Supreme Court likely to allow Trump FTC firing, expanding presidential power
Rebecca Slaughter, commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), during a House Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, DC, July 13, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday appeared likely to allow President Donald Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission purely for policy reasons, likely rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials in a decision that would expand presidential power.
The case could transform the federal government and effectively end the independence of some two dozen bipartisan agencies that Congress had designed to be insulated from political interference and direct White House supervision.
All six of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices indicated during oral arguments in the case, Trump v. Slaughter, that a president should have absolute control over the leadership of any government body carrying out executive functions, such as rulemaking and law enforcement.
They pointed to Article II of the Constitution which says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President” and that he alone “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Such a ruling would overrule or substantially limit a unanimous 1935 Supreme Court decision involving the FTC — Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. — which had affirmed limits on a president’s ability to fire members of the commission only for cause.
“Humphrey’s Executor is just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was,” Chief Justice John Roberts said bluntly.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the earlier Supreme Court had egregiously erred, opening the door for Congress to circumvent the president altogether if it wanted to.
Could every Cabinet office “be headed by a multi-member commission whose members are not subject to at-will removal by the president?” he asked Amit Agarwal, the attorney representing the terminated FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.
The Supreme Court’s three liberal members vigorously defended the agencies as they were designed by Congress — and signed into law by prior presidents — as legitimate sentinels of the public interest and regulatory continuity across administrations.
“You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Trump administration Solicitor General John Sauer.
Justice Elena Kagan said she worried about a slippery slope.
“The result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive unchecked, uncontrolled power not only to do traditional execution [of the laws] but to make law,” Kagan said, referring to the agencies’ regulatory authority.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned of the “danger” in allowing a president to replace members of independent commissions with “loyalists and people who don’t know anything” about the agency’s expertise.
Independent agencies have regulated American monetary policy and stock trades, transportation systems and election campaigns, consumer product safety and broadcast licenses historically overseen by subject-matter experts from both parties.
“If the petitioners get their way,” said Agarwal, “everyone is on the chopping block.”
Few of the conservatives seemed concerned about the consequences.
“It’s been suggested if we rule for you, the entire government will fall,” Alito told Sauer.
“The sky will not fall. In fact, the entire government will live with accountability,” Sauer replied.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the justices most often in the majority camp on the Supreme Court’s decisions, made a point of downplaying the impact of potential fallout.
“Overruling or narrowing Humphrey’s won’t affect the existence of these agencies,” he pointed out. Sauer agreed.
Kavanaugh also suggested the Supreme Court is likely to carve out two exceptions to a ruling that would give a president greater control: the Federal Reserve Bank, which is also an independent agency, and administrative courts, such as the tax court, which are operated out of the executive branch.
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case involving Trump’s unprecedented attempt to fire a Democratically-appointed member of the Federal Reserve, Lisa Cook. She currently remains on the job after the justices declined Trump’s request to stay a lower court decision.
The outcome in the Slaughter case will determine whether or not there will be any Democrats left on the FTC or other regulatory bodies, and whether any of the other independent agencies will be truly “independent” any longer.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June 2026.
Representative Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, speaks during a town hall event in Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026. A man was apprehended during a town hall event with Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar after spraying unknown substance, according the to Associated Press.(Angelina Katsanis/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(MINNEAPOLIS) — During a town hall in Minneapolis on Tuesday, a man charged the podium where Rep. Ilhan Omar was giving remarks, appeared to squirt a liquid at her and was then tackled to the ground by a security guard after a brief struggle.
The man, identified as 55-year-old Anthony Kazmierczak was arrested and booked into Hennepin County Jail on suspicion of third-degree assault, Minneapolis police said.
The department said its officers were at the town hall for the event and observed a man use a syringe to spray an unknown liquid on to the congresswoman.
The incident sparked cries of alarm from those in attendance. The congresswoman did not appear to be injured.
“I’m going to finish my remarks. It is important for me to continue,” Omar said, using a profanity.
“We will continue,” she said. “These f—— a——- are not going to get away with it!”
The disturbance comes amid tensions in Minneapolis between local officials and the Trump administration over the immigration crackdown in the city that has seen two U.S. citizens killed in shootings involving federal agents.
Shortly before the man charged the podium, Omar called for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Afterward, she told reporters that she won’t be intimidated.
“You know, I’ve survived more, and I’m definitely going to survive intimidation and whatever these people think that they can throw at me because I’m built that way,” she said.
Omar has been the target of attacks from President Donald Trump for years. More recently, his attacks have come alongside escalated rhetoric describing the Somali community in Minnesota, the largest in the nation.
In the past several weeks, Trump has called Omar a “fake sleazebag,” and called for her to be thrown out of the U.S.
In a phone interview Tuesday evening with ABC News’ Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott, Trump said he hadn’t seen video of the incident and without providing evidence accused Omar of staging the attack.
“I don’t think about her. I think she’s a fraud,” Trump said. “She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her.”
In a post on X regarding Tuesday’s incident, Omar said: “I’m ok. I’m a survivor so this small agitator isn’t going to intimidate me from doing my work. I don’t let bullies win. Grateful to my incredible constituents who rallied behind me. Minnesota strong.”
In a statement, U.S. Capitol Police said: “Tonight, a man is in custody after he decided to assault a Member of Congress — an unacceptable decision that will be met with swift justice.” The department said it is “working with our federal partners to see this man faces the most serious charges possible to deter this kind of violence in our society.”
Capitol Police said threats against members of Congress increased for the third year in a row. The department said it investigated 14,938 concerning statements, behaviors and communications directed against members of Congress, their families and their staff last year — compared to 9,474 in 2024.
(NEW YORK) — The No. 2 official in the Justice Department told ABC News in an interview Friday that there has been “no effort” to redact President Donald Trump’s name from the release of files stemming from federal investigations into convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked Friday in an interview by ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas whether every document that mentions Trump will be released as the government continues its rollout of hundreds of thousands of files in the coming weeks.
“Assuming it’s consistent with the law, yes,” Blanche said. “So there’s no effort to hold anything back because there’s the name Donald J. Trump or anybody else’s name, Bill Clinton’s name, Reid Hoffman’s name. There’s no effort to hold back or not hold back because of that and — and so — but again, we’re not, we’re not redacting the names of famous men and women that are associated with Epstein.”
When directly pressed over whether there’s been any order to DOJ personnel to redact materials involving Trump, Blanche rejected any such suggestion and accused Democratic lawmakers of using selective disclosures from Epstein’s estate to present Trump in a negative light.
“President Trump has certainly said from the beginning that he expects all files that can be released to be released and that’s exactly what we’re doing,” Blanche said.
Blanche sat for the interview just hours before the department released its first tranche of thousands of files, which contained little information related to Trump and instead included images of former President Bill Clinton without context, which were highlighted on social media by DOJ and White House officials.
A spokesperson for Clinton accused the department of selectively disclosing the pictures in a statement and denied that they showed any wrongdoing by the former president.
“The White House hasn’t been hiding these files for months only to dump them late on a Friday only to protect Bill Clinton,” Clinton’s spokesperson Angel Urena said Friday. “They can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton.”
“Everyone, especially MAGA, expects answers, not scapegoats,” the spokesperson said.
In the ABC News interview, Blanche further sought to defend the department’s decision not to release the entirety of its files subject to disclosure under the bill signed into law by Trump, which gave the Justice Department a 30-day deadline to release the entirety of its Epstein investigative files.
“I did not say that all the files will not be released, I said all the files will not be released today,” Blanche said when asked about an interview he gave earlier Friday to Fox News. “And the law is very specific that the Department of Justice is required to make sure that we protect victims. And as recently as Wednesday, we learned of additional victim names, and so we’ve received over 1,200 names of victims and their family members since we started this process. And so there’s an established precedent that in a situation like this, where it’s in essence impossible for us to comply with the law today, that we comply with the law, consistent with the law.”
When asked whether the public should be confident that Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s personal defense attorney, would act in the public’s interest over Trump, Blanche said the American people should look at what the department ultimately releases.
“Your confidence should be in the fact that for decades, lots of people have been trying to go after President Trump falsely, and when it came to the Epstein saga, it’s exactly the same story.”
Blanche added that the process to make redactions to the documents, “was not Attorney General [Pam] Bondi, [FBI] Director Patel, Todd Blanche going through and coding millions of documents and saying, ‘yes, no, yes, no.’ You have multiple, dozens and dozens of the most highly trained lawyers in the Department of Justice working for the National Security Division. These are career lawyers engaged in this process.”
Blanche defends prison transfer of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell
In the interview, Blanche also defended the department’s controversial move over the summer to transfer Epstein’s convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell to a lower security prison facility just days after he sat for an interview with her over two days in Florida.
In an interview released by Vanity Fair earlier this week, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles denied that Trump was involved in the decision and said he disapproved of Maxwell’s transfer.
While Blanche said he was “not permitted” to talk about security for individual inmates, he said Maxwell was facing “multiple threats” that warranted her being moved to a separate low-security facility in Texas.
“At the time that she was moved, there were multiple threats against her life, and like happens all the time at the Bureau of Prisons when that happens, one of the things that one of the options available to the warden and the security system within the Bureau of Prisons is to move the inmate,” Blanche said. “She’s not released. She’s in federal prison.”
Blanche further denied Maxwell was receiving any preferential treatment in the new facility, despite recent whistleblower disclosures released by congressional Democrats.
Blanche says investigations into Comey, James will continue
ABC News separately asked Blanche whether the department plans to continue pursuing prosecutions against two of Trump’s top political targets, New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey after a federal judge tossed their indictments in November on the basis that a Trump-installed prosecutor was unlawfully appointed.
Two separate federal grand juries in the past two weeks have rejected the department’s efforts to re-indict James on mortgage fraud charges and a separate federal judge in Washington, D.C., has restricted prosecutors from accessing key evidence in their probe of Comey.
Blanche confirmed the department’s investigation into Comey “is continuing” and said it was “not a mystery” that DOJ plans to still seek charges against him and rejected any suggestion the prosecution was “vindictive.”
James and Comey have denied all wrongdoing.
When asked about the interview that Wiles, the White House chief of staff, gave to Vanity Fair in which she candidly appeared to concede the DOJ’s prosecution of James was “retribution,” Blanche again defended the department’s actions.
“Because we’re looking at the evidence, we’re investigating them, investigating the cases. We have law enforcement, career law enforcement, doing the investigations are being presented to a grand jury in the normal course,” Blanche said.
ABC News has previously reported that career prosecutors on both the James and Comey investigations recommended prosecutors not pursue either indictment based on what they considered the lack of sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (C) arrives to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former special counsel Jack Smith, testifying Thursday before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, was unequivocal about who caused the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6, that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit the violence,” Smith testified. “We followed the facts and we followed the law — where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power.”
Smith, who led investigations into Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election and alleged mishandling of classified documents, is testifying publicly for first time about his probes.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases, before both cases were dropped following Trump’s reelection due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
The former special counsel said that partisan politics did not play a role in his decision to charge Trump in his two investigations.
“Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and, who wanted him to win the election. These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign and advisors,” Smith said of his election interference probe.
In seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, Trump was “looking for ways to stay in power,” Smith testified.
Trump was not “was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him, things that conflicted with him staying power, he rejected them or he chose not even to contact people like that,” Smith told committee members.
Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Smith discussed the witnesses his team had interviewed in his election interference probe.
“There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in Georgia who told Donald Trump the truth, told him things that he did not want to hear and put him on notice that what he was saying was false,” Smith said. “And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it’s going to impose a cost on them in their lives — my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that, because they pay a cost for telling the truth.”
Smith said that he got the phone toll records for some members of Congress because his office was investigating the conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
“We wanted to conduct a thorough investigation of the matters, that were assigned to me, including attempts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power. The conspiracy that we were investigating, it was relevant to get toll records, to understand the scope of that conspiracy, who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to influence, who was seeking to help them,” Smith said, arguing that it was a normal piece of an investigation.
In a back-and-forth with Republican Rep. Darryl Issa, Smith said he didn’t target then-President Joe Biden’s political enemies.
“Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren’t you?” Issa asked.
“No,” Smith said. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”
He said that the decision to bring charges against Trump was solely his decision and that he was not pressured by any Biden official.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said. “Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.”
In his introductory remarks, Smith also said the president illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“After leaving office in January of ’21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information withheld in a ballroom and a bathroom,” Smith said.
Smith said that the facts and the law supported a prosecution, and that he made decisions not based on politics, but the facts and the law.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican,” he said.
“No one, no one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith said. “To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases, would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing.”
He also criticized what he said was the retribution carried out by the president and his allies against agents and prosecutors who investigated the cases.
“My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” he said. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what test and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.”
In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan blasted Smith for what he called a partisan investigation into President Trump and other Republicans.
“Democrats have been going after President Trump for ten years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.
Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said that Smith proved that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
“Special counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. You followed every applicable law, ethics rule and DOJ regulation. Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity section. You acted based solely on the facts — the opposite of Donald Trump,” Raskin said.
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell said that Republicans on the dais “are a joke.”
“They’re wrong. History will harshly judge them,” he said.
Trump’s Thursday appearance marks Smith’s second time before the committee, after he appeared behind closed doors last month. It is customary for former special counsels to appear before Congress publicly to discuss their findings.
In his closed-door testimony, Smith defended his decision to twice bring charges against Trump — telling lawmakers his team “had proof beyond reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty of the charges in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases, according to a transcript of the hearing.
And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to allegations of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the transcripts shows.
“No,” Smith responded continuously to those allegations, according to the transcript.
Just over an hour before his testimony on Dec. 17, the Department of Justice sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released last year by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.
This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions on that case and the deposition — intended to ask questions about the alleged weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and his allies — mainly focused on the 2020 election case instead.
His team also said Smith will comply with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order that blocked the release of the second volume of his report dealing with the classified documents case.
Smith’s counsel said the DOJ also refused to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were in line with their determination of what he could or could not say regarding the cases, according to the deposition. Smith did say, however, that Trump “tried to obstruct justice” in the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.
