President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order Tuesday, February 18, 2025, that would bring independent federal agencies under White House control, marking an unprecedented expansion of presidential power that could reshape how the federal government operates.
The order requires agencies like the Federal Election Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission to submit their regulations for White House review and have their performance standards set by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The order further states that previous presidential administrations have allowed so-called ‘independent regulatory agencies’ to operate with minimal presidential supervision. These regulatory agencies exercise significant executive authority without accountability to the president.
The move represents a direct challenge to decades of established practice, testing a once-fringe legal concept known as the “unitary executive theory,” which argues that the president has sole authority over the executive branch, even when Congress has sought to impose limits.
The unitary executive theory is a legal doctrine asserting that the U.S. president has complete authority over the executive branch, including control over independent agencies and the power to remove their leaders at will. Rooted in a broad interpretation of Article II of the Constitution, the theory argues that all executive power is vested in the president alone, limiting Congress’s ability to insulate certain agencies from direct presidential oversight. While proponents claim this approach enhances accountability and ensures efficient governance, critics warn that it undermines the separation of powers by eroding the independence of regulatory bodies designed to function without political interference. The Supreme Court has increasingly considered cases related to this theory, making it a central issue in debates over presidential authority.
Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, will play a central role in implementing the order. The directive grants Vought authority to establish “performance standards and management objectives” for agency heads and modify their budgets “as necessary and appropriate to advance the president’s policies and priorities.”
In addition to serving as budget chief, Russell Vought temporarily took on the role of acting director at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency where he enacted significant changes, including laying off a large percentage of employees and halting funding.
“It is unprecedented in its sweep, casting aside laws dating back to 1887 that were designed to shield regulators of business and energy markets from direct presidential control,” notes Joel Kirkland of E&E News.
Previous presidents have chosen not to contest the independence of these agencies in court and have often taken steps to avoid creating any impression of influencing their activities. To further protect these agencies from political pressures, many of their leaders are appointed to terms that extend beyond a single presidential term.
The order requires agency heads to regularly consult with OMB and other White House officials on policies and priorities, effectively centralizing decision-making power within the executive branch. It also grants the president and attorney general authority to provide binding legal interpretations for all executive branch employees.
The executive order, broad in scope and marking a significant restructuring of the federal government, essentially formalizes steps the Trump administration had already begun implementing, preparing the administration for likely legal battles. For example, Trump has already removed Gwynne Wilcox, the former chair of the National Labor Relations Board, along with Jennifer Abruzzo, the NLRB’s general counsel, and David Huitema, the director of the Office of Government Ethics. Wilcox has since filed a lawsuit challenging her removal.
Democratic leaders in Congress have announced plans to challenge the order, arguing it violates separation of powers principles. However, with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court potentially receptive to expanding presidential authority, the legal battle could reshape the balance of power in Washington, D.C.
