MOZOM-analyse
MOZOM compares: Supreme Court gives president more control, but spares the Fed
- Source
- U.S. Supreme Court en AP
- MOZOM headline
- MOZOM compares: Supreme Court gives president more control, but spares the Fed
- Original headline
- U.S. Supreme Court expands dismissal power over independent agencies, but keeps Fed governor in place for now
- Author
- MOZOM-redactie
- Date
- 1 juli 2026 om 13:44
- Subject
- The US Supreme Court gives President Donald Trump more leeway to fire directors of independent agencies, while the Federal Reserve retains temporary protection in a separate case.
Summary of the original report
On June 29, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter that the dismissal protection of members of the Federal Trade Commission, the US competition and consumer protection regulator, violates the separation of powers. This gives President Donald Trump more room to fire members of such independent agencies without stated legal cause. AP, the American news agency Associated Press, places that statement next to a second case: Trump v. Cook. Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook remained in place for the time being. The Federal Reserve is the American central bank and has major influence on interest rates, credit costs and financial markets. That is precisely why the distinction is sensitive. The judge gives the president more control over regulators, but treats the central bank as a special category.
Striking in this message
It is striking that the same set of statements gives two opposite signals. The message among supervisors is: the president will be given more space. The message from the Fed is: caution applies here. This creates a frame in which independence does not remain the same in principle, but is weighed per institution.
Less visible context
What remains less visible is that independent agencies were not made independent by chance. They often have to make decisions about markets, labor, consumer protection or technical standards without directly linking every policy turn to party politics. At the same time, true independence is never completely neutral: appointments, budgets and legal assignments are also political. The difficult question is therefore not whether agencies have power, but who can limit that power without destroying confidence in supervision.
Possible message behind the news
One possible message is that independence is no longer treated as a block in Washington. Supervision can come more directly under presidential power, while the central bank is protected precisely because markets demand stability.
Neutral conclusion
The neutral conclusion: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook together show that the American constitutional state not only draws boundaries, but also builds exceptions. The president is gaining more control over independent agencies, but the Fed will remain a separate zone for the time being. That makes the statement great: not because every institution will have the same fate, but because from now on independence will be emphatically fought for per power center.