In a ruling that could reshape the balance of power in Washington for years to come, the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded presidential authority over federal agencies while drawing a firm line at the Federal Reserve.
The decision gives President Donald Trump significantly broader power to remove leaders of independent federal agencies, marking one of the most consequential shifts in executive authority in modern history.
However, the Court stopped short of allowing the immediate removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, preserving a key boundary around central bank independence.
At the heart of the ruling is a long-standing constitutional tension that has defined American governance for nearly a century: how independent are “independent agencies” when their leaders still serve under a president with expanding executive power?
In a sweeping ruling involving former Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, the Court’s conservative majority rejected long-standing limits on a president’s ability to fire agency officials without cause. That ruling weakens statutory protections that Congress built into several federal agencies to shield regulators from direct political pressure.
Yet in a separate decision, the Court treated the Federal Reserve differently. Cook, who was nominated by President Joe Biden and later targeted by Trump over disputed mortgage-related allegations dating back to before she joined the Fed, can remain in her role while her legal fight continues.
The result is a divided constitutional map. For many independent agencies, presidential control has just become far stronger. For the Federal Reserve, the Court signaled that central bank independence still carries special weight.
Trump v. Slaughter Rewrites the Rules for Independent Agencies
The central executive-power ruling came in Trump v. Slaughter, a case involving Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission whom Trump removed after returning to office. Federal law had long allowed FTC commissioners to be removed only for specific reasons, including inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
The Court concluded that the restriction could not stand. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, framed the issue as a question of accountability. In the majority’s view, officials who exercise executive power must remain answerable to the president because the Constitution vests executive power in a single president.
If agency leaders enforce federal law, regulate private conduct, bring cases, or administer statutes, the Court reasoned, they cannot be insulated from presidential removal in a way that blocks the president’s ability to supervise the executive branch.
That reasoning strikes at the foundation of the independent-agency model that has shaped Washington since the New Deal era. For decades, Congress created agencies with multi-member boards, staggered terms, bipartisan structures, and removal protections.
The idea was to reduce political whiplash and allow technical regulators to make decisions with some distance from daily White House pressure.
The Court’s ruling sharply narrows that model. The FTC was not treated as a neutral expert body standing outside executive authority. The majority emphasized that the modern FTC writes rules, investigates companies, enforces federal statutes, conducts administrative proceedings, and brings civil actions.
Those are not merely advisory or ceremonial functions. They are exercises of government power. Under the Court’s view, that power must ultimately answer to the president.