United States: Trump Removes Democratic Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter at the FTC

In brief

On March 18, 2025, the Trump administration dismissed two Democratic FTC Commissioners, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. 

Slaughter was originally nominated in 2018 during President Trump's first term, and was renominated by President Biden in February 2023. Her term was set to expire in September 2029.

Bedoya was nominated in 2022 (taking over the term of Rohit Chopra), with his term set to expire in September 2026.

Both Bedoya and Slaughter have condemned what they claim to be their illegal dismissals and stated their intent to sue the administration to be reinstated. 


Contents

Comments

In a statement issued on social media platform X, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson confirmed Bedoya's and Slaughter's terminations and stated that President Trump "is vested with all of the executive power in our government" and that he has "no doubts about [Trump's] constitutional authority to remove Commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability for our government." 

The dismissal of Bedoya and Slaughter leaves FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Republican Commissioner Melissa Holyoak as the only active Commissioners at the FTC. The Trump administration has nominated Republican Mark Meador to serve as the third, majority-party FTC Commissioner, but his appointment is pending confirmation by the Senate.

By statute, the FTC is composed of five commissioners, who are nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate for a seven-year term. Further, the FTC Act mandates that no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and provides that the President shall designate one Commissioner to act as Chair. 

Several Democratic leaders have criticized this move. In a statement Tuesday evening, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said "This is outrageous. President Trump's dismissal of Commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya is not only illegal but also hurts consumers by undermining an independent agency that Congress established to protect consumers from fraud, scams, and monopoly power. The Federal Trade Commission has carried out this mission in a bipartisan way for more than 110 years—including returning more than $330 million to consumers last year and taking on hidden fees—but today President Trump has threatened that critical work. Illegally gutting the Commission will empower fraudsters and monopolists, and consumers will pay the price."

In depth

The dismissal of Bedoya and Slaughter raises numerous questions about the nature and extent of the President's ability to exert influence and control over independent federal agencies. We expect that the US Supreme Court will ultimately provide the answers. In the interim, there are a few key takeaways. 

  • This is the latest effort by the Trump administration to exert more influence over federal agencies, following issuance of a number of executive orders directed to independent agencies and similar dismissals of agency heads at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Office of Special Counsel.
  • The dismissals set the stage for a legal battle regarding the reconsideration of the Supreme Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor, which found unanimously that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not fire without cause a sitting Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, William Humphrey. The Supreme Court, more recently, has narrowed the holding of Humphrey's Executor allowing the dismissal of the CFPB head (see 91 U.S. 197 (2020)) and distinguishing Humphrey's Executor on the basis that the agency is headed by a single Director. 
  • The dismissal foreshadows a similar fight at the Securities and Exchange Commission and potentially other independent agencies. The SEC has one open minority party commissioner position and one holdover whose term has expired-Caroline Crenshaw. Crenshaw has not yet left the SEC as historically SEC Commissioners may serve up to 18 months beyond the expiration of their terms. The removal of the FTC Commissioners suggests that Trump may seek to remove Crenshaw and may not appoint any minority-party successors. This development also may portend additional removals at other five-member commissions such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and others. 
  • The removals have and will continue to spark controversy throughout the antitrust and legal communities, including many of the FTC's staff. It remains to be seen what impact, if any, the dismissals may have on ongoing investigations and enforcement actions. 
  • Finally, it is unclear what Trump's plans are for the new Democratic vacancies on the Commission. Barring court intervention, it is possible the FTC will have at least two open commissioner positions for the foreseeable future. The FTC has previously operated under one-party direction or a limited number of commissioners for extended periods of time. But the legitimacy of actions taken by the Commission during the absence of two commissioners may be questioned or challenged if Bedoya's and Slaughter's legal challenges to their removals are successful. 

We will continue to monitor updates concerning the appointment and confirmation of FTC Commissioners.


Copyright © 2025 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.