Before he was elected, President Trump was famous for the catch-phrase “you’re fired,” which he popularized on his reality T.V. show “The Apprentice.” And it’s no surprise that it would have so much appeal for a television audience.

It carries a certain power and resonance because the person who has the authority to use it within an organization is, generally speaking, the person who gets to call the shots. It is emblematic of executive control and the ability to get things done. It is the ultimate and essential backstop that enforces and reifies an executive’s power to make decisions.

The Founders placed the totality of executive power in a single individual – establishing a unitary executive, the President, in Article II of the Constitution – precisely because they knew that a unified executive was essential to ensure energy and accountability in the execution of the laws.

And they also understood that the bedrock of the President’s authority to see oversee the executive branch was his removal power.

In a famous debate in the First Congress, James Madison argued that “if any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws… If the President should possess alone the power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; [they] will depend, as they ought, on the President, on the community.”

However, over the years, Congress and the courts have deprived the President of the ability to remove his subordinates at will. So today, the President of the United States lacks this essential authority over many high-ranking officers within the Executive branch.

Many of these restrictions take the form of statutory “for-cause removal protections,” such as the provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act that provides that commissioners can be removed only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

In fact, this statute formed the basis of the suit in Humphrey’s Executor, a Supreme Court case that in 1935 held for the first time that Congress can impose restrictions on the President’s removal power, overturning years of constitutional precedent.

Since then, for-cause removal protections – both statutory and otherwise – have proliferated, giving rise to a vast, headless fourth branch of government that exists beyond the control of the President.

There are now more than 80 independent agencies in the executive branch, entrusted with regulating vast swaths of American life – from competition policy and workplace safety to labor relations and securities law. These unelected bureaucrats make rules, adjudicate rights, and enforce laws – all without being held accountable by the President, and therefore by the American people who elect him.

In other words, we today have “regulation without representation.”

That’s why this week, I introduced the Take Care Act. This bill would restore the unitary executive envisioned by the Founders by stripping away all existing for-cause removal protections from the independent agencies. It would also limit Congress’s ability to create for-cause protections by implication in the future and take other critical steps to fortify the President’s directive authority.

Simply put, the Take Care Act would eliminate the headless fourth branch of government, empower the President to ensure faithful execution of the law, and make the bureaucracy accountable again.

The bill would not cause the work of administrative agencies to become subject to the arbitrary whims of the President, however. Political constraints – including the Senate’s advise and consent role – would ensure, as they do now, that executive officers can fulfill their congressionally assigned duties without undue interference.

But it would rescind and limit the unconstitutional restrictions on the President’s removal power. And by restoring the President’s ability to be the final decision maker within the executive branch – and ensuring his ultimate responsibility for executing the laws – we will restore a critical safeguard of freedom for the American people.

Few images are more iconic than a wild mustang running freely through the open pastures of the mountain West. Unfortunately, the nasty reality of wild horse management doesn’t match that fantasy.

Congress formally recognized the need to protect wild mustangs with passage of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. At the time, many Americans believed some of the methods used to cull horse herds were inhumane and needed to be regulated. The WFRHBA placed wild horses under federal management, making culling or even harassing horses illegal.

The Act also directed the Bureau of Land Management to “maintain a thriving ecological balance” between wild horses, other wildlife, vegetation, and livestock on federal lands. While ranchers, environmentalists, and the federal government didn’t always see eye to eye on the best management practices, the wild horse population maintained a relatively healthy and sustainable level for decades after the law was enacted because of the balancing act.

Then about 20 years ago, a political rider was attached to an annual appropriations bill that significantly limiteding the management tools BLM could legally use to control wild horse populations. Since wild horses have no natural predator, the resulting population boom has been dramatic. While scientists at the BLM estimate that the optimal number of wild horses to maintain ecological balance on federal lands is around 27,000 the BLM currently estimates there are now almost 88,000.

As a result of this population boom, vegetation on Western ranges has been decimated, local elk and deer populations can’t find feed, ranchers are being bankrupted by the costs hay to replace the lost forage their livestock, and the number of starving and diseased wild horses is rising substantially. There is nothing humane about forcing hundreds of wild horses to die of starvation and thirst.

We have all been working in our respective roles and Congressional chambers to bring this crisis to the attention of our colleagues in Washington, D.C.

On the House side, Rep. Chris Stewart, who sits on the appropriations committee, has been working for five years to prioritize funding for the BLM’s wild horse and burro program. Because the bulk of the herd management areas in Utah are in Rep. Stewart’s district, he has become the “wild horse guy” in the House of Representatives. Most recently, he has been working with a broad coalition of interest groups to identify non-lethal tools to manage wild horse herds. This is a historic moment; —never before have these groups come together. It would be shameful to let this moment pass without changing the failing policies.

On the Senate side, Sens. Mike Lee and Mitt Romney sent a letter last week to the Senate Appropriations Committee highlighting the grave threat these unregulated herds pose to themselves, the surrounding wildlife, and local communities. The letter notes that unless the BLM is given the tools necessary to manage these herds, the problem will only get worse, to the detriment of the environment, the local economy, and the American taxpayer.

We appreciate all the work being done on the ground by stakeholders in Southern Utah to bring this important issue to the attention of those on the coasts.

Maintaining the balance between animals, plants, and local communities has always been a contentious issue on federal lands. When it comes to wild horses and burros, we are currently so far out of balance that it will take drastic changes to restore our ranges. But we believe that through effective collaboration, we can restore and then maintain appropriate management methods for the health of both the animals and the rangeland.

This joint oped with Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) originally appeared in the St. George News.

"Germany is not paying their fair share," President Trump said at a press conference with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg last week. "I have a great feeling for Germany, but they're not paying what they should be paying. We're paying for a big proportion of NATO, which is basically protecting Europe."

President Trump is right. Germany is not paying their fair share. In 2014 Germany and the rest of our NATO allies promised to raise their defense spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product by 2024. It is now 2019 and Germany still only spends 1.23 percent of its GDP on defense. By comparison, the United States spends 3.4 percent of GDP on defense.

And Germany is not alone. Not including the United States, NATO members spent only 1.48 percent of their GDP on defense in 2018 and just seven seven of NATO’s 29 member countries currently spend the recommended target of 2 percent of GDP.

With other NATO members defense budgets coming up short, the United States makes up 69 percent of all NATO defense spending despite U.S. GDP comprising less than half of NATO’s overall economy.

Congress can play a role in helping President Trump pressure our NATO allies to pay their fair share. That is why I introduced the Allied Burden Sharing Act last week, a bill that requires the Department of Defense to submit an extensive report that includes the common defense contributions of NATO countries and other defense partners including Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand, and the Philippines.

NATO and other mutual defense agreements have a purpose but the United States cannot and should not bear the greatest brunt of the financial burden in global alliances and defense partnerships. The information included in this report would be instrumental in informing lawmakers on the return on investment we receive in exchange for our contributions and commitments.

For security alliances and partnerships to be maximally effective, all parties must pull their weight.

“Oh, brewers of Miller Lite, we received your corn syrup by mistake,” a king accompanied by a blue knight emblazoned with “Bud Light” shouts to a man in a castle tower.

“That’s not our corn syrup, we received our shipment this morning,” the Miller Lite brewer replies. “Try the Coors Light castle,” the Miller Lite brewer continues, “they also use corn syrup.”

And with that ten second exchange aired during Super Bowl Sunday, a multi-million dollar plan for a joint beer promotion campaign came to end. For more than a year, Anheuser-Busch InBev, Molson Coors Brewing, Heineken and Constellation Brands had been in discussions over a united television campaign to promote beer consumption in the United States.

But Bud Light’s competitors were so upset over the corn syrup ad that the pulled the plug on the joint beer promotion campaign entirely.

And that is how the free market is supposed to work. Companies are free to work together towards common goals when they want, but they are also free to go their own way if they feel it is in their best interest.

But this isn’t true for all sectors of the economy. Since 1937, the Agriculture Department has forced certain agricultural producers to pay a per-unit fee for each unit of a commodity produced to a government sponsored board made up of government approved producers of that commodity.

The boards then use this money for marketing campaigns and lobbying activities. If you have ever seen a “Got milk?” ad or “Pork, the other white meat,” you’ve seen these corporatist boards at work.

Unfortunately, these programs do not receive proper oversight from the USDA and they have become rife with waste and abuse.

Some boards have used their funds to lobby the federal government against innovative new food products. Others have misused funds and refused to comply with federal transparency laws.

In short, these programs are in desperate need of reform.

That is why I introduced two bills this week to reform these programs. The first, the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming Act (OFF Act) would clarify the prohibition on checkoff program lobbying, prohibit anticompetitive behavior by checkoff programs, and mandate transparency through published audits.

The second, the Voluntary Checkoff Program Participation Act, would simply give farmers and ranchers the freedom not to participate in any government mandated checkoff program.

These common-sense reforms will not be convenient to the giants in the agriculture industry – at least not the ones using checkoff dollars to rig the system in their favor. But they will help farmers – and particularly the little guys – to see exactly where the fees they pay are going and ensure that their hard-earned money is not being used against them.