reinterpreting Humphrey’s to narrow its application for other agencies. It is throwing out the precedent completely, giving nearly limitless power to Trump to force every supposedly independent federal agency to serve his political interests.
We would be naive to expect the demise of agencies’ independence to miraculously reappear after this president leaves office. Supreme Court precedent, of course, outlasts any administration.
As the White House swings back and forth between parties, we can expect significant policy changes from different presidents’ handpicked loyalists who are responsible for keeping our highways and skyways running smoothly, setting workplace safety standards and maintaining the stability of our housing finance system, as well as controlling the monetary policy that affects our mortgage payments, fortifies our economy and protects against hyperinflation.
Even worse, we could see the extreme politicization of these agencies. Trump supporters who cheer the president’s having absolute authority over (formerly) independent agencies will shudder to think about, for example, the Federal Communications Commission’s enforcing truth-in-advertising rules only against conservative media outlets or the Environmental Protection Agency’s fast-tracking permits and subsidies for renewable energy projects that use union labor.
Congress made the FTC independent to insulate it from the “volatile political headwinds that might jeopardize its mission,” as Judge AliKhan wrote in her ruling reinstating Slaughter. That insulation from political pressure promotes independent agencies’ effectiveness, maintains their credibility and ensures that they serve the public, not the president. But this Supreme Court, in egregious acts of what conservatives usually decry as judicial activism, is circumventing Congress’ intent and putting these agencies under the president’s thumb.
For nearly a century, for-cause removal protections have helped preserve our constitutional system by balancing power between the legislative and executive branches and protecting critical federal agencies from the political interests of the president. Overturning that precedent does not merely weaken the FTC and other agencies; it fundamentally changes the checks and balances that safeguard our democracy and guarantee our liberty. Placing this new power in the hands of current and future administrations leads to a government in which public accountability is a mirage and partisan loyalty is reality.
Andrew Warren
Andrew Warren is senior counsel at Democracy Defenders Action. He previously was a prosecutor with the U.S. Justice Department and the elected district attorney in Tampa, Florida.
The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination, a spokesperson said late Wednesday, as two retiring Republicans on the panel dug in over President Donald Trump’s personal “anti-weaponization” deal with the government he runs.
Sen. Chuck Grassley’s decision to delay the committee vote that had been set for Thursday marks a setback for one of Trump’s highest-profile Cabinet nominees, at the hands of Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a pair of Republicans set to leave the chamber next year.
“Chairman Grassley works to set President Trump’s nominees up for success in committee, not failure. Senators Cornyn and Tillis want written assurances from the Department of Justice regarding the Trump-IRS settlement,” the committee spokesperson said.
Blanche’s nomination to permanently head the Department of Justice needs the support of either Cornyn or Tillis to make it out of the committee to a vote by the full Senate, assuming all Democrats remain opposed.
“Why don’t you call over the Department of Justice and tell them they have one hour and 50 minutes to get me what I asked for,” Cornyn told reporters Wednesday afternoon amid the hardening standoff over his demand that Blanche and the DOJ put in writing a commitment never to pursue the president’s prized “anti-weaponization” fund, and to clarify the terms of Trump’s personal deal with the Internal Revenue Service.
Tillis told MS NOW that the conversations were complicated by the need for the Justice Department to get “several parties” to agree on the language of the statement Cornyn and Tillis are seeking.
“What I’ve advised the chair, and I would assume Senator Cornyn said something similar, is that we’re not prepared to vote yes yet,” he added.
“The Department has been in regular communication with Committee members for weeks, and we look forward to continuing to work productively with Senators to address any concerns,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in response to the decision to postpone the committee vote.
Cornyn was set to meet with Blanche on Wednesday morning, but the meeting was called off after Blanche failed to meet the senator’s demand for written proposals to modify the controversial settlement agreement he brokered between Trump and the IRS. The Republican senator is set to leave Congress when his term ends in January after a bruising May primary loss to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Trump’s chosen candidate.
“Maybe John Cornyn’s upset with me because I didn’t endorse him,” Trump told reporters Wednesday afternoon in the Oval Office. “I don’t know what it is, but I haven’t heard that there’s a problem. I heard (Blanche) is going through quite nicely.”
Cornyn made clear to Blanche during his confirmation hearing that he will not get his support until he agrees to reopen and modify the settlement. Due to the committee’s narrow Republican majority, one GOP “no” vote is enough to sink Blanche’s nomination.
The senator has asked Blanche to provide proof that the proposed nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund established as part of the deal between Trump and the IRS is formally dead, and he has also demanded Blanche narrow the tax audit immunity provisions the settlement afforded to Trump and his family.
Blanche has publicly stated that his department has dropped the fund, but he and the DOJ have dodged requests from Cornyn and a federal judge to put that in writing.
After announcing his meeting with Blanche would not take place Wednesday morning, Cornyn told reporters that changes from Blanche “in a modified release form” would be acceptable, but that “for some reason … they simply refuse to do it,” referring to the DOJ.
Shortly after the meeting was called off, a Justice Department official told MS NOW that the department “provided a written proposal to Senator Cornyn’s staff yesterday following ongoing discussion with both the Committee and the Senator’s office.”
Cornyn said that proposal was “not responsive” to his demands because it did not address the tax audit immunity provisions in the settlement, one of his key demands.
In May, Blanche signed an addendum as part of the deal that granted Trump, his family and his businesses immunity from pending IRS tax audits. That agreement, which has been decried by former IRS officials and legal experts as unlawful self-dealing, is being contested in federal court.
Cornyn noted that Blanche testified under oath that he could meet the request during his confirmation hearing.
“Maybe they think I’m just going to give up or you know, go along, but they’re mistaken,” Cornyn said when asked why he thinks the DOJ could be slow-walking his request.
Kevin Frey contributed to this report.
Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived this week for his tour of Washington, he may have had a mission in mind.
Netanyahu needed to overcome his newly diminished stature and waning influence over his once close friend President Donald Trump as both leaders grapple with the unpopularity of a war they started together and is escaping their control.
His meeting at the White House with Trump on Tuesday, which was closed to the press, was the first face-to-face encounter between the two allies since the U.S. and Israel launched a joint attack against Iran on Feb. 28.
Trump gave him a muted welcome and afterwards simply described the meeting as “very good.” “Obviously, many important subjects were discussed,” the president wrote on Truth Social.
Rather than an intimate one-on-one setting, the Oval Office was full of top U.S. officials — Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, and special envoy Steve Witkoff.
But Netanyahu continued the full court press on the Trump administration.
Over the course of two days, in addition to seeing Trump and attending Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral at the Capitol, Netanyahu also met separately with Vance, Hegseth, and Rubio, White House and Israeli officials confirmed to MS NOW.
The Israeli prime minister’s slate of meetings with key U.S. national security officials comes at a pivotal moment in the Iran conflict as tensions escalate in the region and Americans increasingly sour on the war. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows 60% of American voters opposing U.S. military action against Iran and 74% against sending U.S. ground troops into Iran.
Not only does Trump face pressure as Republicans face an uphill battle to retain congressional control in this fall’s midterms, Netanyahu’s fate as prime minister is at stake in Israel’s upcoming September elections – and he can’t afford to lose Trump’s favor.
The talks largely focused on what to do next as Iran continues to menace shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and retaliate against American bases in the region and launch attacks on Gulf allies.
According to a senior Israeli official who was granted anonymity to describe the closed-door meeting, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did not come to a final decision after discussing three paths forward: get a “good deal” focused on Iran’s nuclear program and enriched material, have no deal and instead continue the blockade and economic pressure, or take escalated military action.
But Netanyahu did not tell Trump what he should do – nor did he express a preference.
The senior Israeli official noted Netanyahu has not ruled out diplomacy – as long as it is coupled with “very strong pressures,” calling the push to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program “a contest of will and a contest of force.”
“There are ways of squeezing them and squeezing them and squeezing them and negotiating at the same time,” the official said.
Netanyahu did not present President Trump with new intelligence regarding the underground Iranian nuclear facility Pickaxe Mountain, per the senior Israeli official, noting the U.S. and Israel already are constantly sharing intelligence – and know where Iran’s highly enriched material is. “We don’t think it’s moved, and I think we have a pretty good grasp on that,” the official said.
During their meeting on Tuesday, Trump and Netanyahu discussed ways Israel and the U.S. can work together to stop Iran’s nuclear program and get the Strait of Hormuz open to maritime trade, the senior Israeli official said.
The two leaders also discussed a third goal: to continue to undermine the Iranian regime and “possibly create future conditions for a change in that area.” U.S. officials have backed away from pursuing paths that would overthrow the current leadership, but Netanyahu still believes that could happen.
“The chasm that has been created between the people and the regime is not about to be closed,” the senior Israeli official said of Netanyahu’s thinking.
Netanyahu advised Trump in February that Israeli intelligence indicated launching strikes against Iran would lead to the toppling of the Islamic Republic’s regime – and five months later, the slain ayatollah’s son retains power with a close circle of hardliners, calling into question the accuracy of Israel’s intelligence apparatus.
But the senior Israeli official said at the time, Netanyahu did not promise the Iranian people would take fate into their own hands following a coordinated attack. Rather, he chose his words carefully and said that an attack could create conditions to “advance the probability or the possibility that that would happen.”
The conditions needed for the Iranian regime to fall, “did not materialize,” the official told MS NOW, adding, “not for lack of insight, but for either operational failure or decisions that were made.”
Despite Netanyahu insisting Israel and the U.S. are on the same page, differences still remain: the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey and the Saudi nuclear arrangement did not come up during Wednesday’s White House meeting, according to a second Israeli official granted anonymity to describe sensitive discussions.
Meanwhile, the conflict continues to spread, with an Iranian drone attacking a U.S. gas storage tanker off the coast of Egypt on Wednesday.
Trump indicated he would not let Iran’s latest action slide, telling reporters on Wednesday that the U.S. would retaliate against Iran even as he leaves room for diplomatic talks to resume.
“It’s our turn, and we’ll see if we get there with an agreement at some point,” Trump said. “But we’re going to hit them very hard.”
As for what it would take for Israel to join the U.S. strikes, the senior Israeli official said that if Israel is attacked by Iran, “We will respond very, very forcefully and very quickly. And I think Iran would make a great mistake.”
Julia Jester covers politics for MS NOW and is based in Washington, D.C.
International rage over FIFA’s close ties to President Donald Trump has reached a fever pitch after soccer’s governing body announced a plan to sell a significant stake to an investor group led by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law.
The president and his family have all but turned the White House into their personal piggy bank. And FIFA — which has its own sordid history of corruption — seems to have made itself a party to Trump’s self-enrichment under Gianni Infantino’s leadership, such as by paying for space inside Trump Tower in New York. (The organization has defended the office rental as a World Cup outpost.)
Soccer is seen by many as a unifying game. But Trump’s incorporation of FIFA into his political dynasty is threatening that idea.
FIFA has announced plans to sell a large minority stake in a new company that will run its main events, including the World Cup and Club World Cup, as part of a plan to triple the amount of development money it dishes out to its 211 member associations.
Under the proposals — which are subject to approval by a majority of those national associations and FIFA’s 37-member council — a new entity called FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE) will take over all commercial operations, while FIFA remains the game’s global governing body and retains a majority stake in FFE.
A press release from FIFA confirmed the plans and said Thrive Eternal, which was launched by Joshua Kushner, is expected to lead the investment group that would control FIFA Forward Enterprise. FIFA did not clarify why Thrive Eternal was selected, and Kushner was already dabbling in sports.
But Trump basically has already given son-in-law Jared Kushner carte blanche to dictate U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East while simultaneously hatching business plans in the region. (Jared Kushner has denied any conflicts of interest.)
Joshua Kushner reportedly has been a major donor to Democrats. But, predictably, the idea of another Kushner becoming financially entwined with the World Cup — the world’s most popular sporting event — and basically being dropped into a position of global significance isn’t going over well. Several other soccer governing bodies have expressed concerns, including Europe’s UEFA.
“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said in a statement about The Athletic’s report, adding: “The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade — especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee also rebuked the plan, writing on X: “Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough — now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a multibillion-dollar deal with Jared Kushner’s brother to sell ownership stakes in the World Cup to private investors.”
FIFA, Donald Trump’s favorite corrupt racketeering enterprise in world sports, is now going directly into business with the Trump family!
Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough—now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a… https://t.co/knSZibuMea
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) July 28, 2026
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., has already launched an investigation into the FIFA leader’s relationship with the Trump administration, while dozens of European lawmakers — citing concerns about “potential breaches of political neutrality” — have called for the FIFA Ethics Committee to investigate Infantino. This new proposal seems unlikely to assuage those concerns.
But what it does seem likely to do is fuel global anger toward the U.S. — the kind that has been growing since Trump retook office.
And when you consider that, it’s truly remarkable how the same MAGA movement whose members whined for years about politics mixing with sports is now in lockstep with a president who seems dead-set on casting his shadow over every sports event he can.
This post on X basically sums up the foul stench around FIFA’s latest proposal.
Sepp Blatter was Infantino’s predecessor as FIFA president and oversaw the organization amid some of its many scandals. When heof all people, is warning about how Trump and Infantino’s relationship is “deeply damaging” soccer, it’s a sign of how far FIFA has descended into the gutter.
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
- Todd Blanche on track for confirmation after Cornyn strikes Trump settlement deal
- Senate finalizes funding patch that would block Trump’s grant overhaul
- RFK Jr. tells BLN host that constitutional rights take priority over public health
- Kansas’ data center boom is shaking up the governor’s race
- Congress ended surprise medical bills — doctors and insurers hate it
- Trump puts his ‘anti-weaponization fund’ back on the table
- ‘Platner on steroids’: Max Miller abuse claims have Republicans silently sweating
- It might take ‘a lightning bolt from God’ to get these Senate Democratic hopefuls to bow for independents
- Blanche vote is rescheduled, but there’s no deal
- Reflecting pool damage was the result of botched work, not vandals, DOJ says
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words