Max Yoeli
speaker
85 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Jul 2026
last heard 17 Jul
Max Yoeli’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 1 in all, peaking in Jul 2026 with 1.
Appearances
Good to be back.
The notion that the president can remove without cause a member of a multi-member so-called independent agency is the last in a long line of erosions of protections for these types of political appointees that previously would serve across administrations.
And what I think it points to is the extension of the White House's prerogative over these last areas of policymaking where there was a bit
More continuity between administrations.
Now, some will say that that can actually lead to greater cohesion in executive branch policymaking, that the agency will be responsive to the White House's policy prerogatives and that is more consistent with what the American people elected that person to do.
Perhaps it leads to more accountability.
If you don't like what the Securities and Exchange Commission is doing or the FTC, then take it up with the president.
The main concern is that the government is a very important thing.
That many have articulated, especially in this presidency, is that allowing the president to reshape these institutions on a dime makes them very politically responsive in such a way that regulation, enforcement actions, investigations become tied to a political calendar and political prerogatives rather than a kind of more objective set of criteria, in that we will see swings from what administrators.
administration to the next that a future president could clean house at these regulators and regulated entities would then face that sort of whiplash.
And you know, for businesses around the world, that's that's a very difficult challenge to plan for.
And I should say that market sensitivity is apparent in the court's decision in in the Lisa Cook case, the Federal Reserve governor who President Trump sought to remove for cause, but without adequate process.
And there the court took pains to distinguish the Federal Reserve and its monetary policy role from the more regulatory functions of some of the other independent agencies.
But in the majority's opinion, you can see them really
Stretching to protect the Federal Reserve in some ways because of that unique market-facing role as a a pillar really of the US economic role in the world.
And there may not be that coherent of a doctrinal distinction between the Federal Reserve and some of the other independent agencies, but you can tell that a few of the justices realize the market implications and that is permeating their decision making.
The way in which the president is seeking to rebuild his tariff policy through other authorities that Heather brought up really shows to me the the asymmetry of this court's approach in the past few years in areas where it is allowing an expansion of presidential power or or granting more authority, including the immunity ruling in 2024, whereby the court granted, you know, a a broad reading of immunity.
to the president for actions undertaken during office, even after he had left that office, as well as the curtailment of nationwide injunctions where somebody brings a a complaint against the administration for a policy, it can no longer be read to apply quite as broadly.
In these cases, the effect is structural, but in the cases where the court has pushed back most on the the IPA tariff litigation and then also on birthright citizenship.
It's unique to that statute or that constitutional read, but there are always alternate tools for the administration to pursue the same ends.
Showing 1–20 of 85 · page 1 of 5
Next →