Why the Washington Times Article is Misleading
The Washington Times article presents President Trump’s executive order as a radical change, implying that it unduly concentrates power in the hands of the president and attorney general while weakening federal agencies. However, this characterization is misleading because the executive order simply restores the constitutional structure of the executive branch as intended by the Founders and reaffirmed in Supreme Court precedent.
The executive order does not eliminate regulatory agencies or prevent them from enforcing laws. Instead, it reaffirms that these agencies, which exist within the executive branch, must be accountable to the president—not function as independent entities outside presidential oversight. This aligns with the original intent of the Constitution, which vests all executive power in the president under Article II, Section 1. The Washington Times article fails to emphasize this point, instead suggesting that independent agencies have a constitutional right to operate without presidential control, which is not the case.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/689a4/689a4ea4662865681b3995b3fc5ce67231800598" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0550b/0550b03f4180ff652a11feb612530616efdda7f7" alt=""
Why the Executive Order is Constitutional
Article II’s Vesting Clause
- The Constitution explicitly states that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
- This means that all executive branch officials, including regulatory agencies, exercise power only as delegated by the president. They do not have independent constitutional authority.
The Take Care Clause
- Article II, Section 3 requires the president to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
- If agencies are making legal interpretations contrary to the president's direction, that violates the structure of the executive branch. The president has the constitutional duty to ensure a unified and coherent execution of federal law.
The Myth of "Independent" Agencies
- Agencies like the FTC, FCC, and SEC have often been referred to as "independent," but this status is a legislative construct, not a constitutional one.
- While Congress can create agencies and limit the president’s power to remove certain officials (Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 1935), it cannot strip away the president’s core executive power to supervise and direct agency action.
Precedent Supports Presidential Control Over Executive Agencies
- In Myers v. United States (1926), the Supreme Court held that the president has the constitutional authority to remove executive officials, reinforcing the idea that these officials act under his direction.
- More recently, Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) reaffirmed that agencies exercising executive power must remain accountable to the president.
How This Order Restores Constitutional Governance
- The order simply clarifies that executive agencies cannot adopt conflicting interpretations of the law without presidential approval.
- It requires agencies to submit regulations for White House review, ensuring democratic accountability and preventing bureaucratic overreach.
- It restores the principle that agencies do not function as a "fourth branch of government" but are part of the executive branch, under presidential supervision.
In the end...
The Washington Times article mischaracterizes President Trump’s executive order as an unprecedented centralization of power when, in reality, it restores the constitutional structure of the executive branch as the Founders intended. Article II vests all executive power in the president, meaning that federal agencies—including so-called independent regulatory bodies—operate under his authority. The order does not abolish these agencies or prevent them from enforcing laws; it simply ensures they remain accountable to the elected president rather than functioning as an unaccountable fourth branch of government.
This executive order is entirely constitutional and rooted in the Founders’ vision. The Take Care Clause obligates the president to ensure laws are faithfully executed, which cannot happen if agencies adopt conflicting legal interpretations without presidential oversight. Supreme Court precedent—from Myers v. United States (1926) to Seila Law v. CFPB (2020)—has consistently affirmed that regulatory agencies exercising executive power must remain under presidential supervision. While Congress can limit removals in some cases, it cannot strip the president of his constitutional authority over the executive branch.
Far from a power grab, this order corrects decades of bureaucratic overreach that allowed unelected officials to impose costly and controversial regulations without democratic accountability. By requiring agencies to submit proposed rules for White House review, the order ensures that executive actions reflect the will of the people through their elected leader. The Washington Times’ framing is misleading—this is not an expansion of presidential power, but a long-overdue restoration of constitutional governance.
Here are sources that support the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order and the principle of presidential oversight of federal agencies:
Constitutional Text:
- Article II, Section 1 – Vests all executive power in the President.
- U.S. Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
- Article II, Section 3 (Take Care Clause) – Requires the President to ensure laws are faithfully executed.
- U.S. Constitution: "He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Supreme Court Precedents:
- Myers v. United States (1926) – Ruled that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive officers, affirming executive control over the bureaucracy.
- SCOTUS Case Summary: Myers v. United States
- Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) – Allowed Congress to limit presidential removal power in quasi-legislative/quasi-judicial agencies, but did not strip the president of general executive oversight.
- SCOTUS Case Summary: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States
- Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020) – Reaffirmed that executive agencies must be accountable to the President, striking down restrictions on the President’s ability to remove the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
- SCOTUS Case Summary: Seila Law v. CFPB
Legal Scholarship & Analysis:
- Federalist No. 70 (Alexander Hamilton) – Argues for a unitary executive, where the President is singularly responsible for the executive branch’s actions.
- The Federalist Papers: "Federalist No. 70 – The Executive Department Further Considered"
- The Heritage Guide to the Constitution – Provides historical and legal analysis on the President’s executive power and oversight of agencies.
- Heritage Foundation: Article II Executive Power
- Cato Institute Analysis – Discusses the constitutional limits of independent agencies and the need for executive accountability.
- Cato Institute Report: "The Unconstitutionality of Independent Agencies"
White House Executive Order & Fact Sheet:
- Trump’s 2025 Executive Order on Independent Agencies – Full text of the order.
- White House Website: (Currently unavailable—check archived versions or official government sites).
- White House Fact Sheet on the Executive Order – Summarizes the purpose and justification for the order.