Key Insights
- In a case that hinged on questions of executive branch control of independent agencies, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration.
- Some scientists and legal experts see a corollary between the ruling and the administration’s efforts to increase political oversight of federal research, including grantmaking.
- Questions remain about the decision’s scope and how it will ultimately affect researchers.
The US Supreme Court’s June 29 decision to uphold the firing of former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Slaughter is part of a pattern of restrictions on independent expertise that’s been plaguing federal science since the second Donald J. Trump administration took office, experts say.
“What we’re building up is an edifice that basically picks apart what was a very distributed system of democratic governance and takes a lot of power and discretion away from scientists to determine what’s the best science to fund,” says Natalie Aviles, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who studies the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
In March 2025, Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter—whom he appointed in 2018—on the grounds that her service was “inconsistent with my administration’s priorities.” Slaughter and her fired co-commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, both Democrats, sued in a District of Columbia federal court shortly after, and the case was ultimately argued before the Supreme Court in Oct. 2025.
In the majority opinion (PDF), Chief Justice John Roberts let Slaughter’s dismissal stand on the grounds that the law requiring the president to present just cause in order to fire an FTC commissioner violates the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government.
The decision doesn’t directly affect most science agencies, which are structured differently than the FTC, says Kali Murray, a law professor at Marquette University who specializes in administrative law. The president already had the authority to dismiss heads of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or Health and Human Services, who are appointed by the president and approved by Congress.
But the decision is in line with the Trump administration’s efforts to insert political approval into processes that govern federal science in the US, Murray says. That includes the Office of Management and Budget’s sweeping proposal in June to require political review of all grants and the reclassifying of thousands of federal workers to reduce their job protections.
“All three of these things together have sort of a cascading effect on scientific decision-making,” Murray says. “What we really have here is a Trump administration trying to shift a dynamic of a bureaucratic, apolitical scientific decision-making to a more political model. We’re in the middle of it. I don’t think we are actually at the end of that outcome.”
Science agencies under presidential control
Though the decision is specific to agencies headed by multimember commissions like the FTC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, its true scope is still unclear, Murray says. It’s possible the decision could be interpreted to apply to other agency structures and other positions within those agencies.
Congress could, in theory, pull back some of its power over agencies by changing how heads are appointed, Murray says—shifting to 1-year terms, for example. But that is likely impractical.
In a statement, Union of Concerned Scientists director of the Center for Science and Democracy Jennifer Jones called for Congress to pass the Scientific Integrity Act, a bill that would, among other things, prohibit political influence on interpreting and communicating research findings.
“The decision is part of a broader Trump administration pattern of attacking science and expertise in government by eroding the independence of the federal workforce, making it easier for political leaders to sideline experts and disregard evidence that is politically inconvenient,” Jones said in a statement.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, US Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, released a statement saying “Congress must take action to preserve the ability for agencies to deliver expert, fact-based results for the American people.”
The Slaughter case probes the extent to which independent agencies fall under executive branch control. The ruling affirms a legal framework known as unitary executive theory, a conservative ideology originating in the Ronald Reagan era that gives the president authority over all decision-making in the executive branch, Aviles says—including awarding federal money to researchers.
“All of this is being done in the name of a vision of governance where it’s the president who has the final say,” Aviles says. “Any money that we distribute, including to scientists, has to be done in ways that advance presidential priorities directly,” she says, adding, “The stakes are way beyond what’s happening at the FTC.”
Jenna Norton has seen the creep of politicization firsthand in her role as a program officer at the NIH, including extra layers of review from political appointees slowing down the grant process. Norton spoke to C&EN in a personal capacity.
The Supreme Court’s decision is another step in codifying political influence at previously independent agencies like the NIH into law, she says.
“This doesn’t really change anything for us, except for that it is representative and aligned with similar moves that are affecting us that really centralize control through the president and his administration.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the ruling and the concerns raised by scientists by publication time.
