Vox
June 29, 2026
TL;DR
The Supreme Court eliminated most congressional protections for independent federal agencies, giving Trump unprecedented power to fire agency leaders, with only the Federal Reserve excepted.
“The Supreme Court just made Donald Trump the most powerful president in at least three generations.”
“Congress created these independent agencies for two different reasons. One is to make sure that the experts that run the agencies can make technocratic decisions without interference from political officials and the other is to protect politically sensitive areas like elections or public broadcast where we don't want partisanship to be influencing what the agency decides.”
“if presidents can pressure the Fed to slash interest rates during an election year, they will stimulate the economy, help the president's party during the election year, and then once the election is over, the whole nation will pay a price with higher inflation and other terrible economic consequences.”
1. History of Independent Federal Agencies
Since 1935, Congress created independent federal agencies with leaders appointed by the president but removable only for cause, designed to protect technocratic decisions and politically sensitive areas from partisan influence.
2. Supreme Court's Elimination of Agency Independence
The Republican-majority Supreme Court ruled that Trump can fire nearly all federal agency leaders without cause, fundamentally shifting power from Congress to the presidency.
3. The Federal Reserve Exception
The Court suggested the Federal Reserve is special and exempt from the ruling, preventing presidents from pressuring the Fed to manipulate interest rates during election years for political gain.
4. Scope of Presidential Power
Trump now has direct control over agencies governing antitrust enforcement, labor relations, civil service protections, and nuclear safety, among others.
5. Broader Implications for Judicial Philosophy
The ruling demonstrates the Republican-majority Court's disregard for long-standing precedents when they disagree with them, signaling a willingness to overturn established legal doctrine.