The Supreme Court is systematically dismantling laws that protect heads of independent agencies (like the CFPB and FTC) from being fired at will. This aligns with the "unitary executive theory," concentrating power in the presidency and eroding the apolitical nature of regulatory bodies.
When a public health intervention successfully prevents a crisis, the lack of a negative outcome makes the initial action seem like an unnecessary overreaction. This paradox makes it difficult to justify and maintain funding for preventative measures whose success is invisible.
When Congress fails to act on a major crisis, executive agencies may stretch their existing legal authorities to address the problem (e.g., the COVID eviction moratorium). This often leads to legal challenges and accusations of overreach that stem from legislative paralysis.
NYC's ban on smoking in bars, initially met with widespread criticism, became a popular and accepted norm. This shows that effective public health leadership sometimes involves implementing policies that are unpopular at first but create long-term societal benefits.
A professional is defined as someone whose guiding standards come from their field (e.g., medicine, science), not their employer. This creates an ethical obligation to refuse directives from a supervisor if they conflict with one's professional responsibility, a crucial concept for experts in government.
Key economic and health data, termed "national statistical products," are shielded from political interference by an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directive, not by law. This means a president could instruct their OMB to change the policy, potentially compromising the apolitical nature of vital statistics.
The CDC's function isn't to create policy mandates but to provide scientific outcomes to policymakers (e.g., "If everyone wears masks, COVID spread will decrease"). This distinction leaves value-based policy decisions to elected leaders, preserving the agency's scientific objectivity.
Lawsuits alleging President Trump violated constitutional bans on receiving payments from foreign or domestic governments were dismissed as moot when he left office. This leaves a critical anti-corruption provision of the Constitution without judicial precedent, making its future enforcement uncertain.
Article II grants executive power without the "herein granted" limit applied to Congress in Article I. Presidents have historically used this ambiguity to assert inherent powers beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution, a practice now central to debates over executive authority.
In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court granted presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts related to their "core constitutional functions," such as pardoning or directing investigations. This protection applies even if the actions are performed in bad faith, creating an unprecedented shield from accountability.
The president's pardon power applies only to federal crimes. However, a president can issue a symbolic "pardon" for a supporter convicted on state charges. While legally void, this action serves as a powerful political signal to followers that the president stands with them, demonstrating a use of the pardon power for pure messaging.
Former CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden found he had significantly less power than when he was NYC's Health Commissioner. City-level roles can have more flexible funding and direct regulatory authority (like closing restaurants), while federal agency heads are constrained by hundreds of rigid congressional budget lines.