In a stunning revelation during oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson openly advocated for a radical and anti-democratic vision of American governance: one where unelected, so-called “experts” entrenched in the federal bureaucracy hold more power than the President chosen by the American people. Her argument, made in the case of Trump v. Slaughter, constitutes a full-throttle defense of the unaccountable administrative state and a direct assault on the constitutional authority of President Donald Trump and the executive branch as a whole. This case, stemming from President Trump’s lawful removal of two Democrat Federal Trade Commission commissioners, represents the frontline in the battle between accountable, America-First leadership and the deep-state apparatus desperate to maintain its unchecked power.
Justice Jackson’s remarks laid bare a contemptuous view of presidential authority and the electoral mandate it carries. She argued that vast swaths of the federal government should operate as a kingdom of unremovable bureaucrats, stating, “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.”
In her view, the President must be barred from ensuring these agencies align with the policies he was elected to enact. She fearmongered about a President exercising his clear Article II powers, claiming, “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.” This argument is a naked plea for the permanent bureaucracy to remain insulated from the will of the people, dismissing the concept of “loyalists” to an America-First agenda as inherently dangerous while implying that entrenched DC “experts” possess a superior right to govern.
Ketanji lost it today during oral arguments and went on a “No Kings” style rant about President Trump wanting to rule like a monarch, and how we should instead have many issues handled by “the experts and PhDs” like Dr. Fauci, Dr. “Rachel” Levine, and the gay bondage AIDS dude. pic.twitter.com/Z8qFZgZzsR
— Bad Hombre (@Badhombre) December 8, 2025
Jackson escalated her alarming thesis by explicitly calling for the removal of presidential control from core functions of government. She insisted, “These issues should not be in presidential control,” and asked counsel to address “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?” She concluded with a breathtaking inversion of constitutional logic, suggesting that congressional desire for bureaucratic “independence” should “take precedence” over the President’s executive authority, wrongly invoking fears of monarchy to defend what is in reality a technocratic oligarchy. This philosophy would permanently cripple any president, particularly one like Donald Trump who was elected specifically to dismantle this corrupt system, from implementing the change demanded by the electorate.
🚨 JUST IN: SCOTUS Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Sam Alito NUKE the "independent commission" scam, an apparent win for Trump
Their argument: Can Congress just make ANY Cabinet office an "independent commission," thereby DESTROYING the presidency?
KAVANAUGH: "Independent agencies… pic.twitter.com/4dENQkZD56
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 8, 2025
In stark contrast to this anti-democratic defense of the deep state, Justice Brett Kavanaugh surgically exposed the grave political danger and weaponization inherent in Jackson’s position. He presented a devastating and realistic hypothetical that cuts to the heart of the current conflict, asking what happens “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.” This is precisely the sabotage campaign that President Trump has faced and is now lawfully battling. Kavanaugh’s point vindicates President Trump’s necessary actions to fire recalcitrant officials like Slaughter and Bedoya, as they represent the embedded resistance of a prior, failed regime seeking to nullify the results of a democratic election. The President’s authority, championed by the Trump-appointed justices, is the only bulwark against a permanent bureaucratic class that believes it, and not the voters, should rule in perpetuity.