The crumbling of regulatory independence: When constitutional checks on tech power fragment under political pressure.

The Constitutional Crisis Hidden in Plain Sight

How Trump’s firing of FTC commissioners just rewrote the rules of democratic governance

On March 18, 2025, President Trump fired two Democratic commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission in a move that received surprisingly little mainstream attention. Most Americans scrolled past the headlines, dismissing it as typical Washington personnel drama. They shouldn’t have.

This seemingly bureaucratic action represents the most direct assault on independent regulatory authority since the 1930s, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the presidency and the institutions designed to constrain it. More importantly, it’s happening at the exact moment when those institutions are most crucial for governing the technological forces reshaping our society.

The Independence That Democracy Depends On

The Federal Trade Commission wasn’t designed to be another arm of presidential power. Created in 1914 and reinforced by the Supreme Court’s 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, independent agencies like the FTC exist precisely because some governmental functions require insulation from political pressure.

When it comes to antitrust enforcement against tech giants, consumer protection in digital markets, and privacy regulation of platforms that shape public discourse, the need for independence becomes even more critical. These are decisions that affect the fundamental structure of our information economy, and they demand expertise and consistency that transcends electoral cycles.

Trump’s firing of Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter doesn’t just violate nearly a century of precedent. It eliminates the institutional buffer between presidential politics and the regulation of companies whose power rivals that of governments themselves.

The Perfect Storm of Power and Technology

The timing of this constitutional crisis couldn’t be more consequential. The fired commissioners weren’t passive bureaucrats; they were overseeing active antitrust investigations into Meta, Amazon, Google, and other tech giants whose influence over American society has grown exponentially in recent years.

Bedoya had been leading efforts to strengthen privacy protections and examine how algorithmic systems affect vulnerable communities. Slaughter was pushing for more aggressive enforcement against companies that use their market dominance to stifle competition. Their removal sends a clear message: tech regulation will now serve political priorities rather than public interest.

This represents a fundamental shift in how America governs its most powerful corporations. When regulatory agencies become extensions of presidential authority, the distinction between public and private power begins to blur in ways that would have alarmed the founders of both our constitutional system and our antitrust laws.

Democracy’s Institutional Immune System

Independent agencies function like democracy’s immune system, protecting the body politic from the concentration of power that threatens healthy governance. The FTC’s independence allows it to pursue cases that might be politically inconvenient but legally necessary, ensuring that even the most powerful interests face meaningful oversight.

When that independence disappears, we don’t just lose effective regulation. We lose the institutional capacity to adapt democratic governance to technological change. The result is a system where technological power and political power reinforce each other, creating feedback loops that concentrate authority in ways our constitutional framework was never designed to handle.

The fired commissioners understood this dynamic. In their lawsuit challenging Trump’s action, they describe it as “corruption plain and simple,” arguing that the president cannot simply remove officials whose investigations threaten his political allies.

The Tech Oligarchy’s Perfect Victory

For tech giants, Trump’s action represents the ideal regulatory environment: agencies that respond to political pressure rather than legal standards. This doesn’t just mean lighter enforcement; it means the possibility of regulatory capture on an unprecedented scale.

Consider the implications: platforms that shape public discourse now face oversight from commissioners who serve at the pleasure of politicians whose careers depend on those same platforms. The conflicts of interest are so obvious they would be comical if the stakes weren’t so high.

Meta’s ongoing antitrust case, Amazon’s marketplace practices, Google’s search monopoly: all of these investigations now proceed under the shadow of presidential politics. The companies being investigated know that their regulatory fate depends not on legal merit but on political calculations.

The Precedent That Changes Everything

Trump’s FTC purge establishes a precedent that extends far beyond tech regulation. If presidents can fire commissioners who pursue politically inconvenient cases, the entire structure of independent regulatory authority becomes meaningless.

The Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: every agency designed to constrain powerful interests now operates under the implicit threat that independence will be punished. This transforms the regulatory state from a check on concentrated power into an extension of it.

Future presidents, regardless of party, will inherit this expanded authority. The institutional damage doesn’t reverse with electoral victories; it compounds with each administration that chooses politics over institutional integrity.

The Global Implications

America’s retreat from independent tech regulation comes at precisely the moment when other democracies are strengthening their capacity to govern digital platforms. The European Union’s Digital Markets Act, the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Bill, and similar legislation worldwide represent attempts to assert democratic authority over technological power.

Trump’s actions signal that America is moving in the opposite direction, weakening the institutions necessary for democratic governance of technology. This doesn’t just affect American consumers and competitors; it undermines global efforts to establish norms for how democratic societies should relate to the digital platforms that increasingly shape social and political life.

The Response That Matters

The fired commissioners’ lawsuit represents more than an attempt to reclaim their positions. It’s a test of whether American courts will enforce the constitutional principles that separate democratic governance from authoritarian rule.

The case will likely reach the Supreme Court, where it will join other challenges to the expansion of presidential power. The outcome will determine whether independent agencies retain meaningful authority or become mere extensions of whatever political coalition controls the White House.

State attorneys general, advocacy organizations, and even some Republican lawmakers have begun expressing concern about the precedent Trump’s actions establish. The question is whether institutional resistance can mobilize quickly enough to prevent permanent damage to regulatory independence.

The Stakes We Can’t Ignore

This constitutional crisis matters because it’s happening at the intersection of technological transformation and democratic governance. The decisions made by agencies like the FTC don’t just affect market competition; they shape the information environment in which democratic participation occurs.

When regulatory independence disappears, we lose more than effective oversight of powerful corporations. We lose the institutional capacity to ensure that technological change serves democratic values rather than undermining them.

The American experiment has always depended on institutions strong enough to constrain concentrated power. Trump’s firing of FTC commissioners represents a direct attack on that institutional framework, using bureaucratic procedures to achieve what would be impossible through constitutional amendment.

The Choice Before Us

We stand at a moment when the fundamental architecture of American governance is being rewritten through seemingly minor administrative actions. The firing of two federal commissioners might seem insignificant compared to other political dramas, but it represents a more profound threat to democratic governance than most Americans realize.

The question isn’t whether we support or oppose particular regulatory policies. It’s whether we want to preserve the institutional independence necessary for democratic societies to govern technological change effectively.

The answer we give will determine not just how America regulates its most powerful corporations, but whether we maintain the institutional capacity to be a democracy worthy of the name.

This constitutional crisis is hidden in plain sight, disguised as routine personnel decisions. By the time its full implications become obvious, the damage may be irreversible. The choice to pay attention and to demand institutional integrity belongs to all of us.

But only if we recognize that the stakes involve more than regulatory policy. They involve the fundamental question of whether democratic institutions can survive the concentration of power that threatens to overwhelm them.