Why Independent Agencies Are a Threat to Democracy
It’s time someone said it: independent agencies in the executive branch are an affront to the Constitution and a direct attack on accountability. For nearly a century, these so-called “independent” bureaucracies have operated like shadow governments, free from the oversight of the very officials elected to run them. And now, with the Supreme Court considering overturning the disastrous 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor, we finally have a chance to restore sanity—but the resistance is fierce.
Let’s be clear: there is no fourth branch of government. The framers of the Constitution were meticulous in dividing powers among three co-equal branches—legislative, executive, and judicial. They did not grant Congress the authority to create self-governing fiefdoms within the executive branch. Yet that’s precisely what we have today: agencies staffed by unelected “experts” who answer to no one but themselves.
The Origin of the Problem: A Court Decision Gone Wrong
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court handed down Humphrey’s Executor, siding with FDR over the principle of presidential control. This decision allowed commissioners of agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission to be immune from presidential oversight, except in cases of malfeasance or neglect. At the time, it may have seemed like a minor ruling, but it created a precedent that exploded government power beyond what the Constitution permits.
Since then, independent agencies have multiplied—there are at least 19 today—each insulated from voters, free to pursue its own political agenda. The intended “neutrality” of these agencies is a smokescreen; in reality, it’s a mechanism for bureaucrats to wield unchecked influence over every corner of American life.
Congress Doesn’t Get to Rewrite the Constitution
Some defenders argue that Congress has the right to create independent agencies. Here’s the harsh reality: it doesn’t. The Constitution explicitly places the executive under the president’s control. If the Framers had wanted to insulate bureaucratic power from the president, they would have written it into the document. They did not.
Every argument that claims independent agencies preserve democracy is, in fact, the opposite. They are anti-democratic by design. They remove power from elected officials, obscure accountability, and concentrate authority in the hands of unelected elites. For nearly a century, voters have had limited recourse against these agencies, and the results have been disastrous.
Restoring Constitutional Order Is Not Optional
The Supreme Court now has a chance to correct a historic mistake. Overturning Humphrey’s Executor would restore the president’s ability to manage the executive branch fully—nothing more, nothing less. This is not a power grab; it is a return to the rule of law. It would ensure that executive agencies answer to the president, and through him, to the American people.
Opponents scream about “unchecked power,” but the truth is precisely the opposite: independent agencies have given bureaucrats unchecked power for decades. Correcting this error won’t destroy democracy—it will save it. And make no mistake: this fight isn’t about Trump. It’s about ending nine decades of unelected bureaucratic control over our government.
Bottom Line
Independent agencies are a cancer on the executive branch, a violation of the separation of powers, and a threat to voter accountability. The Constitution is clear: the president runs the executive branch. Period. No agency should ever be immune to oversight, no bureaucrat should answer to no one, and no politician should be allowed to claim that these fiefdoms are “constitutional.” It’s time to clean house, restore accountability, and finally put the people back in control.
We are so screwed.
— Steve
