The Executive Unbound: Unitary Executive Theory and the Removal of a Federal Reserve Chairman

The second Trump administration has taken many unprecedented actions since the 47th president came to office. Significantly, they have accelerated the expansion of the executive branch's powers, a process that dates back to the Imperial presidency of Richard Nixon. The current administration has repeatedly invoked a controversial legal interpretation of Article Two of the Constitution dating back to the Reagan era. This is known as the “unitary executive theory” (UET), championed by Supreme Court Justice Antony Scalia and legal scholar John Yoo. Its advocates believe that the Constitution makes the President’s every action legal while in office. Furthermore, they argue that the formal checks and balances of the Madisonian period do not apply to the presidency. 

The administration of George W. Bush first used UET to justify its use of enhanced interrogation techniques, black sites, unwarranted mass surveillance, and limited military operations without Congressional approval. Many of the memos in which John Yoo recorded his justifications for UET remain on Justice Department servers, waiting to be called upon. Fast-forward to the first Trump administration, and we find that some of his top advisers are using those memos to legitimise their radical proposals to the president. The case in point being that the former White House Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon has based many of his views about the extent of presidential powers on UET. When Trump lost the 2021 election, the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, drafted a set of proposals for the next Republican government, known as “Project 2025.” All of its policy proposals were built on a foundation explicitly grounded in UET. While Trump has publicly distanced himself from Project 2025, his second administration has implemented many of its recommendations, including dismantling the Department of Education.

The 45th/47th U.S. President has repeatedly couched his removal of executive-appointed employees in UET. This allows him to fire appointees from previous administrations and those he dislikes, without Congressional or court approval. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court has upheld and expanded the executive branch’s authority through several court cases: Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), and Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (2021). Recently, President Trump replaced Federal Reserve (FED) Chairman Jerome Powell with someone more subservient to his commands. Previous Supreme Court decisions allowed the removal of officials in independent agencies that perform executive functions. However, it seems that multiple of the Republican-appointed justices are inclined to treat the FED differently. Obviously, many people worry that Powell’s removal will undermine the FED’s credibility as an inflation manager. If this comes to pass, American firms may increase long-term interest rates. Overall, UET offers a dangerous precedent for an increasingly authoritarian executive, one unbound by Congressional or court oversight. Unfortunately, many Americans seem too willing to accept an imperial executive if they believe it will bring about their desired vision of reform.

Bibliography:

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute (2025) ‘Unitary Executive Theory (UET)’, Legal Information Institute (LII). Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unitary_executive_theory_%28uet%29 (Accessed: 2 February 2026).

Inskeep, S. (2025) ‘Unitary executive theory argues to restore the president’s authority’, NPR, 31 July. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/31/nx-s1-5478640/unitary-executive-theory-argues-to-restore-the-presidents-authority (Accessed: 2 February 2026).

Pazzanese, C. (2025) ‘Can Trump fire Fed chairman?’, Harvard Gazette, 28 April. Available at: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/04/can-trump-fire-fed-chairman/ (Accessed: 2 February 2026).