The Dictatorship
The Supreme Court’s view of expanded executive power leaves one open question: the Fed
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court for the past year has repeatedly allowed President Donald Trump to fire heads of independent agenciesbut it appears to be drawing a line with the Federal Reserve.
The court has signaled for months that it sees the Fed in a different light. It has said that the president can fire directors of other agencies for any reason, but can remove Fed governors only “for cause,” which is often interpreted to mean neglect of duty or malfeasance.
Last year, the court allowed President Donald Trump to fire — at least temporarily — Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, but it carved out a distinction for the Fed. The two officials had argued that if Trump could fire them, he could also fire members of the Fed’s board of governors.
“We disagree,” the court said then. “The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”
That is now being put to the test in a case in front of the Supreme Court involving Trump’s attempt to remove Fed governor Lisa Cook. On Wednesday during oral arguments, the court seemed inclined to keep Cook in her job.
Allowing Cook’s firing to go forward “would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of three Trump appointees on the nation’s highest court.
But the court largely skirted a key issue: What, exactly, is the legal principle that protects the Fed, but not the other agencies?
Several legal experts say the justices are on shaky ground. The Fed, they argue, is similar in many ways to the Federal Trade Commission or the National Labor Relations Board, agencies Congress intended to be independent but whose officials Trump has been able to fire without pushback from the high court.
“There’s no historical grounds for distinguishing the Fed from other independent agencies that Congress has designed,” said Jane Manners, a law professor at Fordham University. “The whole argument was premised on the idea that the Fed is different. They haven’t explained exactly why.”
Peter Conti-Brown, a professor of financial regulation at the University of Pennsylvania, added, “I’ll say as a legal scholar and as a historian I think that differentiation is hocus pocus.”
Just last month, the court signaled in a separate oral argument that it would likely allow Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. The conservative majority on the court also suggested it would overturn a 90-year-old precedent that sharply limited the president’s ability to fire top officials at independent agencies.
Chief Justice John Roberts and many of his colleagues support the “unitary executive” theory, which holds that the president should have full sway over the staffing of agencies in the executive branch.
Agency directors, like Slaughter, “are exercising massive power over individual liberty and billion-dollar industries” without being accountable to anyone, Kavanaugh said at the December oral argument.
With the Federal Reserve, however, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have applied a different view: that the Fed’s monetary policy — the setting of short-term interest rates and management of the money supply — historically hasn’t been overseen by the executive branch.
Some legal experts have likewise drawn a distinction between the Fed and other independent agencies. In a brief filed in the Cook case, Aaron Nielson, a law professor at the University of Texas, and formerly a top lawyer in Texas government, wrote that, “Whereas the modern FTC indisputably exercises executive power, the Fed’s core function is monetary policy, which need not and often does not require executive power.”
The First and Second Banks of the United States were nationwide banks that were the closest the United States had to a central bank in the first few decades after the nation’s founding, and both “conducted early monetary policy,” Nielson wrote, but weren’t executive branch agencies.
But Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia University and author of a book about the Fed, argued that the Fed does exercise executive power when it regulates the banking system. And monetary policy, when it adjusts the money supply, is part of that regulation, he said.
There are also only three types of government authority, Menand argues: legislative, executive, and judicial, and the Fed belongs in the executive category.
“There is no fourth type of government power,” Menand said. “There is no other place to locate the Fed.”
Still, the justices mostly avoided addressing why the Fed is different during Wednesday’s oral argument, in part, Menand noted, because neither side pushed it. Cook’s lawyers had no reason to question a distinction that appeared to favor them.
And even the government’s own top Supreme Court lawyer, D. John Sauer, acknowledged that Trump could only fire Cook “for cause,” while in the other cases the White House had sought to remove officials for any reason, including policy differences. The distinction made it harder for the White House to argue that Cook should immediately be removed from office.
“There is a long tradition of having this exercise of monetary policy be exercised independent of executive influence,” Sauer said. “And we don’t dispute that that’s what Congress was doing.”
Paul Clement, one of Cook’s lawyers, told the justices, “it’s kind of why this case is, I think, problematic for the government because they could have come in here and said, you know, Fed, schmed, it’s not that different. This is just like the FTC.”
Instead, Clement added, “they come in and say, no, we’re going to accept that the Fed is different, at least for purposes of this case.”
The Supreme Court will initially rule on the narrow question of whether Cook can remain in her position while the larger dispute over her firing is fought in the lower courts. Still, at some point it may have to issue more comprehensive rulings that could include a fuller explanation of why the justices see the Fed as different.
For now, the Fed’s size and impact on the financial markets may be offering it a measure of protection.
“I don’t mean to denigrate any other agency, but there’s a reason that monetary policy has been treated differently, for lo these many years,” Clement said. “And there’s a reason that the markets watch the Fed a little more closely than they watch really any other agency of government.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Americans still think their taxes are too high, according to recent polls, even after last year’s tax law fulfilled several of President Donald Trump’s tax-related campaign promises.
In fact, a new Fox News poll indicates people are more upset about taxes than they were last year. The findings from the survey, which was conducted in late March, are another sign that Americans are on edge about their personal finances as the U.S. experiences a spike in inflation and sluggish economic growth. Other polling finds that frustration goes beyond personal tax obligations, with many believing that wealthy people and corporations are not paying their fair share, while others worry about government waste.
The surveys come after Trump and Republicans passed a massive tax and spending cut bill last year. The legislation enacted a range of tax breaks, including a boosted child tax credit and new tax deductions for tips and overtime. Tax refunds are up this seasonand many households are expected to see more income from the Republicans’ tax legislation, but the Congressional Budget Office estimated it will ultimately give the largest benefits to the richest Americans.
Republicans have touted the law as evidence that they are making life more affordable for working families. But polling shows that many Americans may not be feeling the benefits, especially as their tax refunds get eaten up by higher prices.
Most say taxes are too high
About 7 in 10 registered voters say the taxes they pay are “too high,” according to the Fox News poll. That’s up from about 6 in 10 last year. The poll shows heightened concern among very liberal voters and Democratic men, but there has also been a sizable increase among groups that Republicans want to court ahead of the midterm elections, such as moderates, rural voters and white voters without a college degree.
Discontent about taxes has been rising for the past few years. Recent polling from Gallupconducted in March, found about 6 in 10 U.S. adults say the amount of federal income tax they have to pay is “too high,” a finding that’s been largely consistent in the annual poll since 2023. That’s approaching the level of unhappiness found in Gallup’s polling from the 1980s through the 1990s, before President George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
Now, about half of Democrats and about 6 in 10 Republicans say their federal income taxes are too high. Republicans tend to view their tax bill more negatively than Democrats, but Gallup’s polling shows that this gap often shrinks when a Republican is president.
Many believe the rich aren’t paying enough in taxes
Most Americans are troubled by the belief that some wealthy people and corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in January. About 6 in 10 Americans said each of those notions bothers them “a lot,” a measure that is largely unchanged in recent years.
By contrast, only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults in that poll said the amount they personally pay in taxes bothers them a lot.
About 8 in 10 Democrats are bothered “a lot” by the feeling that some corporations and rich people aren’t paying their fair share, the Pew survey found, compared to about 4 in 10 Republicans. Government spending is a bigger issue for Republicans, according to the Fox News poll, which found that 75% of registered voters — and a similar share of Republican voters — say “almost all” or “a great deal” of government funding is wasteful and inefficient.
That points to a perception problem for many Americans. Even if their own tax bill is manageable, the idea that the wealthy are underpaying — or that the government is wasting their dollars — bothers many. About half of Americans, 49%, in the Gallup poll say the income tax they will pay this year is “not fair,” which is in line with the record high from 2023.
Broad unhappiness with Trump’s tax approach
Americans’ tax frustration was rising before Trump re-entered the White House, but it’s still a problem for the president’s party — especially if Americans are not feeling the relief that he promised.
The Fox News poll found that about 6 in 10 registered voters, 64%, say they disapprove of how Trump is handling taxes, up from 53% last April. Disapproval has risen most sharply among independents, but also among Democrats and Republicans.
This aligns with a broader feeling that Trump isn’t doing enough to address inflation. Most Americans said Trump had hurt the cost of living “a lot” or “a little” in his second term, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in January. Roughly 9 in 10 Democrats and about 6 in 10 independents said Trump has had a negative impact on the cost of living.
——-
This story has been updated to correct that less than half of Republicans, 43%, said Trump has helped the cost of living, while 33% said he hasn’t made a difference and only 23% said he has hurt it.
___
The Fox News poll was conducted among 1,001 registered voters from March 20-23. The Gallup poll was conducted among 1,000 U.S. adults from March 2-18. The Pew Research Center poll was conducted among 8,512 U.S. adults from Jan. 20-26. The AP-NORC Poll was conducted among 1,203 U.S. adults from Jan 8-11.
The Dictatorship
Democrats to confront Trump budget director Russ Vought about his ‘stone cold silence’
When White House budget director Russell Vought appears before lawmakers on Wednesday, he will almost certainly face questions about a ballooning Pentagon budgeta special war-funding request and an extended Homeland Security shutdown. But Democrats also plan to press him on an issue closer to the Capitol: why he has spent months dodging their questions altogether.
Vought is set to testify Wednesday before the House Budget Committee and again before the Senate’s budget panel on Thursday. It’s a long-awaited chance for Democrats eager to question him on several fronts — including the cost of the Iran war, cuts to health care spending, a demoralized federal workforce and what the government’s own watchdog has described as the illegal impoundment of federal funds.
Lawmakers also have a growing to-do list that involves Vought, including a war supplemental for President Donald Trump’s military campaign in Iran and a reconciliation bill that would fund immigration enforcement agencies. Congress is also supposed to adopt a budget, though that may slip after the president’s budget was weeks late and omitted any information about projected federal debts and deficits.
But Democrats see Vought as “missing and reclusive,” ignoring their questions for months, the Budget Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, told MS NOW. Vought didn’t testify before the committee last year, a break with tradition. And written questions to Vought have been met with “stone cold silence,” Boyle said.
In JanuaryHouse Democrats pressed Vought for answers on the administration’s health care plans, its compliance with congressionally approved funding laws, its attempt to withhold nutrition aid during last year’s government shutdown, and plans for federal layoffs.
“He sent us not one word in response,” Boyle said. “And in doing so, it shows their contempt for the United States Congress, and it shows their contempt for our constitutional system.”
Boyle told MS NOW he plans to introduce legislation to legally require Office of Management and Budget directors to testify before the House Budget Committee, after Vought didn’t do so last year. He also said he aims to require that the OMB director respond to members of the committee.
Democrats didn’t hear back from Vought about testifying to the committee until March, when Boyle displayed a picture of Vought as a missing child on a milk carton. That prompted Vought to respond on X that, “I am coming to testify on April 15. You should get up to speed.”
House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, had previously assured reporters that Vought would testify in 2026, but Boyle said Democrats hadn’t gotten confirmation until the milk carton incident.
“That’s what shamed him into it,” Boyle said of Vought.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee and a member of the Budget Committee, also said Vought had not been responsive to questions from Democratic members of the Senate, including on the cost of the Iran war. She said she’d press Vought at Thursday’s hearing on whether he would distribute funds appropriated by Congress.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said he’d ask Vought questions “around this ‘traumatizing the federal workforce’ stuff,” and whether DOGE wasted money by firing employees who needed to be rehired later. And Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said he’d ask Vought “how he’s not a corrupt stooge of the fossil fuel industry.”
Senate Republicans, meanwhile, say they haven’t been pressing Vought hard for answers. For example, the missing debt and deficit data in the budget proposal — which Maya MacGuineas, president of the fiscally conservative Committee for a Responsible Budget called “an astonishing lack of information — hasn’t prompted pushback from conservative lawmakers.
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he was unbothered by Vought’s decision to leave out the debt data in the president’s budget request.
“Nobody looks at it anyway,” Scott told MS NOW. “It’s just for you guys to write something.”
Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said he’d ask Vought “to give a great update on the progress that we’ve made” in reducing the deficit. When asked about the missing debt and deficit information, Moreno said he didn’t know about it.
“I haven’t had a chance to see the whole thing, to be honest with you, so I’ve got to see what that’s all about,” Moreno told MS NOW.
In prepared remarks obtained by PunchbowlVought reportedly plans to say that, “when President Trump took office, the nation was facing financial catastrophe under the failed leadership of the Biden Administration and decades of status quo spending strangling our nation.”
But federal spending, according to the Treasury Departmenthas increased under Trump. And the federal deficit is going up. (The federal deficit was $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2025 and is projected to be $1.9 trillion in fiscal 2026according to the Congressional Budget Office.)
Republicans have also been patient with the lack of information about the cost of the Iran war.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters Tuesday he still hasn’t seen a request and doesn’t know how much it will cost.
“The only thing I think I’ve seen is what you guys report,” Thune told reporters.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told reporters he’d want to scour the funding request’s details before he decides if he’ll support it.
But when pressed whether the administration had answered his questions on the topic, Johnson made it clear he hadn’t focused on those details yet.
“Haven’t really asked,” he said.
Jack Fitzpatrick covers Congress for MS NOW. He previously reported for Bloomberg Government, Morning Consult and National Journal. He has bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Arizona State University.
The Dictatorship
Justice Department moves to erase Jan. 6 convictions of Oath Keepers, Proud Boys’ leaders
The Justice Department requested on Tuesday for a federal appeals court to erase the seditious conspiracy convictions of a group of leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys — two right-wing extremist groups who were involved in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6.
The request asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate the individuals’ convictions, effectively erasing their guilty verdicts, and to dismiss the charges with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice prevents the government from bringing the cases again.
In January 2025, President Donald Trump had already either pardoned or commuted the prison sentences of most of the roughly 1,500 people charged in connection with the 2021 attack on the Capitol after Trump’s loss to President Joe Biden in 2020. While most of the defendants received pardons, wiping their convictions, Trump only commuted the sentences of 14 high-profile defendants to time served, which upheld their convictions while allowing them to leave prison.
The request by the Justice Department would go a step further and erase all the convictions for the extremist group leaders, including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodeswho didn’t receive pardons last January.
Only 12 of those defendants were referenced in the Justice Department’s request on Tuesday. Rhodes, who was sentenced to 18 yearsin prison, is among those who would benefit.
“The government’s motion to vacate in this case is consistent with its practice of moving the Supreme Court to vacate convictions in cases where the government has decided in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of a criminal case is in the interests of justice — motions that the Supreme Court routinely grants,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing signed by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro.
Trump himself faces criminal a series of civil lawsuits related to his incitement of the Jan. 6 attack. A federal judge earlier this month rejected his efforts to end the suits ahead of his trial, which has not yet been scheduled.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
- Most feel taxes are too high despite new tax law, polls show
- Himes pushes amendment seeking judicial review on searches under key spy program
- Republicans decry Democrats’ ‘exhausting’ war powers push
- Wyden urges Democrats to back FISA privacy amendments
- Vought: White House doesn’t have ‘ballpark’ total for Iran war funding
- House Budget chair to brief Senate GOP
- Trump makes last-minute plea for GOP to ‘stick together’ on key surveillance powers vote
- AIDS activists disrupt Vought’s testimony on Trump’s budget
- GOP leaders delay FISA vote amid GOP rebellion
- Mike Johnson faces FISA mayhem
-
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
-
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
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?