The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

By Gabriel Rubin

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters Breakingviews) - President Donald Trump lost his campaign to conquer the Federal Reserve. As a consolation, the U.S. Supreme Court will let him gut the rest of the federal government.

The nation’s top jurists made clear in the ruling that political meddling at the most important central bank in the world is off-limits, albeit using a mealy-mouthed justification citing "tradition." There's also a long tradition of shielding top regulators from Oval Office interference, but the court struck down those protections, allowing the commander-in-chief free rein to influence some of the most important aspects of American economic life, including mergers, Wall Street and policing a variety of industries.

Unitary control over the entire executive branch has largely been a fait accompli since early in Trump's second term when he began shutting congressionally chartered agencies and firing congressionally-approved officials. Many federal administrators and enforcers are set up as independent commissions. Before now, the president would nominate members to serve, while Congress approved or denied the choices. Often, a five-member board allowed for two minority-party commissioners, ensuring debate.

Since January 2025, however, Trump has gutted these offices, while also attempting to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook over specious mortgage fraud accusations. There are no Democrats serving on commissions that oversee publicly traded companies and markets at the SEC and CFTC. The top communications regulator, Brendan Carr, has turned his agency into a White House mouthpiece and threatened media mergers over the companies' fealty to Trump. The Federal Trade Commission, which reviews corporate consolidation and helps set antitrust policies, was at the center of Monday’s court decision, which determined that the president was free to fire Democratic Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.

Bipartisan commissions foster continuity between administrations, when seasoned members can take over immediately after a change of power. Ideological diversity and deliberation have served regulators well since their own independent tradition developed in the 1930s, not long after the Federal Reserve’s founding in 1913. Both are in keeping with the principle of checks and balances and the separation of powers that are foundational to American governance.

The reasons for an independent central bank apply equally to other agencies. This Supreme Court’s obsession with executive power, however, undermines yet another functional area of a country nearing its 250th anniversary. Carving out monetary policy as its own sanctified realm is little cause for celebration.

Follow Gabriel Rubin on Bluesky and LinkedIn.

CONTEXT NEWS

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29 refused to let President Donald Trump fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook as it stood firm to preserve the central bank's independence against an unprecedented challenge by the Republican president.

In another ruling released simultaneously, the court backed his dismissal last year of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission and signaled that longstanding protections for independent agency commissioners no longer apply.