State Attorneys General Challenge Trump's FTC Firings, Sparking a Power Struggle Over Agency Independence

Last month, the Federal Trade Commission, a cornerstone of consumer protection, found itself at the center of a legal storm. President Trump dismissed two of its commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, without citing specific cause. The move prompted a swift response from a coalition of 21 state attorneys general, led by California’s Rob Bonta, who argue the firings were unlawful and threaten the agency’s ability to operate free from political sway. Their amicus brief, filed in support of the ousted commissioners, underscores a broader debate about the balance of power in Washington.

The FTC, established in 1914, has long been a bipartisan bulwark against fraud, scams, and anticompetitive practices. Its five commissioners, appointed to staggered seven-year terms, are designed to ensure stability and independence. Slaughter, known for her work on consumer protections, and Bedoya, a digital privacy expert, were appointed under the Biden administration. Their abrupt removal has raised questions about whether the agency can maintain its impartiality or if it risks becoming an extension of the White House’s agenda.

This isn’t just a bureaucratic squabble. The FTC’s work touches millions of lives, from cracking down on text message scams that cost consumers $470 million in 2024 to challenging high-profile mergers like the proposed Kroger-Albertsons deal. The outcome of this dispute could reshape how the agency functions and whether it can continue to protect consumers effectively. For many Americans, the stakes are tangible: a weakened FTC could mean less defense against fraud or unchecked corporate power.

At the heart of the legal challenge is the Federal Trade Commission Act, which allows the president to remove commissioners only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The state attorneys general argue that Trump’s decision to fire Slaughter and Bedoya without such justification violates this law. They point to a 1935 Supreme Court ruling, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the FTC’s independence by limiting presidential power to remove commissioners at will. That precedent has guided the agency’s structure for nearly a century.

However, the Trump administration contends that such restrictions infringe on the president’s constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch. The Department of Justice, in related litigation, has signaled it will no longer defend the “for cause” removal standard, arguing it’s outdated and unconstitutional. This view aligns with recent Supreme Court decisions, like Seila Law v. CFPB in 2020, which struck down similar protections for single-director agencies. The question now is whether the court will extend that logic to multi-member commissions like the FTC, potentially reshaping the landscape of independent agencies.

The clash isn’t happening in a vacuum. In March 2025, a federal judge blocked a similar attempt by the White House to remove the head of the Office of Special Counsel without cause, citing the need for political neutrality. That ruling, now under appeal, suggests courts are wary of unchecked executive power. Yet, with the Supreme Court leaning toward expanding presidential authority in recent years, the outcome of the FTC case remains uncertain. A decision could either reinforce the agency’s autonomy or grant presidents greater control over regulatory bodies.

The FTC’s role in daily life is often underappreciated but far-reaching. In 2024, it recovered billions for consumers harmed by scams, from fake package delivery texts to fraudulent job offers. Its enforcement actions, like shutting down 13 websites impersonating the agency, aim to curb the $2.95 billion lost to impersonation fraud last year. The agency also updated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule in January 2025, requiring parental consent for third-party advertising to protect kids’ data. For families navigating a digital world, these efforts offer a critical shield.

On the antitrust front, the FTC has tackled mergers that could raise prices or stifle competition. Its challenge to the Kroger-Albertsons merger, for instance, reflects concerns about grocery costs and market consolidation. Under new chairman Andrew Ferguson, appointed in January 2025, the agency has pledged to continue using the 2023 Merger Guidelines, which take a tougher stance on corporate consolidation. Ferguson’s public statements emphasize guarding against monopolies, particularly in tech, suggesting some continuity despite the leadership shake-up.

Still, the firings have sparked fears that political influence could undermine these efforts. Supporters of Slaughter and Bedoya argue their expertise in privacy and consumer protection is irreplaceable. Others, including some aligned with the administration, believe a Republican-led FTC could refocus priorities, perhaps easing merger restrictions while maintaining aggressive privacy enforcement. Consumers, caught in the middle, may face uncertainty about whether the agency can deliver on its mission.

The FTC dispute is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to assert authority over independent agencies. On February 18, 2025, the president issued an executive order requiring agencies like the FTC, SEC, and FCC to submit regulations and budgets to the White House for review. The order also mandates liaison roles to align agency actions with presidential priorities. Critics, including advocacy groups like Common Cause, argue this erodes the independence Congress intended, risking decisions swayed by politics rather than expertise.

Historically, independent agencies were created to avoid such influence. The FTC’s bipartisan structure, with no more than three commissioners from one party, was meant to ensure balanced decision-making. Yet, political pressures have always tested this ideal. Recent studies show that while agencies enjoy statutory protections, presidential appointments and budget control can subtly shape their direction. The current legal battles, including the FTC case, may clarify how much insulation these agencies can maintain in an era of polarized governance.

The fight over the FTC commissioners is likely headed for higher courts, possibly the Supreme Court, where it could redefine the boundaries of presidential power. For now, the agency operates under a Republican majority, with Ferguson, Melissa Holyoak, and newly confirmed Mark Meador steering its course. Their decisions on privacy, scams, and antitrust will test whether the FTC can remain a steady hand amid political turbulence. Consumers, businesses, and policymakers alike are watching closely, aware that the outcome could ripple across the economy.

This moment feels like a crossroads for the FTC and the principle of independent regulation. The agency’s century-long legacy of protecting consumers and fostering competition hangs in the balance, as does the broader question of how much control any president should wield over institutions designed to serve the public. As courts weigh these issues, Americans will grapple with the real-world impacts: a marketplace that’s either fairer or more vulnerable to exploitation.