Monitoring democratic institutions through public records

Independent Agency Rules — Week of Nov 3, 2025

Some government agencies (like the FDA or EPA) are supposed to make decisions based on science and law, not politics. Can the President control what rules they write?

ConfirmedConcern

AI content assessment elevated

AI content assessment elevated with high P2 concern rate. Warrants close examination.

This week, three government actions raised questions about the independence of federal agencies that are designed to operate based on law, science, and professional expertise rather than political direction. First, President Trump notified Congress that he was terminating the Inspectors General at two financial agencies — the Export-Import Bank and the Federal Housing Finance Agency — as documented in congressional communications. Inspectors General are internal watchdogs who investigate fraud and mismanagement. Presidents can legally remove them, but doing so reduces the independent oversight Congress put in place at these agencies.

This might matter because Inspectors General exist specifically to ensure that agencies handling billions of dollars in public funds are held accountable regardless of which party controls the White House — their removal could affect the government's ability to detect and prevent waste and corruption at these financial institutions. In a separate development, Senate Resolution 486 documented specific instances where President Trump called criticism of him "PROBABLY ILLEGAL" on social media and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr publicly directed comments at a television network after it aired a comedian's critical monologue. The resolution warns that linking broadcast licensing power to political speech threatens the FCC's role as an independent regulator. Additionally, a presidential proclamation exempted two copper smelters from EPA pollution standards, issuing a determination that differed from the EPA's own scientific finding that compliance technology was available. The administration pointed to the fact that only two domestic smelters remain as a national security justification for the exemption.

There are reasonable alternative explanations. On the IG removals, the most likely is that new presidents replace officials they didn't appoint — this is a normal exercise of executive authority, and the terminations may also reflect a broader effort to restructure agency oversight, even if the timing and pattern raise questions. On the copper smelter exemption, the law explicitly allows the president to grant national security exemptions, and with only two domestic smelters remaining, the supply-chain concern is real. On the FCC issue, social media posts and public statements are not the same as formal regulatory action, and no license revocation has been initiated.

Limitations: This analysis is based on publicly available documents reviewed by AI and may not reflect the full context behind these decisions. The sample of documents reviewed this week was small (18 total), which limits the reliability of any statistical patterns.