Trump’s Power Grab Has No Limits

By claiming total authority over every federal agency, Trump is testing whether anyone in power is willing to stop him.

Setting the Stage

Donald Trump’s latest executive order, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, is his most aggressive attempt yet to bring the entire federal bureaucracy under his direct control. If successful, it would eliminate the independence of not just regulatory bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), but all agencies within the executive branch—including those historically designed to operate with some level of autonomy. From the Department of Justice to the Environmental Protection Agency to watchdog offices overseeing government ethics, every agency head would be expected to align their decisions with the president’s directives or risk removal.

The order is a test of how far the courts will let him go. Trump and his allies are betting that the Supreme Court, now stacked with his appointees, will side with him in weakening or outright nullifying statutory protections that grant agencies independence. His legal team is leaning heavily on the unitary executive theory, a radical doctrine that asserts the president should have total control over the executive branch, including traditionally independent bodies. The goal is clear: to erase institutional barriers that prevent the president from wielding unchecked power over federal decision-making.

Their confidence is bolstered by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. United States (2024), which determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts"—with absolute immunity for actions within exclusive presidential authority. This ruling effectively elevates the president above the law for actions deemed official, granting the office holder a near-monarchical status.

Whether this power grab will stand is still uncertain. Lawsuits are all but guaranteed, and some lower courts may strike it down. But Trump’s strategy has never been about winning every legal battle—his playbook is to flood the system with so many power grabs at once that resistance becomes overwhelmed. Even if this order is blocked, the broader effort to gut agency independence will continue.

The real question isn’t just whether Trump’s executive overreach will hold up in court. It’s whether anyone in power is willing to stop him.

The Power at Play

This order is a direct challenge to decades of legal precedent that carved out independence for key agencies within the federal government. Agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have long operated with some degree of insulation from direct presidential control to prevent partisan manipulation of law enforcement, consumer protection, and labor rights. Now, Trump is seeking to eliminate those protections and extend his authority over the entire executive branch—turning every agency into an extension of his personal agenda.

But this isn’t just about “efficiency” or “accountability.” The real goal is complete regulatory and administrative capture. Trump’s allies—particularly the architects of Project 2025—see an unchecked executive branch as the key to dismantling the modern regulatory state. By forcing independent agencies to submit their decisions for White House approval, this order ensures that no environmental, labor, financial, or consumer protection regulation can be enacted without the president’s explicit blessing.

At the heart of this move is the unitary executive theory, a doctrine pushed by right-wing legal circles that argues all executive power must be concentrated in the presidency. This theory has been weaponized to justify everything from purging civil servants to undermining oversight mechanisms designed to hold the executive branch accountable. The Supreme Court has already moved in this direction—its 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States granted presidents presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, effectively placing them above the law for actions within their constitutional purview. Now, with this executive order, Trump is attempting to codify those gains and go even further, ensuring that no agency within the executive branch can act without his direct control.

But this order is not just a legal maneuver—it is a test of power itself. Power is not a commodity with defined limits, nor is it constrained simply by the words of the law. It is determined by what those in power claim as their authority and, more importantly, by what institutions and individuals are willing to contest. The courts can place limits on the executive in theory, but unless those limits are enforced, they are meaningless. Congress can pass laws to constrain the president, but if it refuses to act, those laws are effectively null. The same is true within the executive branch—if agencies begin operating as though Trump’s order is absolute, then the claim to power is legitimized not by law, but by compliance.

This is how executive overreach becomes permanent: not necessarily because a president is legally granted absolute authority, but because no one effectively resists the claim. The real question is not whether Trump has the legal right to seize control of the entire federal bureaucracy, but whether anyone with the power to stop him is willing to do so.

The Counterpoint Trap

• “The president is the only elected member of the executive branch, so he should control all of it.”
  → The “Democratic Mandate” Fallacy – This argument suggests that because the president is elected, he should have unilateral control over all federal agencies. But independent agencies are designed to serve the public, not the president. They are accountable to Congress and the courts, not just the White House.

• “Independent agencies are an unconstitutional fourth branch of government.”
  → The Strawman of the “Deep State” – Conservatives frame these agencies as rogue actors with unchecked power, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld their legitimacy as part of the executive branch with specific safeguards to prevent abuse.

• “Presidents need direct control over regulatory agencies to ensure they enforce the law.”
  → The “Accountability” Misdirection – This argument assumes Trump wants agencies to be more effective when in reality, his goal is to eliminate enforcement against corporate wrongdoing. This is about deregulation, not governance.

• “Voters elect the president, so he should be able to govern without interference.”
  → The False Equivalence Between Elections and Dictatorship – No president is elected to be an autocrat. The U.S. system of checks and balances exists precisely to prevent one person from ruling unilaterally.

Reframing the Debate

The right’s rhetorical strategy frames this executive order as a necessary step toward “democratic accountability.” Trump and his allies argue that since the president is elected by the people, all regulatory actions must ultimately be subject to his control. This is a calculated distortion, designed to repackage a dangerous power grab as a pro-democracy reform. In reality, what Trump is doing is stripping away the very mechanisms that make government accountable—not just to him, but to the people.

To counter this narrative, progressives must emphasize:

1. This is a direct move toward autocracy. A president consolidating power over every agency is not “democratic oversight”—it is executive supremacy.

2. Regulatory independence is a safeguard, not a problem. Agencies like the SEC, FTC, and CFPB exist to protect consumers and workers, not to serve a president’s political and corporate allies.

3. This is about dismantling protections, not streamlining government. When Trump says “accountability,” what he really means is removing obstacles to corporate deregulation, financial corruption, and unchecked presidential power.

Further Reading

For those looking to understand the broader context of Trump’s executive overreach, the legal theory behind it, and the consequences of unchecked presidential power, these books provide essential insight:

• The Imperial Presidency – Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.
  A classic work detailing the steady expansion of presidential power and how it threatens democratic governance.

• The Fifth Risk – Michael Lewis
  An exploration of how the federal government actually functions and what happens when unqualified political operatives seize control of vital agencies.

The Last Laugh

The good news? Not every Republican is cheering this on—though not because they have a backbone. Senate moderates, who are very brave when writing op-eds about Trump after he leaves office, might start to squirm if this power grab threatens their donors. And if there’s one thing that can make a Republican hesitate, it’s a billionaire frowning at them.

So, sure, the courts might not save us. Congress won’t step up. But never underestimate the power of spineless self-preservation. If this executive order threatens the wrong pocketbooks, the right might just eat itself before it eats democracy.