'Independent' Government Agencies - Are They Legal?

[=42]

With all the work that DOGE is doing freezing or cancelling funding to multiple government agencies, the most common cry from the deep state left is that these agencies are independent and beyond the reach of executive (Presidential) oversight.

That being said, there are only three Constitutional branches of government as we all know. The Executive, the Legislative & the Judicial. Each have their responsibilities and limitations spelled out in the Articles of the Constitution (Articles 1 - 3).

As it goes, some of these 'Independent' Agencies were created by acts of Congress that establish purpose and authority (as far as I can tell) as 'independent' of the Executive department structure that operates under the Senate approved, President nominated Cabinet positions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of...ted_States.

The way I see it, these 'independent' agencies fall into three different categories.

1. Executive Agencies

2. Regulatory Agencies

3. Other/Quasi-Government Agencies.

So are they Constitutionally legal? In many cases, I would say no, but it takes evaluating each one to determine how & by whom they were created and which branch is charged with oversight authority.

My interpretation is that Congress has the authority to fund, but they lack the authority to create these agencies except under a very narrow scope for the purpose of execution of Constitutional obligations (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18). The Executive branch has the authority to create these agencies (Officers), but lacks the authority to fund them. All of these agencies should fall under the Executive branch as none of the three branches have authority to create a fourth 'Independent' branch of government and the Executive branch is the only branch structured and authorized for management of appointed officers (Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2).

In Summary, The President has the Constitutional authority to create Cabinet Offices (agencies) of the Executive branch and select the Officers to head them subject to Senate confirmation which the Senate may defer.

The Congress has very limited Constitutional authority to create Offices or Agencies and I think it's fair to say that those agencies (Post Office, Treasury, Military, etc.) have long been established. In such cases, it remains the power of the President to select officers (subject to Senate approval), and such agencies would fall under the purview of the Executive branch.

I think that in the end, it is this notion of 'Independent' that is being challenged by Trump & Doge as an unconstitutional 'fourth branch' of government which substantially enables and funds the deep state.

[Oldcynic]

With all the work that DOGE is doing freezing or cancelling funding to multiple government agencies, the most common cry from the deep state left is that these agencies are independent and beyond the reach of executive (Presidential) oversight.

That being said, there are only three Constitutional branches of government as we all know. The Executive, the Legislative & the Judicial. Each have their responsibilities and limitations spelled out in the Articles of the Constitution (Articles 1 - 3).

As it goes, some of these 'Independent' Agencies were created by acts of Congress  that establish purpose and authority (as far as I can tell) as 'independent' of the Executive department structure that operates under the Senate approved, President nominated Cabinet positions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of...ted_States.

The way I see it, these 'independent' agencies fall into three different categories.

1. Executive Agencies

2. Regulatory Agencies

3. Other/Quasi-Government Agencies.

So are they Constitutionally legal? In many cases, I would say no, but it takes evaluating each one to determine how & by whom they were created and which branch is charged with oversight authority.

My interpretation is that Congress has the authority to fund, but they lack the authority to create these agencies except under a very narrow scope for the purpose of execution of Constitutional obligations (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18). The Executive branch has the authority to create these agencies (Officers), but lacks the authority to fund them. All of these agencies should fall under the Executive branch as none of the three branches have authority to create a fourth 'Independent' branch of government and the Executive branch is the only branch structured and authorized for management of appointed officers (Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2).

In Summary, The President has the Constitutional authority to create Cabinet Offices (agencies) of the Executive branch and select the Officers to head them subject to Senate confirmation which the Senate may defer.

The Congress has very limited Constitutional authority to create Offices or Agencies and I think it's fair to say that those agencies (Post Office, Treasury, Military, etc.) have long been established. In such cases, it remains the power of the President to select officers (subject to Senate approval), and such agencies would fall under the purview of the Executive branch.

I think that in the end, it is this notion of 'Independent' that is being challenged by Trump & Doge as an unconstitutional 'fourth branch' of government which substantially enables and funds the deep state.

I really like what you say here and agree unequivocally.  The NGOs are not a legal entity within our Constitutional Republic and must be eradicated!

In reality, they may be where all the trillions disappear.  Two governing bodies.  One visible and one invisible.  Ghosts.

[=42]

With all the work that DOGE is doing freezing or cancelling funding to multiple government agencies, the most common cry from the deep state left is that these agencies are independent and beyond the reach of executive (Presidential) oversight.

That being said, there are only three Constitutional branches of government as we all know. The Executive, the Legislative & the Judicial. Each have their responsibilities and limitations spelled out in the Articles of the Constitution (Articles 1 - 3).

As it goes, some of these 'Independent' Agencies were created by acts of Congress  that establish purpose and authority (as far as I can tell) as 'independent' of the Executive department structure that operates under the Senate approved, President nominated Cabinet positions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of...ted_States.

The way I see it, these 'independent' agencies fall into three different categories.

1. Executive Agencies

2. Regulatory Agencies

3. Other/Quasi-Government Agencies.

So are they Constitutionally legal? In many cases, I would say no, but it takes evaluating each one to determine how & by whom they were created and which branch is charged with oversight authority.

My interpretation is that Congress has the authority to fund, but they lack the authority to create these agencies except under a very narrow scope for the purpose of execution of Constitutional obligations (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18). The Executive branch has the authority to create these agencies (Officers), but lacks the authority to fund them. All of these agencies should fall under the Executive branch as none of the three branches have authority to create a fourth 'Independent' branch of government and the Executive branch is the only branch structured and authorized for management of appointed officers (Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2).

In Summary, The President has the Constitutional authority to create Cabinet Offices (agencies) of the Executive branch and select the Officers to head them subject to Senate confirmation which the Senate may defer.

The Congress has very limited Constitutional authority to create Offices or Agencies and I think it's fair to say that those agencies (Post Office, Treasury, Military, etc.) have long been established. In such cases, it remains the power of the President to select officers (subject to Senate approval), and such agencies would fall under the purview of the Executive branch.

I think that in the end, it is this notion of 'Independent' that is being challenged by Trump & Doge as an unconstitutional 'fourth branch' of government which substantially enables and funds the deep state.

I really like what you say here and agree unequivocally.  The NGOs are not a legal entity within our Constitutional Republic and must be eradicated!

In reality, they may be where all the trillions disappear.  Two governing bodies.  One visible and one invisible.  Ghosts.

NGO's are in another category all together. They are not created or authorized by the government, yet in many cases, they are funded partially or wholly through various 'independent' agencies. Yeah, I know, it's semantics, but NGO's are independent of government. The question that matters now regarding government funding of NGO's is, is that funding that's being funneled through 'independent' agencies like USAID being specifically funded by Congress to go to a NGO (earmarked) or just part of that agencies general fund. If it has been allocated specifically, then it has to go there. If it has not, it should fall under the discretion of the President as head of the Executive branch to dictate how and where money is to be spent.

NED is one agency that needs some closer examination as to creation and authority. I've seen it referred to as a Quasi-NGO which makes the legality suspicious to me.

[=42]

I'm not sure yet what to make of this. It could be the deep state fighting back, or it could be a ploy to further expose RINO & DS republican resistance for primary targeting.

Either way, Congress kicking the can down the road is a very bad optic for them, and it doesn't necessarily prevent allocated funding from being frozen. The President can still order the funds held and not spent.

I think the Trump administration and the concept of 'independent' agencies are headed for a timely challenge to the Supreme Court. It's either we have three branches of government and all of these agencies fall under the purview of the executive, or there are literally dozens branches of government, mostly comprised of these 'independent' agencies.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-house-look...39784.html

[=42]

Posting this from a Grok query... I may analyze further later.

the U.S. federal government, no independent agencies claim complete independence from the executive branch in a strict legal or constitutional sense, as they are all technically part of it. However, certain agencies are designed with structural features—such as limited presidential removal power, bipartisan leadership, or independent funding—that grant them significant autonomy, leading some to assert a practical or functional independence. The concept of "complete independence" is more rhetorical or aspirational than absolute, given their placement within the executive branch under Article II of the Constitution. Here’s a look at key examples as of March 5, 2025, based on their design and behavior.

Agencies with Notable Claims to Autonomy

Federal Reserve System (The Fed)

Why It Claims Independence: The Fed, as the central bank, emphasizes its autonomy to conduct monetary policy—setting interest rates and managing money supply—free from short-term political pressures. Its leaders, including the Board of Governors, argue this insulation is critical to economic stability, a stance rooted in its creation under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Structural Features: Governors serve 14-year staggered terms, far exceeding presidential terms, and can only be removed for cause (though this isn’t explicitly statutory). The Fed funds itself through interest on government securities, not congressional appropriations, reducing executive leverage. While the President appoints its chair and governors (with Senate confirmation), it doesn’t report directly to the White House.

Limits: It’s still within the executive branch, and its enabling statute could be amended by Congress. Recent debates, like those in February 2025 over executive oversight, show its independence isn’t absolute.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Why It Claims Independence: Established under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the CFPB was designed to regulate consumer financial products with minimal political interference. Its first director, Richard Cordray, and subsequent leaders have touted its independence as essential to protecting consumers from Wall Street influence.

Structural Features: Initially led by a single director with a five-year term, removable only for cause (inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance), it’s funded by the Federal Reserve, not Congress. The Supreme Court’s 2020 Seila Law v. CFPB ruling struck down the for-cause removal protection, making the director removable at the President’s will, but the agency still operates with budgetary autonomy.

Limits: Post-Seila Law, its claim to independence weakened, aligning it closer to executive control, though its funding structure preserves some distance.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Why It Claims Independence: The SEC, created in 1934, oversees securities markets and positions itself as a neutral regulator, insulated from political whims to ensure investor confidence. Its commissioners often emphasize this in public statements.

Structural Features: A five-member bipartisan commission, with staggered five-year terms and no more than three from one party, limits presidential packing. Commissioners can only be removed for cause (per Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 1935), though this isn’t explicitly in its statute—it’s inferred from precedent.

Limits: Subject to congressional oversight and presidential appointments, it’s not fully detached. Trump’s February 2025 executive order pushing for White House review of regulations challenges this autonomy.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Why It Claims Independence: The FCC regulates communications (radio, TV, internet) and asserts independence to maintain impartiality in licensing and rulemaking, a stance tracing back to the Communications Act of 1934.

Structural Features: Like the SEC, it’s a five-member bipartisan commission with staggered terms and for-cause removal protection, distancing it from direct executive fiat.

Limits: Recent executive actions, like the February 18, 2025, “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” order, requiring regulatory submissions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), erode this independence.

Federal Election Commission (FEC)

Why It Claims Independence: The FEC oversees campaign finance and claims autonomy to ensure fair elections without partisan bias, a principle baked into its post-Watergate creation in 1974.
Structural Features: A six-member bipartisan commission (no more than three from one party) with staggered six-year terms and for-cause removal protection reinforces its nonpartisan image.

Limits: Deadlocks due to its even-numbered structure often paralyze it, and it’s still subject to executive appointments and congressional funding.

Context and Caveats

Legal Status: The Supreme Court has upheld some independence (Humphrey’s Executor) for multimember bodies with quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial roles, but recent rulings (Seila Law, Collins v. Yellen, 2021) narrow this, asserting presidential control over single-director agencies. No agency is wholly free of executive influence—appointment power and statutory origins tie them to the broader branch.

Practical Independence: Agencies like the Fed and SEC claim operational autonomy, often loudly, but this is contingent on tradition, funding, and judicial precedent, not constitutional immunity. The Fed’s self-funding and the SEC’s market role amplify their perceived separation.

Current Trends: The February 2025 executive order under Trump, mandating OIRA review of “significant regulatory actions” from independent agencies, signals a push to reel them in. This doesn’t eliminate their independence but tests its limits, especially for agencies like the Fed (partially exempt) versus the FCC or SEC.

Note: This part was added due to some previous queries, and I'm leaving it in as it does give a speculated opinion of a Constitutional Lawyer, and aligns with my laymen's opinion.

Robert Barnes’ Angle
If we tie this to Robert Edward Barnes’ perspective—given your earlier questions—he’d likely scoff at claims of “complete independence.” He’d argue these agencies, even the Fed or SEC, are still tethered to executive and elite interests, serving as tools of the establishment rather than true checks. He might point to their appointment processes or the 2025 order as proof they’re not as independent as they claim, aligning with his populist critique of bureaucratic overreach.

Conclusion
No agency claims complete independence in a formal sense—legal scholars and the Constitution wouldn’t allow it—but the Federal Reserve, CFPB, SEC, FCC, and FEC assert significant autonomy through structure and mission. Their “independence” is real but partial, vulnerable to executive, legislative, or judicial shifts.

[ELIAKIM]

When Gordon Brown was PM in 90s he sought to understand non-profits, people that did fund raising for causes they were passionate about, including volunteers. 

A large budget was invested to do the research into it. The aim being to exploit the NGO's and to get them working close to government. 

They came up with the term "Third Sector", because it was neither Private or Public Sector. 

At the same time the Labour Party put quango's into our health care system to find out what was going on. Many of those quango's then started their own businesses or NGO that were then given government contracts by the NHS. 

Those entities all toe the government line like they did during C19, all the charities too, on the promise that funding for them is forthcoming. 

We also know that the Labour Party have been working with the Democrats in America, (for at least 30 years) which is why we had the "cancel culture", going on, both sides of the pond at the same time. The same messaging too. 

Since the USAID revelations, it has also come to light that one of the USAID contractors also receives funding from the Foreign Office in London. £9M and that contractor was funneling money to the Taliban.

[=42]

When Gordon Brown was PM in 90s he sought to understand non-profits, people that did fund raising for causes they were passionate about, including volunteers. 

A large budget was invested to do the research into it. The aim being to exploit the NGO's and to get them working close to government. 

They came up with the term "Third Sector", because it was neither Private or Public Sector. 

At the same time the Labour Party put quango's into our health care system to find out what was going on. Many of those quango's then started their own businesses or NGO that were then given government contracts by the NHS. 

Those entities all toe the government line like they did during C19, all the charities too, on the promise that funding for them is forthcoming. 

We also know that the Labour Party have been working with the Democrats in America, (for at least 30 years) which is why we had the "cancel culture", going on, both sides of the pond at the same time. The same messaging too. 

Since the USAID revelations, it has also come to light that one of the USAID contractors also receives funding from the Foreign Office in London. £9M and that contractor was funneling money to the Taliban.

In my digging I ran across the term 'QUANGO'.

Apparently it applies to various organizations in many countries like the UK. The deeper I get into this, the more I'm convinced that this is a critical element of the deep state globally. Whether it's 'independent' agencies or NGO's, the purpose is to create a government that does not operate by the rules of government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango

[Rexel]

When Gordon Brown was PM in 90s he sought to understand non-profits, people that did fund raising for causes they were passionate about, including volunteers. 

A large budget was invested to do the research into it. The aim being to exploit the NGO's and to get them working close to government. 

They came up with the term "Third Sector", because it was neither Private or Public Sector. 

At the same time the Labour Party put quango's into our health care system to find out what was going on. Many of those quango's then started their own businesses or NGO that were then given government contracts by the NHS. 

Those entities all toe the government line like they did during C19, all the charities too, on the promise that funding for them is forthcoming. 

We also know that the Labour Party have been working with the Democrats in America, (for at least 30 years) which is why we had the "cancel culture", going on, both sides of the pond at the same time. The same messaging too. 

Since the USAID revelations, it has also come to light that one of the USAID contractors also receives funding from the Foreign Office in London. £9M and that contractor was funneling money to the Taliban.

In my digging I ran across the term 'QUANGO'.

Apparently it applies to various organizations in many countries like the UK. The deeper I get into this, the more I'm convinced that this is a critical element of the deep state globally. Whether it's 'independent' agencies or NGO's, the purpose is to create a government that does not operate by the rules of government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango

I always thought that the acronym stood for Quasi Autonomous NGO. This has relevance in this current discussion on how separate from Government they really are. The answer is in the name - how autonomous are they? Well, quasi! They are fully autonomous when Government tries to direct them, but not so autonomous when receiving funding. They have definitely been used to bring in unpopular policies that the government can wash its hands of and claim "it wasn't us"! The term is sometimes used in Aus, but more often in the UK. I have never heard it in a US context but that doesn't mean it's not used in some circles. British comedy shows such as Yes Minister and later Yes Prime Minister introduced me to the term.

[ELIAKIM]

When Gordon Brown was PM in 90s he sought to understand non-profits, people that did fund raising for causes they were passionate about, including volunteers. 

A large budget was invested to do the research into it. The aim being to exploit the NGO's and to get them working close to government. 

They came up with the term "Third Sector", because it was neither Private or Public Sector. 

At the same time the Labour Party put quango's into our health care system to find out what was going on. Many of those quango's then started their own businesses or NGO that were then given government contracts by the NHS. 

Those entities all toe the government line like they did during C19, all the charities too, on the promise that funding for them is forthcoming. 

We also know that the Labour Party have been working with the Democrats in America, (for at least 30 years) which is why we had the "cancel culture", going on, both sides of the pond at the same time. The same messaging too. 

Since the USAID revelations, it has also come to light that one of the USAID contractors also receives funding from the Foreign Office in London. £9M and that contractor was funneling money to the Taliban.

In my digging I ran across the term 'QUANGO'.

Apparently it applies to various organizations in many countries like the UK. The deeper I get into this, the more I'm convinced that this is a critical element of the deep state globally. Whether it's 'independent' agencies or NGO's, the purpose is to create a government that does not operate by the rules of government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango

 In the UK we have the Charities Commission that do their utmost to investigate charities where there are complaints. 

The government sought to get control of non-profits, many of which gained charity status. In the UK an individual isn't allowed to fundraise more than £3,000 in a year to give to a charity. If they raise more than that they have to be a registered charity. 

The Labour party also do the same as the Democrats have done, giving funding to the NGO's. The NGO"s appear to get funding from different sources. There are even foreign NGO's operating against the will of the people in the UK, with staff that actively campaigned against the will of the British people. E.g. I found that there were foreign workers in London organising and campaigning against BREXIT. Obama was against us leaving the EU. 

Foreign environmentalists also come to London to campaign with Extinction Rebellion, they keep on introducing new entities too, each time I track one of them it leads back to the US.

[Wingsprint]

• Bill introduced to End the Fed.
  

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Unveil Bill To ‘End The Fed’ | (dailycallernewsfoundation.org)