
Independent regulators in ‘real danger' after Trump firings, say ex-NLRB chairs
Donald Trump has been accused of launching an 'attack on the rule of law' as three former heads of the top US labor watchdog criticized the unprecedented firing of a top official.
The abrupt removal of Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) leaves the agency 'out of business' unless a replacement is nominated, they warned – and highlights a 'real danger' to the independence of regulators and adjudicators now Trump is back in the White House.
In interviews with The Guardian, previous chairs of the NLRB described the dismissal of Wilcox as a 'usurpation' of power that 'reeks of discriminatory motive'.
The White House blamed decisions taken by Wilcox and Jennifer Abruzzo, the NLRB's general counsel, as it fired the pair earlier this week.
The move leaves the agency's board with only two members, short of the quorum of three required to issue significant decisions on US labor disputes. Wilcox, , the first Black woman to serve on the board, has pledged to pursue 'all legal avenues' to challenge her firing.
'It was unprecedented to have a sitting board member terminated because of her positions that she's taken in cases. That is clearly contrary to law,' said Lauren McFerran, chair of the NLRB until last month, when he reappointment was blocked in the US Senate.. 'In this case, the President made no pretense of accusing member Wilcox of any misconduct, which would be ridiculous.
'She's a dedicated public servant. She had a sterling reputation. He did not, to my knowledge, provide her with any opportunity for a hearing or any advanced notice, he just summarily fired her because he disagreed with her decisions as a board Member. That's never happened before.'
Members of the NLRB, according to the National Labor Relations Act, can only be removed by a President 'for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.'
McFerran served as a member of the NLRB from 2014 to 2019, was reappointed under the Trump administration in 2020, and chair the agency from January 2021 until December.
'There is real danger in attacking the existence of independent regulatory agencies, particularly independent adjudicators,' she added. 'Congress made a judgment that certain areas of critical government decision making should be insulated from the day-to-day influence of the president. I think that's particularly important when we're talking about people who are functionally serving as judges.'
McFerran also noted given Wilcox's intent to challenge her removal in court, if new board members are appointed, any decisions made without her can be deemed invalid if her termination is overturned, creating uncertainty for federal labor laws.
'We want parties who bring their cases before agencies like the board to have fair tribunals,' concluded McFerran. 'When I was at the board, I never had to worry that if I was hearing a case and I rejected the position of somebody who was an ally of the president, or even rejected the position of the presidentially appointed general counsel, that it would cost me my job. And that's the environment that future board members could be operating in now, which basically just takes away the independence of independent agencies, and I think that's a real loss for the government.'
Wilma B Liebman, who chaired the NLRB from 2009 to 2011, under Barack Obama, and before that served as a board member under Bill Clinton and George W Bush, called Wilcox's termination 'brazen and shocking, contrary to long existing supreme court precedent, the clear language of the statute (the NLRA), and decades of custom'.
'Singling out a Black woman for termination, reeks of discriminatory motive,' Liebman said. 'The White House is perilously rolling the dice here, but their aim obviously is to cause chaos and impede the Board's operation. Her termination, along with the termination of other members of bipartisan multimember boards or commissions, sets a dangerous precedent and threat to the rule of law, further polarizing and politicizing administrative agency operations and the law.'
This goes 'way beyond the state of polarization and politicization that has existed already for years', she added.
Some NLRB functions, such as processing unfair labor practice charges, do not require three serving board members, while the chief administrative law judge can handle some motions and requests without a quorum on the board. But cases where a board decision is required or requested are effectively halted.
While McFerran noted that a lot of 'routine steps' can continue within the NLRB, she warned: 'Push comes to shove, if any party wants to take advantage of the fact that there's not a quorum of the board to try to kind of to put an indefinite pause on their case, they can pretty easily do so.'
Firms including SpaceX, led by Trump ally Elon Musk, and Amazon have filed challenges against the NLRB in court, alleging the agency is unconstitutional. Federal courts are currently reviewing many of these cases, which could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
William B Gould IV, NLRB chair from 1994 to 1998, claimed Wilcox's termination was a bid to weaken the labor movement.
'Trump is playing a role, that he is well used to, and that is the role of usurping the rule of law,' he said. 'I think it's usurpation and an attack on the rule of law to politicize in a way which Congress and the Constitution never intended, to allow for the dismissal of board members when the President doesn't like what they've done.'
It is unclear how the courts will rule on the termination, Gould noted, particularly given the conservative makeup of the supreme court, should it hear the case. Butin the mean time, the removal will 'paralyze the board and put the board adjudicatively out of business', he said, 'which is exactly what Mr Trump and his allies would want, because it promotes the democracy for workers, and they don't want that.'.
A White House official said: 'These were far-left appointees with radical records of upending longstanding labor law, and they have no place as senior appointees in the Trump Administration, which was given a mandate by the American people to undo the radical policies they created.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Herald Scotland
17 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Past National Guard deployments in LA: What to know
While Vice President J.D. Vance has referred to the protesters as "insurrectionists" and senior White House aide Stephen Miller described the protests as a "violent insurrection," President Donald Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Under the 1807 law, the president may have the legal authority to dispatch the military or federalize the Guard in states that cannot control insurrections under or are defying federal law. In June 2020, USA TODAY reported that Trump had considered invoking the Insurrection Act over protests in response to the murder of George Floyd, a Black man who died after a former Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck on a street corner in May 2020. Protestors clashed with police across the country, including in Los Angeles, which prompted then-Mayor Eric Garcetti to ask Newsom for members of the Guard to be sent to the city. At the time, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and others urged against deploying domestic troops to quell civil unrest. In 1994, a magnitude 6.7 earthquake - known as the Northridge earthquake - shook the San Fernando Valley, which is about 20 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. The earthquake caused an estimated $20 billion in residential damages, according to the California Earthquake Authority. The Guard was sent as part of the disaster assistance operation. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992 by former President George H.W. Bush, when the acquittal of the Los Angeles Police Department officers who beat Rodney King sparked civil unrest in Los Angeles, which left more than 60 people dead and 2,300 injured, according to the Bill of Rights Institute. Thousands of members of the Guard, the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps were deployed in the city. In 1965, nearly 14,000 Guard troops were sent to Los Angeles amid the Watts riots at the request of the California lieutenant governor, according to Stanford University's Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. Contributing: Reuters

South Wales Argus
2 days ago
- South Wales Argus
Andrew Lightbown on ability to discuss sensitive issues
Where there are no easy answers, great care needs to be taken over the quality of rhetoric, for without such quality control it becomes easy to scapegoat or stigmatize others, making them feel somehow less. It also becomes easier to retreat into our affinity groups, to the exclusion of others. Now to be clear there is nothing wrong with belonging to affinity groups, in fact we need them if we are to feel at home. Religiously I am an Anglican, rugby wise I am Black and Amber through and through. My affinity groups provide me with belonging and meaning. They are places where I can feel, for the most part, comfortable. But, and here's the nub of it: my affinity groups are no better or worse than anyone else's. To refuse to engage with others outside of our affinity groups is to live in a hermetically sealed bubble, where all outsiders are rendered strange. If we are to live life and live it well, we all need to engage beyond our immediate affinity groups and, in our rhetoric, we must ensure that we don't belittle others, even those we might find a little strange. I found the Prime Minister's use of the term 'island of strangers' in his speech on immigration problematic. I am not sure who the phrase was directed at. Was it directed at people living in gated residences in the most prosperous parts of the land, or at people living in inner city areas where most residents belong to a particular class or ethnicity? But more than this I am not sure it is true. Over the last couple of weeks, I have experienced solidarity, support, and compassion from people outside of my natural affinity group. I was delighted to help lead an Interfaith Friendship Evening on Stow Hill, where it quickly became clear that in this city people from very different backgrounds care about the same issues. A second example: my mother is in hospital and the level of care and support, from people very different to her, is tangible. Jesus, in a parable called the Judgment of the Nations said: 'I was a stranger, and you invited me in.' Whatever the complexity of immigration policy – and it is complex – surely it is only right and proper that we all strive to ensure that we speak well, and that whilst prizing our affinity groups we also engage beyond them? Andrew Lightbown is the canon at St Woolos Cathedral, Newport.


Daily Mirror
3 days ago
- Daily Mirror
Britain 'is at war with Russia' and 'in big trouble' thanks to Donald Trump
The UK needs to adapt to the new world of warfare and prepare for its once steadfast ally in Washington to no longer come to its defence, a top defence analyst has warned The UK is "at war with Russia" and "in big trouble" as the US pivots away from blanket defence of Europe, according to the author of a strategic defence review. Fiona Hill from County Durham was the White House's chief Russia adviser, and claimed the UK was in a challenging geopolitical position - caught between "the rock" of Vladimir Putin and "the hard place" of Donald Trump 's unpredictable White House. The dual US-UK citizen has built up a major profile and was appointed as a defence reviewer appointed by Lord Robertson, a former NATO secretary general. She claimed Russia has "hardened" as an adversary in ways that have not been "fully appreciated". Speaking to The Guardian, she said Russia has been "menacing the UK in various different ways". She cited "the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber attacks and influence operations". In a harrowing conclusion, Hill said "Russia is at war with us". She made a similar warning in 2015 in a revised version of a book she wrote about Putin, which reflected on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. Hill said: "We said Putin had declared war on the west." She argued Putin viewed Ukraine as part of a proxy war with the US and that he persuaded China, North Korea and Iran "to join in". She claimed Ukraine had been decoupled from wider US support as "Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment". In a damning assessment of the current White House, she said the UK could not rely on Washington DC for military support and that Downing Street is having to "manage its number one ally". The defence review, published earlier this week, stated the UK's longstanding assumptions about global power balances and structures were no longer certain. Hill would not be drawn on whether she has advised Downing Street on how to approach US President Donald Trump, instead stating: "The advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting." She added the Trump White House "is not an administration, it is a court" where transactional arrangements are made. In another bleak assessment of world affairs, she said: "We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more." She argued Britain would need to have a "different mindset" based on traditional defence. She went on: "People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here. "The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet."