Unitary Executive Theory

Article II begins: the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. Proponents of the unitary executive theory read that sentence as giving the President, and only the President, all executive power, so that every official who executes federal law acts as the President's agent and must be removable at will and subject to direction. Alexander Hamilton's defense of energy in the executive in Federalist No. 70 and the 1789 decision to let the President remove the Secretary of Foreign Affairs are cited as founding support.

The Supreme Court has moved back and forth. In Myers v. United States in 1926 it upheld the President's power to fire a postmaster despite a statute requiring Senate consent. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States in 1935 it allowed Congress to protect commissioners of multimember independent agencies from removal except for cause, and in Morrison v. Olson in 1988 it upheld an independent counsel over Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent, a foundational text for the theory. Since 2010 the Court has strengthened presidential control, striking down removal protections for the single director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Seila Law v. CFPB in 2020 and the Federal Housing Finance Agency in Collins v. Yellen in 2021.

Supporters argue the theory ensures democratic accountability, since voters can hold one elected official responsible for the whole executive branch. Critics argue it concentrates dangerous power, threatens the independence of regulators, prosecutors, and the civil service, and is not compelled by the Constitution's text or history. In 2025 the President removed members of several independent commissions without cause, and on June 29, 2026, in Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court overruled Humphrey's Executor, a major victory for proponents of the theory, while treating the Federal Reserve as a special case.