US Supreme Court gives Trump the power to fire top officials across the administration, except at the Fed

The Supreme Court on June 29 gave President Donald Trump the power to fire leaders of most independent federal agencies without cause, a major expansion of presidential control across the executive branch.

The ruling sharply narrows the long-standing protection that had insulated many agency heads from direct presidential removal. In practical terms, it gives the White House far more leverage over agencies that Congress designed to operate with some distance from day-to-day politics.

In a separate decision the same day, the court blocked Trump’s attempt to immediately remove Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. That left the central bank outside the court’s broader removal-power ruling, at least for now.

A major shift in presidential power

The main case involved former Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, whose removal by Trump had been challenged in court. The justices ruled 6-3 for the administration on the removal-power question.

By doing so, the court overturned or severely narrowed Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that had long limited the president’s ability to remove leaders of independent multimember agencies at will.

That precedent had been a cornerstone of separation-of-powers law for decades. It helped shield leaders of agencies such as the FTC from direct political removal unless Congress set a specific standard.

The decision is expected to affect roughly two dozen independent agencies, according to reporting, including bodies that oversee labor, consumer protection and other sectors.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The FTC case and what changed

The Slaughter case gave the court a vehicle to revisit the structure of independent agencies. The dispute was not only about one commissioner’s job, but about how much control the president has over institutions Congress built to operate with a degree of independence.

The court answered that question by siding with a broader view of executive authority. Under the ruling, the president can remove the leaders of most independent agencies without showing cause.

That shift changes the balance of power inside the federal government. Agency heads who once could rely on statutory or constitutional insulation now face a much more direct line of accountability to the president.

The practical effect may extend well beyond the FTC. Lower courts will now have to apply the ruling to pending disputes over removals and agency structure, and agencies will have to reassess how secure their leadership really is.

The Federal Reserve exception

The same day, the court took a different approach to the Federal Reserve. It blocked Trump’s attempt to immediately remove Lisa Cook, treating the central bank as a special case.

Coverage differs on whether the Cook ruling is best described as a procedural due-process block or a broader substantive protection. But the practical result is the same: Cook remains in office for now.

That carveout matters because the Federal Reserve has long been treated differently from other independent agencies. Its insulation from ordinary political pressure is tied to market confidence and central-bank independence.

The court’s willingness to separate the Fed from other regulators suggests it is not yet ready to apply the same removal rules across every independent institution in the government.

What happens next

Lower-court litigation will continue over the specific removals and any due-process issues the Supreme Court did not resolve.

Agency leaders and affected institutions will now have to assess whether the ruling changes pending personnel disputes, enforcement strategies or internal decision-making.

The administration may also test the decision in other agencies, which could prompt new legal fights over how broadly the ruling applies in practice.

Markets and policy observers will be watching whether the Federal Reserve exception remains narrow or develops into a clearer doctrinal boundary in future cases.

For now, the immediate result is a larger presidency and a smaller shield for much of the independent administrative state, with one notable exception at the central bank.