Today, I have an exciting update for our audience: just a few days ago, I hosted a panel discussion featuring former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya at the IAPP Global Privacy Summit, held in Washington, D.C. We captured the entire conversation, and I'm thrilled to share it with you.

At first glance, this may seem like a typical edition of Decoder, the podcast I host where I explore pressing issues. However, the circumstances surrounding this conversation are anything but ordinary. As you will hear from the guests, both Becca and Alvaro were just recently fired by President Donald Trump, under dubious legal circumstances. It appears that the President does not actually hold the legal authority to dismiss them from their roles.

By law, the FTC is required to maintain a balance of commissioners from both major political parties, a stipulation aimed at ensuring bipartisanship within the agency. In addition to this statutory requirement, there exists a precedent set by the Supreme Court nearly 90 years ago, specifically in the case of Humphreys Executor v. United States, which stipulates that the President cannot arbitrarily fire FTC commissioners. As you will learn from Becca and Alvaro, they are now pursuing legal action against the administration in hopes of regaining their positions and are committed to taking this battle all the way to the Supreme Court.

This puts them in a surreal, almost Schrdinger's cat-like state: they are both former commissioners and still acting commissioners, creating an unusual dynamic that we delve into during the discussion. In addition to the legal drama, we also touch on the ongoing work of the FTC, including the antitrust case against Meta, which was unfolding a short distance away while we conducted our interview. I posed questions about the progression of that case and the implications of Mark Zuckerberg's prior donations to Trumps inauguration. Despite these connections, the government seems undeterred in its pursuit of breaking up Meta, as noted by Becca, who pointedly remarks that poor bribery efforts do not eliminate the risk of corruption.

The conversation covers a wide array of topics, from the implications of presidential powers to the ongoing advancements in AI technology being developed in Silicon Valley. Intriguingly, we even ended up discussing printer recommendations, showcasing the light-hearted moments that can arise even amid serious discussions.

Now, let's dive into the insights from our liminal FTC commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, as they share their experiences and perspectives on these critical issues.

This interview has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

As I begin, I introduce myself as Nilay Patel, the editor-in-chief of The Verge and the host of the Decoder podcast. Alongside me are my distinguished guests, who I will refer to as the former FTC commissioners.

Alvaro Bedoya quickly interjects, Thats your call. We would politely disagree.

Rebecca Slaughter adds, We would not say that.

Welcome to you both, our current liminal FTC commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. Thank you for joining me today.

Rebecca responds, Thanks for having us.

As we jump into the conversation, I have a multitude of questions for both guests. Lets address the most pressing issue at hand: your recent firing by President Trump. It appears that this dismissal was executed without legal grounds. Can you shed light on how that transpired?

Rebecca begins, I did not receive a phone call from him. To provide some context, I was originally appointed by Donald Trump in 2018, serving as a minority commissioner representing the Democratic Party. According to statute, the FTC is mandated to have a bipartisan composition with five members, no more than three from any single party. I served as a minority commissioner until I briefly acted as chair at the start of the Biden administration, then transitioned back to a majority commissioner alongside Alvaro, who joined in 2022, before becoming a minority commissioner once again in January 2025.

Rebecca continues, On March 18, which was a Tuesday, I had just finished a busy day at the office meeting with staff when I found myself volunteering for my childs drama club project at their elementary school. We often joke about keeping drama on stage and out of our home, but that day, the drama found me. I checked my email and saw a message from someone I had never heard of in the Presidential Personnel Office. It was a communication supposedly on behalf of Trump, stating that I was terminated effective immediately. I stepped outside to call Alvaro and asked, Did you check your email? You can take it from there.

Alvaro chimes in, I was very diligently avoiding my email as I had just arrived at my daughters gymnastics class. She despises it when Im distracted by my phone while shes performing. Then I got Beccas call, and she said, You should check your email because I just received a termination notice. Sure enough, I found the same email in my inbox.

Curiosity strikes me, and I ask about the nature of the termination email. Did you receive a plain-text email notifying you of your dismissal? I cant help but imagine Trump producing a PDF document for this purpose.

Rebecca clarifies, No, there was no PDF, no signed letter, no signature. Just a plain-text email.

Alvaro adds, There was no indication of additional security associated with the email.

My interest piqued, I inquire about the mechanics of such decisions. It felt like someone simply typed an email in Outlook and hit send, Rebecca responds, capturing the casual absurdity of the situation.

They are both currently embroiled in litigation against the Trump administration and Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who seem to be violating the long-standing Supreme Court case, Humphreys Executor v. United States. I raise the question of whether they are prepared to take their case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Rebecca responds with conviction, Absolutely. This is straightforward. The facts are undisputed, as is the law. Commissioners can only be removed for causemeaning neglect, malfeasance, or inefficiency. The termination email did not allege any such cause, as there is none. Neither of us has engaged in any wrongdoing. Alvaro is one of the most diligent individuals in Washington, and I strive to keep up with him.

She continues, The law clearly states that a commissioner can only be removed for cause, a statute that has been in place for 111 years. The last time a president attempted to dismiss an FTC commissioner without cause was during FDRs presidency. That commissioner, William Humphrey, also filed a lawsuit against his removal, which ultimately went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the statute allowing for cause-based removals is constitutional, and that precedent has remained unchallenged for nearly nine decades.

Reflecting on the potential legal battle, she adds, It would be shocking for a district court judge to overturn 90 years of Supreme Court precedent. We are unequivocally ready to take this case to the Supreme Court, especially since the administration appears determined to challenge this long-standing precedent, arguing that the President should have the authority to dismiss any commissioner. They frame this as a matter of democratic accountability, which I find ironic in light of the accountability and transparency that bipartisan commissions provide.

Alvaro interjects, This is not only about Becca and me. It touches on the ability of independent institutions to operate without fear or favor. If the President can dismiss us at will, what prevents him from doing the same to Jerome Powell at the Federal Reserve or SEC commissioners? This has profound implications for the regulatory environment governing our financial systems.

Rebecca emphasizes, The stability of these institutions is paramount. If removal protections are weakened, the very existence of these agencies could be threatened, consequently undermining public trust and economic stability.

I question whether they have taken note of the chaotic political landscape, particularly regarding Trumps threats to Powell and subsequent retractions. What we see is precisely what we have been stating, Rebecca affirms. The mere fact that he chooses not to remove someone does not equate to stability; the underlying volatility persists, causing market fluctuations.

The conversation shifts back to the functioning of the FTC amid the ongoing antitrust action against Meta. I reference Chair Ferguson's comments, wherein he indicated he would comply with the Presidents orders regarding ongoing cases. I ask them how genuine that position is and whether he is managing Trumps expectations.

Alvaro elaborates, We need to examine Fergusons statements in greater detail. As the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, he has made it clear that he believes in the importance of the Meta lawsuit and insists that the law supports our case.

Rebecca adds, However, he simultaneously asserts that he would drop the lawsuit if ordered by the President. In such a scenario, who truly benefits? Are consumers and competition being served in that environment?

Alvaro continues, Additionally, the mere fact that Ferguson hasnt been dismissed doesnt imply he isnt being influenced. The expectation to comply with directives can stifle the mission of the FTC, creating a chilling effect.

Rebecca raises a critical point regarding Zuckerbergs involvement in the upcoming trial. The optics are concerning. In any standard administration, a major donor meeting with the President to lobby for law enforcement actions would prompt intense scrutiny. We must uphold the rule of law and not allow the potential for bribery to erode the integrity of our institutions.

Alvaro echoes her sentiment, asserting, Bribery is detrimental, even if it doesnt yield immediate results. The integrity of our legal system relies on facts, not financial influence.

As the conversation continues, we explore the implications of ongoing litigation against Amazon, particularly concerning labor practices and the potential conflicts of interest stemming from political donations. Alvaro highlights the staggering ties between donations made by Jeff Bezos and policy decisions impacting Amazons operational environment.

Turning our attention back to the broader implications of their work, Rebecca cautions against viewing current antitrust cases as isolated incidents. The fundamental question at stake is whether the FTC can effectively protect consumers and ensure fair competition in an environment where corporate interests can sway regulatory decisions.

In the latter part of our discussion, we lament the challenges faced in regulating emerging technologies, particularly AI. The promises made by AI executives can often border on ludicrous, yet the FTC remains committed to holding companies accountable for misleading claims. Both commissioners express their dedication to ensuring that AI does not escape regulatory scrutiny.

As we conclude, I thank Rebecca and Alvaro for their insights and discussions, emphasizing the need for continued advocacy for independence in regulatory institutions. The importance of their legal battle extends beyond their personal careers; it represents a critical fight for the integrity of regulatory frameworks designed to protect consumers and ensure fair market practices.

We encourage our audience to engage in this important conversation about the future of regulatory independence and the implications for technology, privacy, and economic stability.