Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
In a significant development that raises concerns regarding bipartisanship within regulatory agencies, former President Donald Trump has terminated two Democratic commissioners from the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The individuals dismissed include Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, with Bedoya confirming his ousting via social media.
In his post, Bedoya described his removal as unlawful, stating, “I’m a Commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission. The President just illegally fired me.” He emphasized the FTC’s historical role, established over a century ago, in combating fraudulent practices and monopolistic behavior. Bedoya voiced concerns that the current administration seeks to undermine the agency’s independence and integrity, suggesting that Trump desires the FTC to act in a manner favorable to his personal allies.
Similarly, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter publicly addressed her termination, labeling the action illegal and contrary to established legal principles. In her remarks to various media outlets, she expressed her belief that her dismissal stemmed from a fear of dissenting voices within the FTC. “Today, the President illegally fired me from my position as a Federal Trade Commissioner, violating the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent. Why? Because I have a voice, and he is afraid of what I’ll tell the American people,” Slaughter stated.
Furthermore, Slaughter articulated her apprehensions regarding the implications of removing dissenting perspectives from the FTC. She indicated that such actions could erode the agency’s ability to hold the administration accountable for its dealings with influential corporations. Her statement underscored a belief that the present administration is wary of the scrutiny that independent voices within regulatory bodies might bring.
This incident brings to light a critical historical context: a Supreme Court ruling from 1935 established that FTC commissioners can only be dismissed for just cause, such as failing to perform their responsibilities. This precedent aims to protect independent agencies from undue influence by the executive branch, ensuring that their operations remain objective and grounded in the public interest.
As discussions around the implications of these firings unfold, the broader conversation about the balance of power in regulatory agencies and the importance of maintaining independent oversight continues to gain prominence.
Source
www.theguardian.com