Indeed the meaning of independent is more limited. But what wants to be implied by the media and posters here - the reason why the article leads with this, is to suggest these are groups that cannot be commanded by the president and his staff.
My only claim is that is false and misleading.
> My only claim is that is false and misleading.
Well, according to what congress wanted when they were founded, this is neither false nor misleading and judicial precedents until now have agree with that.
The idea they are under the control of the president and his staff is a novelty (and a disgrace in my humble opinion) but given the sorry state of the Supreme Court anything is possible.
> The idea they are under the control of the president and his staff is a novelty
Not true. Do you know about how these agencies came to be? And the presidency under FDR?
The executive Power shall be vested in a President
Find a single phrase in the constitution about independent agencies.