Supreme Court Sides with President Trump - He Can REMOVE Them All
Washington, D.C. - May 28, 2026
SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP — ALLOWS REMOVAL OF BIDEN’S THREE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION APPOINTEES WITHOUT CAUSE
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald J. Trump may, for now, remove the three commissioners appointed by former President Joe Biden to the Consumer Product Safety Commission without cause.
The decision represents a major victory for executive authority and further erodes a 90-year-old precedent designed to protect certain independent regulatory agencies.
“The Consumer Product Safety Commission exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board, and the case does not otherwise differ from Wilcox in any pertinent respect,” the court stated in its order.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a separate statement indicating he would have granted the case for full review this fall.
All three liberal justices dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing on behalf of herself, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, sharply criticized the majority for using the emergency docket to override congressional intent.
“The majority has acted on the emergency docket—with ‘little time, scant briefing, and no argument’ — to override Congress’s decisions about how to structure administrative agencies so that they can perform their prescribed duties,”
she wrote. “By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.”
The ruling directly challenges the 1935 precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had limited presidential removal power over members of independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission. In that unanimous decision, the court held that Congress could shield agency officials from at-will removal except for cause such as neglect of duty or malfeasance.
In 2021, Biden appointed three commissioners to the CPSC, the agency responsible for setting product safety standards, overseeing recalls, and researching hazards. Months into his second term, President Trump moved to dismiss them before their terms expired, arguing they wield substantial executive power and serve at the pleasure of the president.
The commissioners sued, claiming their removal violated the law establishing the agency as independent. A federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked the removals, and the Fourth Circuit declined to intervene. The Trump administration then appealed to the Supreme Court.
This ruling follows a similar 6-3 decision in May that allowed the administration to remove members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The decision is temporary while lower courts continue to hear the case, but it significantly strengthens the administration’s position and signals a broader shift toward expanded presidential authority over independent agencies.
President Trump hailed the outcome as a restoration of constitutional balance.
“The American people elected a President to lead the Executive Branch. This ruling confirms that the President has the authority to manage that branch effectively,”
he stated.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulates thousands of consumer products, and the move is expected to allow the administration to install new leadership aligned with its priorities on deregulation and consumer protection.
CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...
CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn
The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.
Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.
Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability
Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.
“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.
He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.
His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.
That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.
Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute
The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.
Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Kennedy disagreed.
“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.
He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”
Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.
But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?
Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.
Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump
The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.
She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.
Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.
Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.
“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.
He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.
That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.
The Real Takeaway From the Interview
The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.
Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.
Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.
The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.
Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.
