Supreme Court allows Trump to say 'you're fired' to meddling bureaucrats 56%

By Jonathan Turley0%

6/29/2026, 12:13:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 33.9% saturation with 201 hits. Analysis detected 1,059 faulty-reasoning hits from 593 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.2% and a BS Rank of 56% (9,786 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.30% of the article peer group.

On Monday, Donald Trump sealed one of the most lasting parts of his legacy. 
In Trump v. 
Slaughter, the Court reaffirmed and reinforced the authority of presidents to determine who will carry out the functions of the Executive Branch. 
In so doing, the Court overruled one of the long-standing limits of presidential power in Humphrey’s Executor v. 
United States. 
Humphrey’s Executor is hardly a household name. 
Yet the demise of the 1935 case represents a seismic shift in the balance of power within our constitutional system. 
In this case, the court decided that President Trump had the right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. 
Trump dismissed commissioners Slaughter (pictured) and Alvaro Bedoya in March 2025. 
REUTERS 
For decades, scholars and jurists have questioned where the Court found the authority for Congress to create a hybrid creature like the FTC  part legislative and part executive, with officials protected from removal by a president. 
Various presidents have chafed at this limiting doctrine. 
But Trump pushed aggressively against the precedent and appointed three justices who would prove critical in ending Humphrey’s Executor after more than 90 years. 
In a separate case, Trump v. 
Cook, the Court ruled that the president could not fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. 
Both the win and the loss were vintage Trump. 
The win because he was unrelenting in his assertion of inherent powers. 
The loss in part because he is equally unrelenting in his use of social media to carry out policy. 
Roberts wrote, “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment  an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.” 
That does not mean that Cook cannot be replaced, but it requires due process, not a “thank you for your attention.” 
It is hard to overstate the transformation of the new executive branch during the Trump terms. 
The Slaughter case follows the Loper Bright decision, which ended the huge deference given to government agencies “interpreting” law to their own ends. 
Past Republican presidents have criticized the ““administrative state” that was iron-plated under the prior Chevron doctrine. 
The result is that our government will remain markedly different from that of many of our allies, particularly the United Kingdom. 
In the UK, ministries operate with a considerable degree of independence and insularity. 
It is difficult for a prime minister to force through major changes when opposed by ministry civil servants. 
The United States has long maintained that our elections have consequences and that presidents should be able to carry out the mandates of voters. 
Trump came to power with a pledge to transform our government by making it smaller and more responsive, as well as to carry out sweeping reforms in areas such as immigration enforcement. 
He was stymied by lower courts imposing dozens of injunctions and even federal officials who gummed up the works. 
The Court has cleared much of that away for the president, and he carried out a wholesale house cleaning of agencies. 
It is important to remember that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 
If the next president is a Gavin Newsom or a Kamala Harris, the same powers will be used to reverse these policies. 
*Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“ 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.4%Jonathan Turley: 8.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Jonathan Turley: 2.2%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 3.7%Jonathan Turley: 0.8%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.7%This article: 4.0%Jonathan Turley: 3.2%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias4.0%This article: 2.7%Jonathan Turley: 1.2%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias2.7%This article: 7.3%Jonathan Turley: 14.0%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.6%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.5%Jonathan Turley: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Jonathan Turley: 0.7%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 1.9%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Jonathan Turley: 7.7%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias15.0%This article: 6.1%Jonathan Turley: 1.1%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.9%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 3.2%Jonathan Turley: 0.6%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 4.1%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Jonathan Turley: 3.2%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.9%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 1.2%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Jonathan Turley: 1.3%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 5.2%Jonathan Turley: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 2.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 6.7%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.2%Jonathan Turley: 5.3%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority13.2%This article: 6.6%Jonathan Turley: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma6.6%This article: 3.7%Jonathan Turley: 4.7%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.6%Jonathan Turley: 10.0%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization4.6%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.3%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.9%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.7%Jonathan Turley: 6.1%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion5.7%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 1.0%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.8%Jonathan Turley: 3.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.8%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 3.5%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.5%Jonathan Turley: 1.0%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.5%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.4%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.1%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.2%Jonathan Turley: 4.7%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote6.2%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 0.9%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 33.9%Jonathan Turley: 32.3%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice33.9%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 1.6%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Turley: 1.1%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Jonathan Turley: 19.1%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.6%This article: 9.6%Jonathan Turley: 0.8%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.6%

593 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers6.4%attributed speech555writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageREUTERS • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageRoberts • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Roberts

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words97% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Roberts: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-36.2 ptsWriter: 36.2%Roberts: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Roberts: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Roberts: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.