Trump Fires EEOC Commissioners In 'Unprecedented' And 'Illegal' Move

Huffpost - Jan 29th, 2025

President Donald Trump dismissed two commissioners from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) late Monday night, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats. Jocelyn Samuels, a Democratic commissioner, publicly stated via X (formerly known as Twitter) that her removal before the end of her term was unprecedented and illegal. Charlotte A. Burrows, another commissioner, also confirmed her firing and expressed concerns that these actions could undermine the EEOC's efforts to uphold workplace discrimination laws. The New York Times reported that the agency's general counsel, Karla Gilbride, was also fired. The firings extend to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), where Trump removed Democratic general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo and board member Gwynne Wilcox. The White House defended these dismissals, labeling the officials as 'far-left appointees.'

These actions have ignited a debate over presidential powers, particularly concerning the ability to remove officials from independent agencies who are serving Senate-confirmed terms. Historically, a Supreme Court precedent limits such removals to cases of neglect of duty or malfeasance. Democratic Sen. Patty Murray criticized the firings as illegal and indicative of Trump's disregard for workers' rights. The situation is poised to lead to legal challenges questioning the presidential authority in these contexts, highlighting the ongoing political polarization around labor and employment policies in the United States.

Donald Trump U.S. Politics Nlrb Eeoc Jocelyn Samuels Charlotte A. Burrows Karla Gilbride Jennifer Abruzzo Gwynne Wilcox Labor Law

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a timely and relevant discussion of President Trump's firing of EEOC commissioners, highlighting potential legal and political implications. While it includes credible sources and offers a clear narrative, the story could benefit from a more balanced representation of perspectives and deeper legal analysis. The focus on controversial aspects may engage readers, but the lack of detailed context and diverse viewpoints limits its potential impact. Overall, the article effectively raises important questions about executive power and agency independence but could improve in providing a more comprehensive and nuanced exploration of the issues.

Accuracy

The story provides a detailed account of President Trump's actions in firing two EEOC commissioners, Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte A. Burrows. The claims that these firings are unprecedented and potentially illegal are supported by statements from the commissioners themselves and a Democratic senator. However, the story lacks direct verification from independent legal experts or official documents to confirm the legality of these actions. The mention of a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent regarding the president's power to dismiss such officials is accurate but requires more context and citation of the specific case to enhance credibility.

Balance

The article predominantly presents perspectives from the Democratic commissioners and a Democratic senator, which may lead to an imbalance in viewpoints. The White House's justification for the firings is included, providing some balance, but the story lacks input from independent legal experts or Republican perspectives that could offer a more rounded view. The emphasis on the firings being 'unprecedented' and 'illegal' without substantial counterarguments suggests a tilt towards one side of the narrative.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its presentation of events, with a straightforward narrative structure. However, the language used to describe the firings as 'unprecedented' and 'illegal' could be more precise by providing legal definitions and context. The story flows logically, but it could improve clarity by including more detailed explanations of the legal framework governing EEOC appointments and dismissals.

Source quality

The story cites statements from the commissioners involved and a Democratic senator, which are credible sources for their perspectives. However, it lacks attribution to independent legal experts or official documents that could corroborate the legality of the firings. The White House's response is included, adding some authoritative balance, but the reliance on statements without additional verification from neutral sources limits the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article provides context about the firings and the potential legal implications, but it lacks transparency in explaining the legal basis for the claims of illegality. The reference to a Supreme Court precedent is not detailed, and there is no explanation of the methodology used to determine the firings' legality. The story would benefit from clearer disclosure of the basis for its claims and any potential conflicts of interest influencing the narrative.