Economist Peter St Onge said a recent Supreme Court decision marks a major shift in the balance of power between the presidency and independent federal agencies, arguing the ruling restores greater accountability to elected officials by allowing the president to remove officials previously shielded from dismissal.

St Onge discussed the Court's 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, describing it as one of the most significant decisions affecting the federal bureaucracy in decades.

“The Supreme Court just gutted one of the load-bearing walls of the deep state, voting 6-3 to let Trump fire 1000s of independent bureaucrats who are the spine of the deep state,” St Onge said.

He argued that the ruling could fundamentally alter how the federal government is managed.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

“Could we see the day when voters actually control the government that rules them?” St Onge said.

According to St Onge, the case revisited a legal precedent that had remained in place for nearly a century.

“Last week, the Supreme Court decided the long-anticipated Trump v. Slaughter case, which revisits a 90-year precedent called Humphreys Executor that insulated independent agencies from dismissal by the president,” St Onge said.

He argued that those agencies exercise broad influence over federal policy while remaining largely insulated from direct presidential control.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

“Now this matters because independent agencies control some of the most important policy levers in the federal government, including the FTC that was at issue in Slaughter, which can block corporate mergers, the SEC, CFTC, and FDIC, which control financial markets and banking insurance, the FCC, who controls free speech, FEC for elections, NLRB for unions, FERC for energy markets, EEOC for affirmative action, and US ITC, that controls much of trade policy,” St Onge said.

He maintained that these agencies collectively oversee a substantial portion of the federal government.

“Is pretty close to the whole shebang, that's a substantial part of the federal government, all outside the control of the president, meaning outside the control of voters,” St Onge said.

St Onge argued that the decision shifts authority back toward elected officials.

“So Slaughter puts the ball back in voters' hands,” he said.

He traced the development of the modern civil service to the late nineteenth century, criticizing what he described as a long-term effort to remove government decision-making from direct voter influence.

“The background here is socialist progressives waged a century long jihad to take the government away from voters and turn it into a self licking ice cream cone that serves the progressive revolution,” St Onge said.

He identified the Pendleton Act of 1883 as a turning point.

“The landmark moment was the 1883 Pendleton Act that established an independent bureaucracy insulated from political control, hence voter control,” St Onge said.

According to St Onge, the original justification for the law was combating corruption.

“The excuse was to fight corruption, which, of course, is as alive as ever,” St Onge said.

He argued, however, that the long-term consequence was a reduction in public accountability.

“But the result was voters became spectators, while federal workers became an occupying army. The deep state was born,” St Onge said.

St Onge also discussed subsequent developments, including the expansion of independent agencies during the New Deal and later legislative changes affecting the federal workforce.

He said recent Supreme Court decisions have begun reversing that trend.

“Slaughter now joins a parade of recent decisions turning the tide, including Sayla, Collins, and Loper Bright, which give the presidents more control over bureaucrats, while giving Congress a bigger role in actually writing the laws that, according to the Constitution, they alone are supposed to write,” St Onge said.

Despite those rulings, he argued additional legal challenges remain.

“But there is still miles to go,” St Onge said.

St Onge pointed to the Court's handling of litigation involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook as an example of unresolved questions surrounding presidential authority.

“On the very same day the court stayed Trump's firing of Fed member Lisa Cook, allegedly on a technicality, but possibly revealing a reluctance to let elected presidents control the unconstitutional Federal Reserve that all but controls the economy,” St Onge said.

Looking ahead, St Onge predicted the ruling could influence regulatory policy and the economy by giving the administration broader authority over independent agencies.

“So, SX brought to you by the Bitcoin way, in the near term, Trump can purge independent agencies so they stop sabotaging his agenda. Meanwhile, agencies like FTC and SEC are likely to pull back on planned regulatory pushes to keep their heads down,” St Onge said.

He concluded by arguing that further legal victories could reduce regulatory burdens and increase accountability within the federal government.

“But zooming out, we could see major reductions in the regulatory tax on the economy that studies imply could double or quadruple wages to the point Starbucks and dog walkers would be making six figures, assuming the lease of Cook firing is refiled with the technicalities fixed, we could even see a Federal Reserve that actually answers to the people it abuses,” St Onge said.

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.