FTC Ordered to Drop “Independent” Label in Legal Complaints Amid Trump’s Push for Control

A recent directive from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sparked heated legal and political debates over the agency’s autonomy. According to an internal email obtained by The Verge, the FTC instructed its staff to stop using the term “independent” in official complaints. Instead, the agency must now describe itself as “an independent agency of the United States Government created by the FTC Act.” While this change might seem minor on the surface, critics argue it reflects a broader effort by the Trump administration to exert tighter control over the regulatory body.

The Shift in Language and Its Significance

On March 21, 2025, Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, sent an email mandating the revised language for all future complaints. Legal experts view this adjustment not as a mere procedural tweak but as part of a deliberate strategy to align the FTC more closely with White House priorities. By altering how the agency describes itself, the administration may be laying the groundwork to undermine its historical independence and bring it under greater executive influence.

This subtle yet significant shift in language could have far-reaching implications. Historically, independent agencies like the FTC have been insulated from direct presidential control to ensure impartial enforcement of consumer protection and antitrust laws. Changing the narrative around the agency’s identity could signal an attempt to redefine its role within the federal government.

Trump’s Aggressive Moves Against the FTC

The language change follows a series of bold actions by President Trump aimed at consolidating authority over independent agencies. In February 2025, he signed an executive order granting the White House the power to review policies from agencies like the FTC to ensure alignment with his administration’s agenda. Then, on March 18, Trump abruptly fired two Democratic FTC commissioners—Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter—without providing clear legal justification.

These dismissals directly challenge a longstanding Supreme Court precedent established in *Humphrey’s Executor v. United States* (1935), which protects officials of independent agencies from arbitrary removal. A White House letter included in the commissioners’ lawsuit claimed their service was “inconsistent with [Trump’s] Administration’s priorities.” Bedoya and Slaughter responded by filing a lawsuit on March 27, arguing that their removal violated federal law.

Political and Legal Reactions

Republican FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson publicly supported Trump’s actions, stating, “My Democrat former colleagues are entitled to their day in court, but I have no doubt that President Trump’s lawful powers will ultimately be confirmed.” However, legal scholars warn that undermining the FTC’s independence could set a dangerous precedent, eroding the firewall between regulatory agencies and partisan politics.

Critics fear that allowing presidents to fire commissioners at will would weaken the checks and balances designed to protect these agencies from political interference. Such a move could lead to regulatory decisions being driven by short-term political goals rather than long-term public interest.

Why This Matters

The FTC has historically operated as an independent body to ensure impartial enforcement of consumer protection and antitrust laws. Its work impacts everything from corporate mergers to data privacy regulations, making its independence crucial for maintaining public trust. Trump’s efforts to reshape the agency—through personnel changes and subtle language shifts—raise serious concerns about the future of federal oversight.

If courts uphold the president’s authority to remove commissioners arbitrarily, other independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could face similar pressures. This could result in a fundamental shift in how regulatory bodies function, potentially transforming them into extensions of presidential authority rather than neutral arbiters of policy.

The Bigger Picture: Centralized Regulatory Power

While the FTC’s revised wording may appear to be a minor bureaucratic adjustment, it symbolizes a larger battle over the balance of power in Washington. The outcome of the legal challenge brought by former commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter could determine whether independent agencies retain their autonomy or become tools of the executive branch.

For decades, independent agencies have served as a buffer against excessive presidential influence, ensuring that regulatory decisions remain grounded in expertise rather than politics. If this safeguard is dismantled, it could mark the beginning of a new era where centralized regulatory power becomes the norm.

What’s Next?

As the case unfolds, observers across the political spectrum will be watching closely to see whether the FTC’s independence can withstand the administration’s push for control. The stakes are high, as the decision could shape the future of governance and regulation in the United States. Whether the courts side with the administration or uphold the principle of agency independence, one thing is clear: the debate over the role of independent agencies is far from over.

In the meantime, the FTC’s struggle serves as a reminder of the delicate balance required to maintain effective and impartial governance in an increasingly polarized political landscape.