The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has reversed its stance on a long-standing legal shield that prevents presidents from firing its members at will, a shift that aligns with President Donald Trump’s push to reshape federal agencies. The move comes as Trump seeks to remove Democratic NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, a decision that has already ignited courtroom battles.
For decades, labor board members—appointed by the president—could only be removed for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office,” a rule designed to insulate the agency from political influence. But last week, the NLRB informed multiple courts that it now views these protections as unconstitutional. This change coincides with a broader Trump administration effort to exert direct control over independent agencies, arguing that such bodies should be accountable to the president.
The legal fight has already seen mixed rulings. A judge in Washington, D.C., recently blocked Trump’s attempt to remove Wilcox, a decision his administration is appealing. Meanwhile, a Texas court sided with SpaceX—led by Trump ally Elon Musk—declaring that restrictions on removing board members and administrative judges are unlawful. The NLRB had accused SpaceX of forcing employees into illegal severance agreements, allegations the company denies.
The agency’s reversal is rooted in a February letter from acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who argued that protections for NLRB members, along with officials in other similarly structured agencies, violate the U.S. Constitution. That position could significantly reshape how courts approach the issue, though the Supreme Court is expected to assign a lawyer to defend the now-abandoned argument for board independence.
Critics warn that dismantling these protections could undermine the board’s neutrality. Former NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran, who served during the Biden administration, cautioned that such a change might inject political considerations into labor rulings. “If decisions hinge on whether a case involves a major donor to the president, it compromises the fairness of the process,” she said.
The Supreme Court is widely expected to weigh in on the matter, a ruling that could fundamentally alter the balance of power between the presidency and independent federal agencies.
