Donald Trump has once again made headlines with a controversial move that has sparked heated debates across the political spectrum.
The former president, now serving his second term, has taken decisive steps to reshape the federal government’s power structure.
Trump has already signed a series of executive orders, ranging from renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America to reinstating policies that reflect his administration’s priorities.
However, his latest executive order, signed on February 18, has raised serious concerns among legal experts and government officials.
This order is not just another routine directive but a significant shift in the balance of power within the United States government.
For decades, independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have operated with autonomy.
These agencies have been structured to function without direct presidential control, ensuring that regulatory decisions are made based on expert analysis rather than political influence.
But with Trump’s new executive order, that long-standing independence has been dismantled, placing these agencies under direct White House oversight.
Under the new directive, these agencies must now submit all major regulatory proposals to the White House for approval.
This means that instead of acting independently, they will be required to align their decisions with the administration’s political agenda.
Russell Vought, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a close Trump ally, will oversee this transition.
He will be responsible for setting performance standards, making budgetary adjustments, and ensuring that agency heads comply with the new White House guidelines.
This order has drawn strong reactions from political and legal analysts, with many arguing that it threatens the fundamental principle of separation of powers.
Amanda Tyler, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, warned that the move could have far-reaching consequences.
“The idea behind independent agencies is to have insulation from the political winds, ensuring that we don’t have wild volatility of policy,” she stated.
Critics argue that this executive order is an extension of Trump’s broader plan to consolidate power within the executive branch.
It aligns with “Project 2025,” a conservative initiative designed to bring all major federal agencies under direct presidential control.
The goal of this project is to eliminate what Trump and his allies call “the deep state,” reducing bureaucratic resistance to his administration’s policies.
The legal implications of this move are significant, as it challenges decades of established precedent that protected agency independence.
While the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy functions remain exempt, other regulatory functions within the agency will now fall under presidential oversight.
The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, may play a critical role in determining whether this order stands in the long run.
Former presidents, including Barack Obama, deliberately avoided exerting influence over these agencies to maintain the integrity of regulatory decisions.
By breaking this precedent, Trump has positioned himself as a leader willing to challenge long-standing government norms.
This move could make him one of the most powerful presidents in U.S. history by giving him direct control over the agencies that shape national policies.
The question remains: Will this order lead to greater efficiency, or does it mark the beginning of a significant erosion of democratic safeguards?
As the political and legal battles unfold, Trump’s decision is already shaping the future of executive power in ways that could redefine governance in the United States.
Feature Image Credit: (ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP) (Fox)
