In 2026, the Supreme Court allowed President Trump to fire the Federal Trade Commissioner (FTC), overturning a major restraint on presidential power. By a vote of 6-3, the justices struck down a federal law that bars the president from firing members of the FTC except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Independent agencies like the FTC help manage complex technical, financial, and safety regulations using their expertise in the national interest instead of it being a short-term political movement. Since the Constitution does not explicitly say the president has the power to remove independent agency leaders, the scope of that power has been shaped by legislation and the courts. Thus, this broadens the scope of what the executive branch can or cannot do that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The recent expansion of presidential authority over independent federal agencies demonstrates the limitations of relying on formal institutions (the judicial and legislative branches) alone to prevent democratic erosion. As formal institutions weaken, maintaining checks and balances becomes increasingly dependent on democratic norms like mutual toleration and institutional forbearance.

Independent agencies are set up to have some degree of autonomy from direct presidential control, yet formal institutions are preventing them from acting independently. The FTC was created more than a century ago. President Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, whom he had previously nominated and who was confirmed by the Senate, because Slaughter was “inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” According to Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, the removals gave the President a power that would have caused the Founders to revolt. The whole point of the independent agencies is for them to be independent. This can reshape the government; they could become purely executive agencies. This demonstrates how good constitutions alone cannot protect democracy. The US has the shortest written constitution in the world and lacks information on purpose. However, this creates a problem: they are subject to competing interpretations that can become exploited. For example, the US has many formal institutions to prevent the concentration of power: Legislative, Judicial, Executive branch and independent agencies. However, having them in writing does not guarantee that they will effectively constrain one another. When you have a populist president who creates the “us vs. them” narrative, it can be hard to go against him when he has the power to appoint loyal individuals. Therefore, because the President has greater authority to remove independent-agency officials, the agency may become more directly responsive to the President.

Undermining democratic norms fuels polarization, threatening democracy. As of now, the Republican Party is in control, which has an impact on how unlikely they are to constrain anti-democratic presidential actions. Congress could respond to the presidential expansion of power, but ambitions are largely partisan rather than institutional. Since there is a same-party majority in Congress, it would not be in their favor for political actors to check on these presidential expansions. The Courts are majority Republican. Although they are meant to interpret laws, for this particular case, they overruled their 91-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor vs United States, which upheld the law at the center of the dispute. This may create warning signs, but the courts would also be unlikely to check erosion since they may rule in favor of the majority party. This will weaken the whole point of the creation of the Constitution and Federalist 51 about checks and balances, since these agencies will be left for the president to decide who can stay and who has to leave.

Mutual toleration and forbearance matter when political actors have the legal authority to exercise institutional power. In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt talk about mutual toleration and how political opponents accept and acknowledge that they have an equal right to compete and govern. Forbearance is when politicians tolerate and restrain themselves from using their institutional powers to the maximum. The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates that the norms are fundamental. Even with the increase in presidential power to remove agency officials, democratic stability can depend on whether politicians can act on how they use their authority. It has not gone to the extreme where these politicians have resorted to authoritarian measures, resulting in a constitutional crisis. It has gone through the court system, demonstrating forbearance as the executive branch knows it has power, but is not using it to the maximum because they are not seeing an existential threat. That would make it an even greater incentive to use any or all institutional power against political opponents, creating a constitutional hardball. Once the constitutional hardball is unravelled, it will be hard to put back in place. Thus, Levitsky and Ziblatt warn that mutual toleration and forbearance are democratic norms that are necessary. It is not only about following the Constitution, but also recognizing that just because they have the power to eliminate anyone does not mean they should do it. Otherwise, the other side would one-up them, and democracy would be a repeated game.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision involving the FTC demonstrates how formal democratic institutions alone are not always strong enough to protect checks and balances. Due to the President being a populist, polarization across the years has increased, creating obstacles between the formal institutions. As Levitsky and Ziblatt explain, democracy also depends on informal norms like mutual toleration and forbearance. The case demonstrates how the judicial system can have some legal authority to exercise power, and, based on the stability of the democratic state, it can depend on whether it uses that power with restraint. Protecting democracy requires politicians to respect institutional limits, and recognizing the powers they have established today will have an impact in the future.