For a country obsessed with separation of powers, America sure has a lot of government bodies that operate in a gray zone of constitutional accountability. They’re not quite executive, not quite legislative, and definitely not judicial—yet they can wield enormous influence over our lives. Think of the Federal Reserve, the National Labor Relations Board, or the Federal Election Commission. They’re referred to as “independent government agencies,” and they represent both a savvy innovation—and a fragile workaround—within our democratic system.
At the heart of their design is a paradox: we, the people, elect a president to run the executive branch. But we also recognize that giving any one person total control over complex systems—like interest rates, elections, or law enforcement—is an open invitation to politicize them. So we build insulation. And we call that insulation “independence”.
But here’s the catch: that independence is more tradition than law. It only holds as long as the people in charge choose not to tear it down.
Why Independent Government Agencies Exist in the First Place
The Constitution doesn’t mention independent agencies. In fact, it lays out a fairly simple structure: Congress makes the laws, the president executes them, and the judiciary interprets them. But as the federal government grew in size and complexity—especially after the New Deal—it became clear that some functions needed distance from direct political control. Enter the rise of the independent agency.
Take the Federal Reserve, created in 1913. Its job is to manage the money supply, set interest rates, and oversee the banking system—decisions that have enormous implications for inflation, employment, and the broader economy. If the president could manipulate interest rates before an election, the consequences would be catastrophic. So the Fed’s structure includes a Board of Governors with staggered terms, who can’t be fired without cause. In theory, this buffers them from short-term political pressures.
Or consider the FBI Director, who is given a 10-year term for the very purpose of spanning multiple presidencies. The goal? Make sure the nation’s top law enforcement officer isn’t reduced to a political hitman for whoever holds the White House.
There’s also the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union elections and collective bargaining disputes. Its members are nominated by the president but confirmed by the Senate, and its five-member structure—with staggered terms—encourages ideological balance over time (or at least it’s supposed to).
All of these structures serve the same purpose: protect vital public functions from political interference. But they only work if presidents respect the spirit of the rules, not just the letter.
The Problem with Relying on Norms
And here’s where things get dicey.
Because someone has to actually appoint people to, you know, execute things, most board members, directors, and commissioners of these bodies are still presidential appointees. With enough savvy (or aggression), an administration can pressure resignations, install loyalists, or bend an agency to its will. There’s no constitutional firewall here—only norms. Norms like: “Don’t fire the Fed chair because they won’t lower interest rates.” Or: “Don’t pressure the Justice Department to prosecute political enemies.”
But norms are only as strong as the people willing to uphold them. In recent years, we’ve seen what happens when elected officials test these boundaries. A president threatening to remove his FBI director for not pledging personal loyalty. Or demanding prosecutions via public tweet. Or pressuring the CDC and FDA to approve certain drugs or policies during a health crisis. But I digress…
There is no magical clause in the Constitution that saves us from political interference in supposedly independent bodies. There are just flawed men and women in power, and a hope that enough of them remember the stakes entrusted to them.
An Unsolvable Tension
This dance between political authority and agency independence is, in many ways, an unsolvable feature of governing in a republic. We want accountability. But we also want expertise. We want control…but we also want restraint.
Ultimately, it falls on presidents—and the voters who elect them—to know the difference between leading the government and dominating it. The best leaders understand that sometimes, restraint is a form of strength.
Because when a president views every corner of government as a tool for personal power, the entire idea of independence collapses.
Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others that have been tried.” He was right. It’s messy. It’s contradictory. And sometimes, it feels like it runs on duct tape and good intentions.
But it works—only if we protect the parts designed to rise above politics.