
Don't make me the last chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
In what may be the first for an independent federal agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission submitted a budget request to Congress last month proposing its own elimination.
The Trump administration seeks to absorb elements of the commission into the Department of Health and Human Services in order to eliminate the agency's independence and reduce the transparency of its operations. The budget request also seeks to decrease the number of employees by 75 (to a total of 459) and reduce its budget by $16 million.
If this budget request becomes law, I would likely be the last confirmed chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It would mark the end of the commission as an independent agency dedicated to protecting the public from unsafe consumer products, and it would reverse 53 years of progress in product safety.
This budget request would never have existed if Trump had not unlawfully removed three sitting commissioners, including myself, last month. U.S. District Court Judge Maddox found the president's actions unlawful on June 13, enabling us to resume our jobs as commissioners. However, the Trump administration has appealed this ruling and continues to seek our removal.
President Richard Nixon signed the Consumer Product Safety Act into law in 1972, establishing CPSC as a bipartisan, independent agency led by five commissioners who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Prior to that, the Department of Commerce and the Food and Drug Administration had responsibility for product safety, but their efforts lacked focus — as a result, Americans suffered. In the lead up to the creation of the CPSC, President Lyndon Johnson recognized that 'the homes that we live in can be more dangerous than a booby-trapped mine field' and that change was needed.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created to clear this mine field. In establishing the agency, Congress recognized that its independence was important to ensure that it remained unfettered by political dictates and self-interested pressure from industry.
Congress mandated that no more than three commissioners can belong to the same political party; that they are to be appointed to staggered terms, to ensure only a portion of their terms expire at any given time; and that they can only be removed for cause. These legal provisions were designed to prevent swift, drastic changes in the agency's composition and, ultimately, its regulations and policies. The commission's current structure promotes stability and continuity, which benefits consumers as well as manufacturers and sellers.
In the months leading up to our removal, my colleagues and I opposed staff reductions to meet arbitrary White House demands. We advanced proposed mandatory product safety standards to save lives — including from horrific fires ignited by faulty lithium-ion batteries. We rejected efforts to dismantle and embed CPSC into the Department of Health and Human Services.
Within weeks of our unlawful terminations, the remaining commissioners withdrew the proposed lithium-ion battery safety rule and embraced the administration's efforts to abolish the agency's independence and downsize our staff. The consequences of our absence were plain as the administration moved forward to eliminate the agency and weaken its functions.
The changes proposed by the Trump administration are wholly unnecessary. For over 50 years, the commission has validated the vision of Nixon and Congress for improving product safety. For example, crib fatalities have decreased by nearly 80 percent; pediatric poisonings have decreased by 80 percent; deaths from residential fires have decreased by more than 64 percent. There have been dramatic injury reductions as well. Bicycle injuries have declined by about 35 percent. Baby walker injuries, which resulted in 25,000 emergency room visits in 1992, had dropped by 88 percent by 2020.
Because of the commission's safety rules, children no longer suffocate in refrigerators, get crushed by closing garage doors or get entrapped underwater in swimming pool drain covers. Safety standards ban lead in toys and ensure that products manufactured for infants and toddlers meet basic safety standards.
The elimination of this agency and the incorporation of its parts into this administration's troubled HHS would put the agency's successes and future product safety progress at risk. As was recognized more than 50 years ago, product safety gets lost within a large department with competing priorities.
It would be too easy to put recalls or new product safety standards on the back burner when HHS is faced with a revamp of the Medicare system and with millions losing access to health care. In addition, as resources become harder to find, product safety staff and money may be shifted to politically favored projects within HHS at the whim of the secretary. Without an independent Consumer Product Safety Commission, there will be far less accountability and transparency.
When an agency is independent and commissioners come from multiple perspectives, undue political influence is moderated. The commissioners can work together to build consensus but also act as a check on each other. This ensures that the agency's actions are transparent to the public and the agency is not taking political direction to favor one company over another.
That is why, once the full commission was reinstated, it submitted a new budget request that affirms the independence of the agency and seeks full funding of its operations. This, however, does not change the administration's proposal or the HHS budget request to eliminate it and absorb parts of it into HHS.
The president's request threatens product safety. But, fortunately, eliminating the Consumer Product Safety Commission as it has existed for more than 50 years would require an act of Congress. There are Republican and Democratic members of Congress who recognize the importance of CPSC's work and its independence. I hope they can convince their colleagues to reject the president's proposal.
I don't want to be the last confirmed chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And none of us want to go back to the days when the homes that we live in were 'more dangerous than a booby-trapped mine field.'
Alexander Hoehn-Saric served as chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from October 2021 through January 2025 and is now serving as a commissioner.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Miami Herald
29 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
From protection to peril: What end of TPS means for Haitians in South Florida, elsewhere
The Trump administration's decision to end Temporary Protected Status for over half-a-million Haitians living in the United States has sent shock waves throughout South Florida, the beating heart of the Haitian community in the United States. Many advocates and experts expected the decision. It comes after Trump moved to end the deportation protections for Venezuela and rolled them back a year-and-a-half for Haiti. Now, hundreds of thousands of people are vulnerable to being forced to return to the Caribbean country, where the government is crumbling and armed gangs are terrorizing the population. A recent report from the United Nations found that Haiti is as dangerous for children as the Gaza Strip. Below, we break down what this move means, who it affects, and what may come next. Q: What is Temporary Protected Status? A: TPS is a humanitarian immigration program that allows citizens from countries facing natural disasters, armed conflict or extraordinary instability to temporarily live and work in the United States. It does not provide a pathway to permanent residency or citizenship, but it shields recipients from deportation as long as their country remains designated under TPS because they are unable to return there safely. Congress created TPS in 1990. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to designate countries and periodically review countries to grant or continue the protections. Q: Why was Haiti granted TPS in the first place? A: President Barack Obama first designated Haiti for TPS in the aftermath of the catastrophic 2010 earthquake near the capital of Port-au-Prince, which killed more than 300,000 people and devastated the country's infrastructure. Over the years, TPS has been repeatedly renewed due to chronic instability, gang violence, economic collapse and the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021. Q: How many Haitians in the U.S. are affected by the decision? A: Nearly 521,000 Haitian nationals are currently protected under TPS. Many have lived in the U.S. for years, built families, held jobs and contributed to their communities. Many are also part of mixed-status families where the immigration status of the households can range from undocumented to green-card holders and U.S.-born citizens. Q: What exactly did the Trump administration announce? A: On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security said the U.S. will end Haiti's TPS designation, citing 'sufficient improvement' in the conditions that allegedly make it safe for Haitians to return. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had already rolled back the Biden-era extension of February 2026, moving it up to August 3, 2025. Deportations are expected to begin after Sept. 2. Q: How did the administration justify the decision? A: A DHS spokesperson claimed the move 'restores integrity in our immigration system' by ensuring TPS remains 'temporary.' The department asserted that Haiti's conditions have improved enough to permit safe return. Q: Is Haiti really safe to return to? A: Many experts— and even the U.S. State Department — disagree. The State Department currently warns Americans not to travel to Haiti due to 'kidnapping, crime, civil unrest and limited health care.' This week, the agency urged Americans to depart the Caribbean country 'as soon as possible' or to be prepared to shelter in place for a long time. Armed gangs control up to 90% of Port-au-Prince. Over a million Haitians are displaced, and 5.7 million face acute hunger, according to the United Nations' Humanitarian Affairs Office. There has also been a collapse of social services, and many children are unable to go to school. Haitians who are deported face the risk of having to cross gang-controlled roads to get home — or having nowhere to go to if returned because gangs have taken over people's homes and neighborhoods. Q: What does this mean for Haitian TPS holders now? A: Haitian nationals under the designation must prepare to leave by Sept. 2, 2025, unless a court intervenes or the administration reverses course. DHS has 'encouraged' them to use the CBP One app to 'self-deport' — meaning leave the country voluntarily. Without TPS, Haitians will lose legal protection from deportation and authorization to work in the U.S. if they don't have other immigration process going. Q: Could this decision face legal challenges? A: It is very likely. The Trump administration attempted to end TPS for Haitians and others back in 2017, but the move was successfully challenged in federal court. Immigration advocates and legal organizations are expected to file lawsuits again, arguing that conditions in Haiti remain too dangerous for return. There is also an ongoing lawsuit in New York related to Noem's earlier decision to roll back Haiti's TPS Haiti's by 18 months. READ MORE: Haitians and clergy group sue Trump over decision to end protection from deportation Q: Didn't Biden already extend TPS for Haitians until 2026? A: Yes. In July 2024, before leaving office, President Biden extended TPS for Haitians through February 2026. However, Secretary Noem ordered a review of the extension and rolled back the expiration to Aug. 3, 2025. The legality of that reversal may also be contested in court. Q: How does this fit into Trump's broader immigration agenda? A: Since returning to office, President Trump has focused on aggressively undoing Biden-era immigration policies. He has sought to drastically limit humanitarian programs, including ending CHNV — a two-year parole program for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela — and reducing TPS designations. The Supreme Court recently allowed the administration to revoke CHNV protections while legal challenges are ongoing. Trump also enacted a travel ban that limits visa issuance and entry for nationals from Venezuela, Haiti and Cuba. Q: What happens to other migrant groups under TPS or parole? A: The Haitian decision follows similar revocations for Afghans and Venezuelans. Around 350,000 Venezuelans may lose protection when their status ends in September. Advocates fear a domino effect targeting all migrants with temporary status under humanitarian grounds. Q: What are advocates and immigration attorneys saying? A: Immigrant rights groups say the decision is inhumane and premature, pointing to the spiraling gang violence, hunger crisis and government collapse in Haiti. Deporting people to a country without a functioning government, basic services or security, they argue, violates international human-rights norms. The Florida Immigrant Coalition said in a statement on Friday that Haiti was not in 'any shape to sustain human dignity and life, and any suggestion to the contrary is nothing but lies.' Q: What should Haitian TPS holders do now? A: Legal experts urge Haitians to consult immigration attorneys immediately. Some may qualify for other forms of relief or adjustment of status, such as a spouse- or family-based green-card petition. Others may be eligible for asylum if they can show evidence they would face persecution or violence upon return. Q: What is the political reaction to the announcement? A: Critics have slammed the decision as part of Trump's hard-line anti-immigration platform, which he promoted during his campaign with inflammatory and false remarks — including a 2024 campaign claim from Trump that Haitians 'eat their neighbors' pets.' Supporters argue that the administration is restoring the original, temporary intent of TPS and reclaiming executive control over immigration enforcement. READ MORE: 'It's a disaster.' In Miami, Trump leans into pet-eating falsehoods about Haitians Q: What's next? A: Lawsuits are expected, and courts may delay or block TPS termination, as happened in 2018. Advocacy groups plan to lobby Congress for a permanent solution, like a pathway to residency for long-term TPS holders. In the meantime, more than half a million Haitian immigrants are once again left in limbo.


The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Environmental groups sue to block ‘Alligator Alcatraz'
A coalition of environmental groups on Friday sued over Trump administration plans to build a new detention center in the Everglades that critics have dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz.' The suit seeks to block the Trump administration from building the new facility on a Florida airfield, the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport (TNT) near Big Cypress National Preserve. 'This massive detention center will blight one of the most iconic ecosystems in the world,' Elise Bennett, Florida and Caribbean director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. 'This reckless attack on the Everglades — the lifeblood of Florida — risks polluting sensitive waters and turning more endangered Florida panthers into roadkill. It makes no sense to build what's essentially a new development in the Everglades for any reason, but this reason is particularly despicable.' Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has cited the remote nature of the area — as well as its proximity to dangerous wildlife — as top features for tapping the area for construction. 'This 30-square mile area is completely surrounded by the Everglades. It presents an efficient, low-cost opportunity to build a temporary detention facility because you don't need to invest that much in the perimeter,' he said. 'If people get out, there's not much waiting for them other than alligators and pythons.' Environmental groups have argued the project violates the National Environmental Policy Act as well as procedures for rulemaking. 'The decision to construct a mass migrant detention and deportation center at the TNT Site was made without conducting any environmental reviews as required under NEPA, without public notice or comment, and without compliance with other federal statutes such as the Endangered Species Act, or state or local land-use laws,' they wrote in the suit filed in federal court in Florida. The facility is projected to cost about $450 million a year, which will come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Shelter and Services Program that was used to house asylum-seekers during the Biden administration. The Trump administration is largely envisioning the facility as a series of tents along with the construction of other facilities, hoping to house as many as 5,000 migrants at the facility.


New York Times
36 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Supreme Court Limited the Use of Nationwide Injunctions
The Supreme Court's conservative majority opened the door for President Trump to end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country. The court's 6-to-3 decision — which stopped Trump's order from taking effect for 30 days, and did not rule on the constitutionality of the president's plan — could drastically, if temporarily, reshape how U.S. citizenship is granted. Crucially, the justices limited the ability of federal judges to temporarily pause the president's executive orders. The decision, which you can read highlights from or in full here, appeared to strip lower-court judges of one of their most potent tools: the nationwide injunction, which had been used frequently in recent years to block policies instituted by presidents of both parties. The ruling means that the practice of giving citizenship automatically to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the order. It could also spur the revival of some of Trump's contested policies. 'Our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today,' Trump said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who issued a blistering dissent along with the court's other two liberal justices, called the majority's decision 'a travesty for the rule of law.' It was the last day of the court's term. Here's what else it ruled on: The justices said schools must allow parents to opt their children out of classes where L.G.B.T.Q. stories are discussed. They upheld part of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to offer some preventive care at no cost to patients. The court rejected a challenge to a Texas law that seeks to limit minors' access to online pornography through age verification. And the justices punted a closely watched case challenging Louisiana's voting map until next term. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.