Public Opposes Expanding Presidential Power to Control Independent Agencies, Block Federal Spending, Replace Civil Servants

News provided by

Mar 13, 2025, 12:06 ET

COLLEGE PARK, Md., March 13, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- In the midst of current debates about expanding Presidential authority, a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation finds majority opposition among the public.

Large majorities (65-69%) - bipartisan in all but one case - oppose putting seven currently independent agencies under direct Presidential control.
A bipartisan majority of two-thirds (67%) say Presidents should not be able to unilaterally remove the independence of agencies.
Over six in ten (63%) oppose Presidents having the authority to unilaterally block federal spending, by impounding funds allocated by legislation.
A majority (55%) opposes reclassifying many civil servants to make it easier for Presidents to fire and replace them.

These are some of the findings of a new in-depth survey by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation (PPC), fielded March 4-7, 2025 with a representative sample of 1,249 adults nationwide.

"Though Americans have many frustrations with the federal government, the large majority of Americans do not seem to see giving Presidents more power as the answer," commented Steven Kull, Director of PPC.

Respondents evaluated strongly stated arguments for and against expanding Presidential authority, over independent agencies and federal spending. The arguments against did better, especially those that focused on how centralizing more power in the Presidency risks corruption and politicization of essential government functions, and undermines the Constitution's separation of powers. Large bipartisan majorities found those arguments convincing.

The arguments in favor of expanding Presidential authority – that doing so would better allow Presidents to fulfill their agenda, which the people voted for, and take power away from unaccountable – were found convincing by smaller and less bipartisan majorities.

Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies
Respondents were asked to evaluate seven currently independent agencies, as to whether they should be put under the direct control of Presidents, who would then have the power to change or overturn agency decisions and fire commissioners. Large majorities favor keeping the independence of the Federal Communications Commission (66%), Federal Trade Commission (66%), Securities and Exchange Commission (67%), National Labor Relations Board (65%), the Federal Reserve's regulatory functions (67%), the Federal Election Commission (69%), and the Office of Special Counsel (67%).

Support for continuing agencies' independence includes at least three-quarters of Democrats (75-80%) and around the same percent of independents (72-79%). Among Republicans, majorities support continuing the independence for six agencies (52-57%), while their views are divided over the Federal Trade Commission, with 50% favoring independence and 49% Presidential control.

Asked who should have the authority to remove the independent status of agencies, a bipartisan majority of 67% favor keeping that authority with Congress, rather than Presidents gaining the power to do so unilaterally. This includes majorities of Democrats (81%), Republicans (52%), and independents (73%).

Presidential Authority to Impound Federal Funds
Respondents were asked whether they favor Presidents having the authority to unilaterally block federal spending, by impounding funds that have been allocated through legislation, or if Presidents should continue to have to get Congressional approval to modify spending. A majority (63%) do not support Presidents having impoundment authority, including 80% of Democrats and 69% of independents. Among Republicans, a modest majority of 53% supports Presidents having the authority, with generational differences: a majority of Republicans under age 45 are in favor, while those 45 and over are divided.

Allow Presidents to More Easily Fire and Replace Civil Servants
Respondents were asked about a proposal to change the rules for hiring and firing civil servants, so that, under the direction of Presidents, workers could be fired more easily, and new ones hired without going through a competitive process based on skills and experience. A majority of 55% oppose this proposal, including large majorities of Democrats and independents (71% and 66%, respectively). A majority of Republicans are in favor (63%).

The argument against the proposal – that it could politicize and corrupt the workforce, decrease expertise, and worsen government performance – was found convincing by a large bipartisan majority. The argument in favor – that the federal workforce is made up of too many unaccountable bureaucrats who hinder Presidents' ability to fulfill their agenda – did not do as well, though a majority found it at least somewhat convincing.

About the Survey
The survey was a "public consultation survey" in which respondents are provided briefings and evaluate arguments for and against each proposal. Content was written using the assistance of LLMs, and reviewed to ensure that the briefings are accurate and balanced and that the arguments presented are the strongest ones being made.

The survey was fielded March 4-7, 2025 with 1,249 adults nationally. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval is +/- 3.0% and the response rate for the sample is 8.8%.

About the Program for Public Consultation
The Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, seeking to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy issues. It shares its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

CONTACT: Taylor Ancell, [email protected]

SOURCE Program for Public Consultation