Weakening the independence of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission puts the public welfare at risk.
Multi-member independent agencies have been part of the U.S. government since its earliest days. For centuries, the U.S. Congress and Presidents have recognized the need for commissions that are insulated from political pressures in the execution of their legal duties. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) provides an excellent example of why independent agencies exist and should continue to function with the protections laid out in law.
In the 1960s, growing concern over deaths and injuries associated with consumer products and the lack of centralized regulation prompted the creation of a temporary advisory commission, the National Commission on Product Safety, to recommend a solution. In 1970, the National Commission issued a report finding that consumer products injured 20 million Americans annually, with 110,000 permanently disabled and 30,000 killed. It advocated the creation of an independent regulatory agency, finding that a federal agency “needs independent status” when it “must take up substantial and controversial issues of consumer safety and economics.”
Based on the National Commission’s report, in 1972, Congress passed, and President Richard Nixon signed, the Consumer Product Safety Act, establishing the CPSC as an independent agency tasked with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products, assisting consumers in evaluating the safety of those products, developing uniform safety standards for consumer products, and promoting research and the prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
The independence of the agency was central to its mission. Lawmakers wanted to ensure that the CPSC remained “unfettered by political dictates, self-interested industry pressure or blind consumer zeal.”
To protect against such dangers, the Act placed two limitations on the CPSC’s five-member board: Only three of five commissioners could be affiliated with the same political party, and commissioners were prohibited from selling or manufacturing consumer products or from holding a substantial interest in a company engaged in such activities.
The Act further prohibited the removal of a commissioner by the President except for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” to minimize undue political influence. Recently, the Trump Administration challenged the constitutionality of this removal protection provision despite a unanimous 1935 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Court held that tenure protections for multi-member independent administrative agencies are constitutional.
In May 2025, acting on its view of the President’s constitutional authority, the Administration removed without cause and contrary to existing law three CPSC commissioners, including me.
When I was chair of the CPSC, I found the independence of the agency crucial to achieving its mission of preventing consumer product-related injuries and deaths. The buck stopped with me and my fellow commissioners.
I never worried that the White House could countermand a decision by a majority of commissioners to recall a defective product, to establish a strong safety standard, or to take enforcement action against a particular company. Companies knew that they could not get special treatment by being close to the President or administration officials.
During my tenure, the commissioners participated in CPSC’s decisions, providing their own perspectives and, at times, dissents against majority decisions. I strove for unanimity, and whenever possible, worked across the aisle to develop enforcement and regulatory approaches that every commissioner could support. The diversity of views helped guide the CPSC, and bipartisan leadership provided a level of transparency into its actions that is absent from a non-independent agency. As a health and safety organization, such real-time checks and balances are particularly critical to the public welfare.
The Trump Administration’s removal of three commissioners and the President’s insistence that the CPSC is not independent have undermined the foundations of the agency and the CPSC’s ability to perform its duties.
This is particularly problematic given the degree to which President Donald J. Trump and his family are engaged in the sale of consumer products under the jurisdiction of the CPSC. For example, Trump-branded products include pajamas, bottles for kids, glassware, room spray, clothing, mugs, and teddy bears, which are typically monitored by the agency.
By design, the Consumer Product Safety Act isolated the CPSC and its commissioners from undue political influence and economic self-interest. If that independence is eliminated, however, those checks and balances disappear.
Although I have no reason to believe that products sold by President Trump or his family’s businesses are defective or violate product safety standards, the lack of independent regulatory oversight creates risk. Even the most reputable manufacturers have inadvertently produced defective products that needed to be recalled. An independent watchdog is necessary to ensure such defective products are found and the public protected.
Under the Administration’s interpretation of the law, the President may remove any commissioner at will, and he can and has removed commissioners who disagreed with him. As a result, products sold by his companies or companies that are favored by Administration officials could be treated differently than other companies’ products. Independent commissioners who could normally shed light on questionable decisions or the lack of enforcement already have been removed.
Today, approximately $2 trillion in consumer products enter commerce annually, and over 14 million Americans are treated for injuries associated with consumer products. The need for an independent federal agency tasked with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury is no less than it was in 1972. At the same time, the political influence of companies and the conflicts of interest within the Administration have only grown. The loss of an independent product safety watchdog will put Americans at greater risk. I can only hope the Supreme Court will reaffirm its holding in Humphrey’s Executor and allow the work of independent federal agencies like the CPSC to continue.
This essay is part of a series titled, “In Defense of Regulatory Independence.”
