Summary

Donald Trump fired FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the agency’s only Democrats, prompting accusations of illegal action.

Both cited Supreme Court precedent protecting FTC commissioners from dismissal without cause. Bedoya warned Trump wants the FTC to serve corporate interests, while Slaughter said the administration fears accountability.

The 1935 Supreme Court ruling bars presidents from removing FTC commissioners arbitrarily.

Critics say the move undermines regulatory independence and eliminates opposition voices that could challenge Trump’s policies favoring major corporations.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    18 hours ago

    What I don’t understand is, in what sense did he actually fire you? It’s illegal. Just show up to work anyways.

    • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      17 hours ago

      If the security team and the operations team are willing to obey the order and revoke access then the illegal firing is very much effective.

      The jackboot thugs that work security for these government agencies have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re happy to listen to the children running DOGE over the members of the agency that they’re supposed to be securing, so at that point what do you expect one of these beaurocrats to do? Get into a fist fight with all the mall cops that are itching to serve the fascists?

    • RedditSucks88@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Why do people keep saying this is illegal lol. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it illegal. Don’t you think some high powered lawyer would offer to fight this for them?

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Alternatively, it’s illegal because it was confirmed to be illegal by the supreme court in 1935. Why would you assume we’re not speaking truthfully?

      • Zedd_Prophecy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Did you not read the article OR the comments? ? ? I quote an above op who paraphrased the law. “They do have a ruling. 1935. May not without cause. Specific language is inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”