To appreciate the magnitude of The Great Reclamation, it’s essential to understand the precedent it overturned. In 1935, the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor upheld statutory restrictions on the president’s power to remove commissioners of independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), unless for specific causes like “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The case arose when President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to fire FTC Commissioner William Humphrey, a Republican appointee, over policy disagreements related to the New Deal. The Court ruled unanimously that Congress could impose such limits on agencies with “quasi-legislative” or “quasi-judicial” functions, arguing that these entities required independence from direct presidential control to function effectively.
The biggest opponent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States in 1935 was President Franklin D. Roosevelt himself, as the case directly stemmed from his attempt to remove William Humphrey, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner, over policy disagreements. Roosevelt, a Democrat pushing his New Deal agenda, sought to replace Humphrey, a Republican appointee, to align the FTC with his economic policies. When Humphrey challenged his removal, arguing that the FTC Act protected him from being fired without cause, Roosevelt’s administration contended that the president had broad authority to remove executive officers under Article II of the Constitution.
Roosevelt’s position reflected his belief in a strong executive, a view that clashed with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which upheld statutory limits on the president’s removal power for independent agency officials. The Court’s ruling was a direct rebuke to Roosevelt’s assertion of presidential authority, making him the primary opponent of the precedent established by the case.
For 90 years, Humphrey’s Executor served as the bedrock for the modern administrative state, shielding agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from presidential oversight. This precedent entrenched a system where unelected bureaucrats, insulated from accountability, wielded significant regulatory power, often acting contrary to the policies of elected presidents. Critics, particularly those advocating for the unitary executive theory, argued that this arrangement violated Article II of the Constitution, which vests all executive power in the president. The 2025 ruling has now corrected this perceived constitutional overreach, restoring the president’s authority to supervise and remove executive branch officials at will.
The Court’s 6-3 decision, issued as an unsigned order in response to an emergency appeal from the Trump administration, marks a seismic shift in constitutional law. The case stemmed from Trump’s firings of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) chair Cathy Harris, both protected by for-cause removal statutes. The Court’s order stayed their reinstatement, signaling a likely intent to overturn Humphrey’s Executor outright. The majority reasoned that “because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents.” This language reaffirms the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president must have full control over the executive branch to faithfully execute the laws, as mandated by Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.
The decision was not without controversy. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Kagan arguing that the ruling “effectively repealed Humphrey’s Executor by fiat,” bypassing the Court’s deliberative process. She warned that the decision could undermine the independence of agencies like the Federal Reserve, though the majority carved out a curious exception for the Fed, citing its “uniquely structured, quasi-private” nature. Despite the dissent, the conservative supermajority’s embrace of a robust executive authority reflects a broader judicial trend under Chief Justice John Roberts, who has consistently signaled skepticism toward congressional limits on presidential power, as seen in the 2020 Seila Law v. CFPB case.
One of the most significant implications of The Great Reclamation is its potential to restore presidential war powers to their constitutional fullness. The Humphrey’s Executor precedent indirectly bolstered the administrative state’s ability to constrain executive action, including in matters of national security and foreign policy. Independent agencies, staffed with officials insulated from presidential removal, often imposed regulatory hurdles or pursued agendas misaligned with the commander-in-chief’s priorities. For example, agencies like the NLRB or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could enact policies that complicate military logistics or international trade agreements critical to national defense.
With Humphrey’s Executor overturned, Trump can now appoint and remove agency heads who align with his national security vision, ensuring that the executive branch operates as a cohesive unit during times of crisis. This is particularly vital in an era of global instability, where rapid decision-making is paramount. The president’s ability to control agencies like the Department of Defense’s regulatory arms or the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees critical infrastructure, strengthens his capacity to respond decisively to threats. While the ruling does not directly address war powers, the removal of bureaucratic obstacles enhances the president’s ability to exercise his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, a cornerstone of executive power under Article II.
The term “deep state” refers to entrenched, unelected bureaucrats who wield significant influence over policy, often resisting the directives of elected officials. The Great Reclamation has been celebrated on platforms like X as a “nuclear key” handed to Trump, enabling him to dismantle this network of unaccountable officials. By removing for-cause protections, the ruling allows Trump to fire agency heads and commissioners who obstruct his agenda, replacing them with loyalists who share his vision for governance. This includes agencies like the FTC, which enforces antitrust laws, the SEC, which regulates financial markets, and the CPSC, which oversees consumer safety.
The ability to purge the deep state is not merely a political maneuver but a restoration of democratic accountability. Independent agencies, shielded by Humphrey’s Executor, often operated as a “headless fourth branch” of government, unanswerable to voters or their elected representatives. For instance, the NLRB’s actions under previous leadership were criticized for favoring labor unions over business interests, while the CPSC’s regulations were seen by some as overly restrictive. Trump’s newfound authority allows him to align these agencies with the priorities of his administration, whether that involves deregulating to spur economic growth or prioritizing national security over bureaucratic red tape.
In Federalist No. 70, Hamilton argues forcefully for a single, energetic executive, which directly supports the 2025 ruling’s rejection of Humphrey’s Executor. Hamilton writes, “A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. Federalist No. 72 provides the most direct support for the overturning of Humphrey’s Executor. In this essay, Hamilton discusses the president’s authority over the administration of the executive branch, including the power to appoint and remove officers. In Federalist No. 77, Hamilton further elaborates on the president’s authority over executive officers, particularly in the context of appointments, which implicitly includes the power of removal. While Federalist No. 51, authored by Madison, is best known for its discussion of checks and balances, it also supports the 2025 ruling by emphasizing the importance of accountability within the branches of government. Madison writes, “The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” And in Federalist No. 67, where Hamilton defends the president’s role as commander-in-chief. He writes, “The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States… These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies.”
Critics argue that this power risks politicizing agencies meant to operate independently, potentially leading to partisan abuses. However, supporters counter that the president, as the only nationally elected official in the executive branch, is uniquely positioned to reflect the will of the people. The Great Reclamation ensures that agencies serve the public’s interests as articulated through the electoral process, rather than perpetuating self-serving bureaucratic agendas.
The overturning of Humphrey’s Executor has far-reaching implications beyond war powers and bureaucratic purges. It strengthens the president’s ability to implement his policy agenda across the executive branch, from environmental regulations to consumer protections. For example, Trump can now replace FTC commissioners who oppose his deregulation efforts or SEC officials who resist his approach to financial oversight. This flexibility allows for a more agile and responsive government, capable of adapting to the priorities of the administration in power.
Moreover, the ruling aligns with the conservative legal movement’s long-standing goal of dismantling the administrative state, which many view as an unconstitutional overreach. By affirming the unitary executive theory, the Court has reasserted the president’s role as the chief steward of the executive branch, ensuring that agencies operate under his supervision rather than as independent fiefdoms. This shift could lead to a more streamlined federal government, reducing regulatory burdens on businesses and individuals while enhancing efficiency.
While The Great Reclamation is a triumph for executive authority, it is not without challenges. The exception carved out for the Federal Reserve raises questions about the ruling’s consistency, as critics argue that there is “no principled way” to preserve the Fed’s independence while stripping other agencies of their protections. Market instability could result if investors perceive that the Fed’s monetary policy is subject to presidential influence, though the Court’s carve-out may mitigate this risk. Additionally, the rapid pace of Trump’s firings—targeting officials at the NLRB, MSPB, and CPSC—has sparked accusations of partisan overreach, with some warning of a “subservient” administration.
Nevertheless, the ruling’s supporters argue that these concerns are outweighed by the restoration of constitutional balance. The president’s ability to remove agency officials ensures that the executive branch remains accountable to the electorate, preventing unelected bureaucrats from undermining democratic mandates. As Trump navigates these challenges, his administration’s success will depend on appointing capable, principled officials who can execute his vision without destabilizing critical institutions confirmed by the Senate returning balance to the idea of checks and balances to America.
Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer.
