Talk:Independent agencies of the United States government

Untitled

FEMA is no longer an independent agency. It is part of the Department of Homeland Security. There's a page for FEMA at, appropriately enough, FEMA. -- SeanO

The information on NASA is outdated as far as I know, given that the space shuttle is retired, but I don't have the background to suggest how to rework the entry. 24.63.12.207 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of independence

What does "independent" mean in this context? The president can dismiss the CIA head at will, so it's not independent in the sense that the Supreme Court is an "independent branch" of goverment.

And what about the Peace Corps? Who appoints its director? Congress, or the President? --Uncle Ed 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Independent means that an agency is independent of an executive department (Defense, State, Treasury, Justice, etc.). All "agencies" are part of the executive branch and are either part of a department or are independent. The independent agencies report directly to the President and are headed by a political appointee that usually can be fired by the president at will. Some parts of the excutive branch are more indepenent, such as the Federal Reserve Board, which is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but these institutions are not "agencies".Leuliett 20:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Some agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, do not report directly to the President. While they are headed by political appointees appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, they cannot be fired by the President at will--they serve specified terms and must be impeached to be removed. Further, regulations created by these agencies must be voted on by the members of the commission and the enacting legislation of some of them require that a portion of the commission members cannot be from the same political party. Epstein's Mother 04:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Peace Corps is an independent agency. President Kennedy was concerned that if it was part of the State Department, it would have trouble being accepted by other countries, and insisted that it report directly to the President. Like all parts of the executive branch, the director is appointed by the President. By statue, the appointment must be approved by Senate.Leuliett 20:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Commissions

Should the Presidential Commissions be listed here as well? Mlm42 10:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness

Can either the list here or the one at List of United States federal agencies be made comprehensive? Whichever one is not comprehensive should have a pointer to the other. -- Beland 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

World View

I was going to find more info on administrative agency. It redirected to this page. This is not a world view page even though the information presented is very descriptive and a layman can understand the concept of a administrative agency.--Zhongxin (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it better to have administrative agency as the world view page and this page as a link on it. The administrative agency should give examples of countries with independent statutory bodies that are not part of any executive branch e.g. Australia has Australian Federal Police, Australian Custom Service... --Zhongxin (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) --Doyceb (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Independent Agencies and Independent Regulatory Agencies

This seems to be a confusing subject. I thought at one time that I understood it, but now I am not so sure. I always thought that the CIA was part of the Executive branch, but that the FCC was an independent regulatory agency. Now it seems that the CIA is also an independent agency.

So now my new understanding is that there are two types of independent agencies. Agencies within the executive branch that are not subordinate to a department(State, Defense, etc.) are independent agencies.

Agencies, which combine both legislative branch and executive branch functions, but are not under the supervision of either the legislative branch or the executive branch are independent regulatory agencies. They may somehow fall under the executive branch on some organizational chart, but they are not under the control of the executive branch. Independent regulatory agencies were developed to regulate sectors of the economy that congress did not have the expertise to regulate. The were also developed to reduce political influence on important sectors of the economy. Congress delegates some of its legislative authority to the agency and the executive branch delegates some of its enforcement authority to it.

1. The president can fire the head of an independent agency. The president cannot fire the head of an independent regulatory agency. For example, John McCain said that he would fire the head of the SEC, if he were president. He is mistaken. The President cannot fire the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission((http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/mccain-blasts-o.html)). I believe that the head of an independent regulatory agency has to be impeached to be removed.

2. Independent agencies cannot make laws, rules, or regulations that apply to the public sector. For example, the CIA cannot make a law or regulation that applies to me. Law making is a right reserved for congress. However, an independent regulatory agency can make regulations that apply to the public sector and that have the force of law. They can do this, because congress has delegated to them the authority to do this. The FCC(Federal Communications Commission) makes regulations that cover broadcast bandwidth, lights on antennas, etc.

3. Independent agencies cannot enforce laws or regulations against the public sector. Independent regulatory agencies can. The FCC imposed fines on TV stations not long ago for violating decency regulations. The most well known example was when Janet Jackson's boob was bared. They get the authority to enforce regulations from the executive branch.

4. The president cannot order creation, change or removal of regulations that are the responsibility of an independent regulatory agency. In the early 80's, President Regan's deregulation of the savings and loans and the airline industry was big news. However, he did not have the authority to do this on his own. Either the regulatory agency has to do it itself or Congress, as the ultimate authority for passage or elimination of laws, must do it. In the Savings and Loan example cited, President Regan proposed legislation for removing some of the regulations that he found objectionable, congress wrote and passed the legislation , then it went to the President for his signature. ((http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Savings_and_Loan ((The United States Congress granted all thrifts in 1980, including savings and loan associations, the power to make consumer and commercial loans and to issue transaction accounts. Designed to help the thrift industry retain its deposit base and to improve its profitability, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) of 1980 allowed thrifts to make consumer loans up to 20 percent of their assets, issue credit cards, accept negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts from individuals and nonprofit organizations, and invest up to 20 percent of their assets in commercial real estate loans.

In 1982, the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act was passed and increased the proportion of assets that thrifts could hold in consumer and commercial real estate loans and allowed thrifts to invest 5 percent of their assets in commercial loans until January 1, 1984, when this percentage increased to 10 percent [1].))))

---

The above is how I understood independent regulatory agencies, but my understanding is apparently flawed. The Federal Aviation Administration ceased to be an independent regulatory agency in 1966 and became part of the Department of Transportation under the supervision of the executive branch, and it apparently still passes regulations, which have the force of law, but the constitution gives congress the sole law making authority. --Doyceb (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between "independent agency" and "independent regulatory agency" on this page is contrived and not based in law. There are only "executive agencies" and "independent agencies." Justice Breyer, who wrote the book on adminsitrative law, agrees with me: "The traditional and prominent independent agencies are the CAB, FCC, FMC, FRB, FTC, ICC, NLRB, NRC, FERC, and SEC. These agencies are independent because Congress has limited the president's authority to remove their leaders." Breyer et al., "Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy" 6th ed. (2006), p. 100. If the president can (by law) remove the head (or heads) of an agency, it's not independent. All of this nonsense about "who reports to whom" being the basis for independence or executive control has no basis in law or practice. 68.51.75.50 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

With about 15 or so exceptions, all U.S. federal government "entities" - and I'll use that word in a non-technical way -- are part of the Executive Branch, regardless of whether they're considered "departments" or independent "agencies" or "bureaus" or "executive agencies," etc., etc. The Central Intelligence Agency is part of the Executive Branch. The Securities and Exchange Commission is part of the Executive Branch.

A particular entity can be a "bureau" or an "agency" or both. We need to recognize that the same entity could be considered as being "XXX" for one legal purpose but at the same time be considered "not XXX" for some other legal purpose. In short, let's try to come to a consensus on what the criteria should be.

Before we start claiming that there is a distinction between "who can fire" and "who reports to whom", let's be clear whether there is such a distinction that is meaningful (I'm not saying that there is no meaningful distinction; I'm just saying that we need to be clear and reach consensus on that). And, let's reach consensus on whether that distinction is in fact the proper distinction to be made. Stay tuned.... Famspear (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The meaningful distinction is that independent agencies are headed by (1) a board or commission (i.e. more than one person), (2) the members of which may not be removed except for good cause, (3) whose terms are staggered, and (4) a party may only have a simple majority of members. Non-independent agencies have no of these characteristics. This distinction is meaningful because the new president has the choice to fire the old heads of non-independent agencies (e.g. Obama axed Johnson and nominated Jackson for the EPA), but the president may not fire the heads of independent agencies (e.g. Obama only gets to put in 2 FCC commissioners this year if the other 3 don't provide good cause to be fired).

The option to fire, not the political reality of whether or not the president can or cannot fire, is the meaningful distinction. If Lisa Jackson refuses to carry out the Obama administration's environmental policy, you had better believe she'll be asked to resign (thus she is not independent). Although most heads resign when asked (in fact, most are required to provide an undated resignation letter to the president before their nomination), if they refuse, the president can fire. In contrast, if the SEC commissioners refuse to resign when asked, Obama will have to wait until their terms expire. He can't fire them. The autonomy of serving a fixed term (rather than serving as long as the president wants to keep you around) is what gives these agencies independence.

Including government-owned corporations like Amtrak and non-independent agencies in the list of independent agencies makes the distinction meaningless, when the distinction is meaningful in reality. 68.51.75.50 (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Functional Characteristics

I have a question about the first sentence under the "Functional Characteristics" section. The sentence says something like, "Independent agencies can be differentiated from federal executive departments and other executive agencies by. . ." It seems like "and other executive agencies" should be removed from the sentence because I believe that there aren't any executive agencies that are not either federal executive departments or independent agencies, but I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.236.198 (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Need to get straight what an "independent agency" is

My first inkling that this page had major flaws came when I read the second sentence: "the term may be used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive branch, are independent of presidential control." The very first agency listed (the CIA) belies this statement, since it is very much under the president's control. (Who else would control it?) I think that the post from 68.51.75.50 at 18:17 on 5 March 2009 was correct, and his/her citation of Justice Breyer seems pretty authoritative. Therefore, unless someone knows otherwise, it seems to me while the SEC, FCC, etc. are independent agencies and should remain listed as such, the CIA, NASA, etc. are not "independent" (they're just regular executive agencies whose leaders can be easily removed by the president) and should be removed from this article. 68.174.125.199 (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both cases. In particular, the President appoints the administrator of NASA, which has always been a partisan position; i.e. the administrator is known as a Democrat or Republican, and they traditionally resign and are replaced when the White House changes parties. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe there is some confusion about what the article says. The first sentence says:

"Independent agencies of the United States federal government are those agencies that exist outside of the federal executive departments (those headed by a Cabinet secretary)."

That is ONE meaning of the term.

The second sentence says:

"More specifically, the term may be used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited."

That is ANOTHER, different meaning of the same term.

The CIA is indeed an independent agency as that term is used in connection with the meaning described in the FIRST sentence. The CIA is not part of any specific department (such as the State Department or Defense Department or Education Department). Instead (if I recall correctly), the CIA is an agency of the National Security Council. The National Security Council in turn is located within the "Executive Office of the President." Thus, the CIA is not "independent of presidential control," so it is not an "independent agency" within the meaning of the SECOND sentence. It is an independent agency within the meaning of the FIRST sentence.

The problem is that like many, many, many terms, the term "independent agency" has more than one meaning. So, it's not a question of "removing" references to certain agencies from the article. It's a question (perhaps) of being more clear in the article about which meaning, which sense of the term applies TO that term when used to describe a particular agency. Famspear (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: Years ago, the CIA was part of the NSC, which in turn was part of the Executive Office of the President. I just checked, and it looks like the CIA now reports to the Director of National Intelligence, who in turn apparently is not part of the Executive Office of the President. So, the legal structure has changed, but the CIA is still not part of a particular "executive department" -- as far as I know. I haven't looked at the current state of the law on whether the National Security Council is still part of the Executive Office of the President. Famspear (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Another PS: I change the introduction to (hopefully) make the differentiation between the two meanings more clear.

It can be confusing.

Even a seemingly simple term such as the word "law" has more than one technical legal meaning in -- well, in American law. For example, in the United States Constitution, there is a place in the text where the words "Laws" and "Law" are used in one sentence -- and the words have slightly different meanings, even within that sentence.

Many of the most common terms in law and government have multiple technical meanings -- words and phrases such as 'property', 'contract', 'tax', 'security', 'shall', 'United States', and so on. Famspear (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As the original IP post implies, this article is a basket case. It is not written well in WP:Summary style, with everything in the intro summarizing information presented in more detailed structure in the body text. The two definitions presented are not verified with citations as to who has coined them in reliable sources. I don't have a degree in civics or government; I can only guess that one of the sources cited in the body might be responsible for the first definition (independent of United States federal executive departments. The second definition (not accountable to the President) sounds suspiciously to me like original research.

Common terms may be ambiguous (multiple meanings), but how many such ambiguous definitions are mutually exclusive or contradictory-sounding? And the distinction of being "under an executive department", is that actually worth much? All executive agencies are by definition under the executive branch (ultimate authority under the President), whether its chain of command runs through a Cabinet member or not.

I have never heard NASA referred to as an independent agency, and cannot find the word independent in the act of Congress which created it, so I removed it from the list. Very few of the agencies in the list contain citations, which should verify that they are in fact "independent agencies".

And the article seems to just have evolved randomly. I checked the history and see that the CIA and NASA were in the original version created on March 11, 2003, by Sfmontyo (talk · contribs), which was little more than an (unbulleted) list of agencies. The edit summary said "split from us gov page" which probably doesn't fulfill requirements of our article splitting procedure (WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline.) JustinTime55 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The answer to this is, in my opinion, fairly straightforward. 5 USC 104 [1] defines "independent establishment" as "(1) an establishment in the executive branch (other than the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission) which is not an Executive department, military department, Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an independent establishment; and (2) the Government Accountability Office." All four types of organization are collectively known as "Executive agencies." If it isn't an Executive Department, the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, or a government corporation, and it's in the executive branch, it's an independent agency. A definitive list of all Executive agencies can be found in the United States Government Manual [2]. Paratrooper450 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

An "independent" Safety Board [NTSB]

The USA's "independent" Safety Board was created with

built-in, layered, protections:  it is "independent".

No IG review of any NTSB-product [P.C.'s, AAR's, recommendations].

No "Review Board" [see AAIB's Safeguards].  No uninvited Public Inquiry.

The advantages of an "independent" scientific-bureaucracy may be obscured from most readers:

-- hidden  investigator-errs;
-- hidden  cover-ups.

Decades after its origin, US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was forced to wade into the NTSB's various conflicting protections:

 decision was that the USA's NTSB has 
  the unique scientific privilege of "unreviewable discretion".

This scientific-privilege suppresses all other NTSB investigative- "safeguards". The USA's OSTP has not persuaded NTSB toward their scientific-integrity guidelines.

The NTSB's "Board Members" have been unable to recognize staff's errs, unable to correct their own staff-managers.

The wikipedia-methods of creating information, demonstrate weaknesses similar to the problems inside USA's NTSB: in various wiki-pages --

TWA841 4Apr79 , UA811, various B737-cases,  

-- the mention of investigator-err has been repeatedly removed, as if the NTSB's staff adjusts those wiki-pages. IGhhGI (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

Does Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) really an independent agency?

From its document, it said "The PCLOB is an independent, bipartisan agency within the executive branch." https://www.pclob.gov/library/Recommendations_Assessment-Report.pdf

USAID?

Should the U.S. Agency for International Development be on this list? By most metrics it seems like it should. I realize the "examples" sections is a list of just that (examples) and not strictly a definitive list—but it seems nearly complete minus a few key ones, including USAID.

Or maybe I'm confused about what defines an independent agency or what USAID is? GiantInsects (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

USAID is included in the U.S. Government Manual's list of "Independent Establishments and Government Corporations," so yes, it is an independent agency. Paratrooper450 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Independent agencies of the United States government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120716054442/http://west.thomson.com/productdetail/124758/22091642/productdetail.aspx to http://west.thomson.com/productdetail/124758/22091642/productdetail.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116153459/http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/independent-agencies.html to http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/independent-agencies.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

The article says "the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited."

Then it would seem the CFPB should be removed from the list of independent agencies, because recently, it was clearly demonstrated that the president has the power to dismiss the CFPB's acting director. 75.163.207.35 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

What is being "part of" something?

To many people, the phrase "being part of" implies an incline to be a contributing entity. To say that an independent agency is a "part of" the executive branch, would imply that they have the ability to contribute to the workings of the executive branch, which isn't the case at all. The agencies are structurally organized to be MANAGED by offices within the executive branch, the the agencies themselves are not a "part of" the government.

The example of the FCC is an interesting one. Essentially, the FCC issues contracts or licenses which legally bind broadcasting entities to an agreement and requires them to adhere to the terms of the contract. Failure to do so results in fines and sanctions as outlined by said agreement. The FCC does not enforce policy, it simply regulates broadcasting entities through contractual agreement. This isn't any different than the type pf contracts signed by people starting a cell phone plan. Although, the specifics of the contract are unique.

The agencies themselves are required to adhere to policy outlined by the offices that oversee them. However, the agencies themselves are INDEPENDENT of the government and have no power to govern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodes0606 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)