Brett Kavanaugh destroyed Ketanji Brown Jackson with one question she couldn’t answer after she tried gutting Trump’s presidency

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spent Monday defending Washington's army of unelected bureaucrats.

She insisted presidents shouldn't control the "experts" running independent agencies.

But Brett Kavanaugh destroyed Ketanji Brown Jackson with one question she couldn't answer after she tried gutting Trump's presidency.

Jackson launches full defense of Washington's permanent bureaucracy

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unleashed a full-throttle defense of unelected bureaucrats during oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, openly arguing that presidents should not be allowed to fire the PhDs, doctors, and so-called "experts" who run America's "independent commission" scam.¹

In other words, bureaucrats should outrank the elected President of the United States.

The case stems from President Trump's March decision to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, both Democrat commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission.²

Trump acted squarely within Article II, which vests all executive power in the President.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson made it plain: "President Donald J. Trump is the head of the executive branch and is vested with all of the executive power in our government. I have no doubts about his constitutional authority to remove Commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability for our government."³

Slaughter and Bedoya responded by suing to get their jobs back.

In July, Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan overrode the firing and ordered Slaughter reinstated.⁴

The D.C. Circuit, stacked with Obama judges, upheld her decision, citing the 90-year-old case Humphrey's Executor.

The Supreme Court in September granted the Trump Administration's request to stay the lower-court order, meaning Slaughter would remain removed while the legal challenge proceeds.

At the same time, SCOTUS accepted the case for full argument.

The Supreme Court on Monday held explosive oral arguments for over two hours.

During the argument, Justice Jackson launched into a "No Kings" rant, claiming that presidents should have almost no control over scientists, economists, regulators, and other "experts" in Washington's bureaucratic empire.

Justice Jackson lists which parts of government Trump shouldn't control

According to Jackson, the President, elected by millions of Americans, should NOT control transportation authorities, economic regulators, the Federal Reserve, multimember agency boards, or vast sectors of federal policymaking.⁵

She even insisted that "these issues should not be in presidential control."

Jackson invoked warnings about "monarchy," suggesting that letting the President fire bureaucrats would somehow place America on the road to kingship.

"That some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts; that Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy and transportation and the various independent agencies that we have," Jackson stated.⁶

"So having a President come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs, and replace them with loyalists and people who don't know anything, is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States," Jackson continued.

"These issues should not be in presidential control. Can you speak to me about the danger of allowing, in these various areas, the President to actually control the Transportation Board and potentially the Federal Reserve and all these other independent agencies?" Jackson added.

She went on: "In these particular areas, we would like to have independence. We… we don't want the President controlling."

"I guess what I don't understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress—which makes perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States—why that is subjugated to a concern about the President not being able to control everything," Jackson said.

"I appreciate there's a conflict between the two, but one would think, under our constitutional design, given the history of the monarchy and the concerns the Framers had about a President controlling everything, that in the clash between those two, Congress's view—that we should be able to have independence with respect to certain issues—should take precedence," Jackson concluded.

Justice Kavanaugh exposes the sabotage trap in Jackson's argument

Justice Brett Kavanaugh demolished Jackson's entire argument with a single devastating hypothetical.

He asked what happens when an outgoing administration games the system by loading up these "independent" agencies with loyalists right before leaving office — then the next president can't fire them.

"I want to give you a chance to deal with the hard hypothetical. When both Houses of Congress and the President are controlled by the same party, they create a lot of these independent agencies or extend some of the current independent agencies into these kinds of situations so as to thwart future Presidents of the opposite party," Kavanaugh stated.⁷

Kavanaugh just exposed the fatal flaw in Jackson's "protect the experts" argument: it's a weapon for partisan warfare, not neutral governance.

Under Jackson's reasoning, a Democrat president could stack every "independent" agency with partisans who can't be fired, then hand Trump a government rigged against him from day one.

That's not protecting expertise. That's sabotaging democracy.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared ready to side with Trump during Monday's arguments.⁸

Chief Justice John Roberts called the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent a "dried husk" that no longer applies to modern administrative agencies.⁹

Justice Neil Gorsuch described independent agencies as an improper "fourth branch of government" unaccountable to both the executive and legislative branches.¹⁰

Americans didn't elect PhDs and economists to run the country. They elected Donald Trump.

And despite Jackson's fearmongering about "loyalists," Trump's about to prove that presidential accountability beats bureaucratic resistance every single time.

---

¹ Jim Hᴏft, "Ketanji Brown Jackson Argues Presidents Shouldn't Be Allowed to Fire Bureaucrats Running Independent Agencies," The Gateway Pundit, December 8, 2025.

² Amy Howe, "Court seems likely to side with Trump on president's power to fire FTC commissioner," SCOTUSblog, December 8, 2025.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Hᴏft, "Ketanji Brown Jackson Argues Presidents Shouldn't Be Allowed to Fire Bureaucrats Running Independent Agencies."

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Howe, "Court seems likely to side with Trump on president's power to fire FTC commissioner."

⁹ Nina Totenberg, "Supreme Court appears poised to vastly expand presidential powers," NPR, December 8, 2025.

¹⁰ Dmitri Bolt, "Supreme Court Signals Support for Trump Admin in Landmark FTC Firing Case," Townhall, December 8, 2025.