Lisa D. Cook appears within the institutional framework of the United States Federal Reserve. Her portrait captures the tug-of-war between the Fed and the White House. Credits: Federal Reserve Board / Flickr.
The United States Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a major victory on Monday, June 29, 2026, over control of independent agencies. But it maintained a clear limit around the Federal Reserve. In two separate decisions, the justices upheld the removal of an FTC commissioner. They also allowed Lisa Cook to remain a Fed governor while her appeal proceeds.
Two Decisions, One Boundary
The institutional message is twofold. In Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the president against Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. In Trump v. Cook, however, it refused to let the White House immediately remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
This juxtaposition draws a political and legal line finer than a simple win or loss for Donald Trump. The president’s removal power extends over part of the independent administration. But the Fed, because it sets monetary policy and must inspire market confidence, still enjoys special protection.
The Cook decision remains provisional in its mechanics. It leaves in place the injunction allowing the governor to remain in her post during the litigation. It does not close off all future debate on presidential powers. It does say, however, that removing a central bank governor cannot be treated like an ordinary political appointment.
The FTC Tilts Toward the Presidential Side
The first case concerns Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner. This federal agency handles competition, consumer protection, and some antitrust investigations. Donald Trump removed her in March 2025, despite statutory protections that had previously governed commissioners’ terms.
By upholding this removal, the Court weakens the legacy of Humphrey’s Executor. That 1935 decision long served as a foundation for the independence of certain administrative agencies. The technical point is decisive. If the leaders of these agencies can be replaced more freely by the president, their regulatory orientation becomes more exposed to political swings.
For citizens, the stakes go beyond the FTC. Independent agencies were designed to handle specialized matters with some distance from the White House. Their independence was never absolute. But it rested on the idea that certain terms should not depend solely on the sitting president’s confidence.
Why the Fed Stands Apart
The Court does not put the Fed in the same basket. The Federal Reserve, the United States’ central bank, influences interest rates, financial stability, and credit conditions. Part of its authority rests on its real independence. It also rests on the appearance of that independence. Households, businesses, investors, and foreign governments must believe its decisions are not driven by the electoral calendar.
Based on the sources consulted, the Court is chiefly maintaining, at this stage, a specific protection for Fed governors. The status allows removal for cause. But the Cook decision does not yet resolve the full scope of that exception in the merits litigation. It therefore invites distinguishing Lisa Cook’s provisional protection from a definitive rule about the central bank.
This protection does not exempt the Fed from ordinary law. It rather means the president must advance a substantial, verifiable reason compatible with the central bank’s status. In Cook, that requirement is central. The White House cites allegations related to mortgage loan applications predating her term as governor.
Lisa Cook Remains in Office During the Litigation
Lisa Cook disputes those allegations and calls them unfounded. The Supreme Court does not say, at this stage, whether the merits will vindicate her. It rules that the government did not obtain the immediate suspension it sought. That suspension would have allowed her removal from the Fed before the case’s resolution.
This procedural detail matters. In such a sensitive dispute, the question is not only whether a president has a theoretical removal power. It is also whether a contested removal can take effect before judges seriously review the alleged grounds. The Court’s response keeps Lisa Cook in the room where U.S. interest rates are decided.
The political significance is clear. Donald Trump has long called for a more accommodative monetary policy, and thus lower rates. A Fed whose governors could be swapped under that pressure would lose some credibility. The Cook decision reminds that Fed independence is not a personal privilege. It is a mechanism meant to protect monetary decision-making.
A Strengthened Executive, But Not Unlimited
The June 29 sequence confirms a strong trend from the conservative Supreme Court. It reduces administrative areas the president controls only indirectly. For Donald Trump, the Slaughter ruling opens the possibility of reasserting control. It targets bodies whose members could have felt relatively protected until the end of their terms.
But the Cook case shows this logic does not swallow everything. The Fed occupies a singular institutional rank. Its actions transmit immediately to markets, credit, mortgages, businesses, and public finances. The Court therefore accepts a distinction between the ordinary regulatory administration and the central bank.
That distinction may become the new battleground. Lawyers will now examine which agencies sufficiently resemble the FTC to fall within the stronger presidential power. They will also evaluate which can still claim functional independence comparable to the Fed. Every status, mission, and procedural safeguard will carry more weight.
What the Double Ruling Changes
For independent agencies, the signal is clear: protection against presidential removal is less robust than before. For the Fed, the signal is more nuanced: its independence remains protected, but through ongoing litigation and continuous political scrutiny.
Caution is therefore warranted in interpreting the double ruling. Donald Trump obtains a powerful lever over part of the American administrative state. He does not, for now, gain the ability to transform the Board of Governors of the Fed. He cannot make it an extension of the White House. It is this limit, more than the day’s win or loss, that gives the decision its institutional significance.