The walls separating the White House from America’s most powerful independent watchdogs began to crumble on Monday inside the US Supreme Court.

In a hearing that could fundamentally alter the structure of the American government, the court’s conservative majority signaled it is ready to side with the Trump administration in Trump v. Slaughter. At stake is whether the President has the authority to fire independent regulators at will—a power that has been legally restricted for nearly 90 years.

For nations like Kenya, which rely on stable US trade policies and regulatory consistency from American tech giants, the potential erosion of agency independence signals a volatile new era. If the court rules as expected, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—which polices everything from data privacy to monopolies—could effectively become a political arm of the presidency.

The 'Unitary Executive' Push

The case stems from President Donald Trump’s firing in March of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the FTC. Unlike cabinet secretaries who serve at the pleasure of the President, FTC commissioners have historically been protected by a 1914 law allowing their removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance."

Trump fired Slaughter not for misconduct, but because her presence was "inconsistent with [the] Administration's priorities."

On Monday, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that the 1935 Supreme Court precedent protecting these officials—Humphrey’s Executor—is a "decaying husk" that should be overruled. Sauer pushed the "unitary executive" theory, asserting that Article II of the Constitution gives the President absolute control over all executive branch officials.

A Court Divided

The court’s liberal minority issued stark warnings. Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the government’s lawyers, "You are asking us to destroy the structure of the government," cautioning that unchecked firing power would politicize expert-led agencies.

However, the conservative majority appeared skeptical of the idea that Congress can shield any executive official from the President. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others questioned whether the 1935 precedent is still relevant in a modern administrative state.

• The Precedent: Humphrey's Executor (1935) ruled that "quasi-legislative" bodies like the FTC must be independent.
• The Challenge: The Trump administration argues all executive power rests solely with the President.
• The Stakes: A ruling for Trump could expose the Federal Reserve, the SEC, and the NLRB to political purges.

Why This Matters in Nairobi

While this legal battle is unfolding in Washington, its tremors will be felt in Nairobi’s business district. The FTC is the primary regulator of global tech giants like Meta (Facebook) and Alphabet (Google), whose platforms are integral to Kenya’s digital economy.

Currently, the FTC operates as a bipartisan commission, offering some predictability in how it enforces antitrust and privacy laws. If the agency is brought under direct White House control, regulatory actions could swing wildly with every US election cycle, creating uncertainty for global markets.

Furthermore, if the Supreme Court allows the President to fire the leadership of the Federal Reserve—a possibility raised during arguments—decisions on US interest rates could become politicized. This would have immediate knock-on effects for the Kenya Shilling and the cost of servicing dollar-denominated debt.

A final decision is expected by June. If the court sides with the White House, the era of the independent American regulator may well be over.