The Supreme Court ruled Monday that presidents can fire independent agency officials at will—but carved out a special exemption for the Federal Reserve, ensuring the unelected central bankers who set interest rates and control the dollar remain beyond any democratic lever.
The dual rulings mean regulators who police corporate power can now be removed by an elected president, but the officials who determine whether your paycheck holds its value stay permanently insulated from the voters who pay the price when they get it wrong.
In a 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, the court overturned 90 years of precedent restricting the president from firing members of independent agencies without cause. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, grounded the ruling in constitutional structure: "Subordinates who exercise the president's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the president, and the president to the people."
The case stemmed from Trump's firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter last March. Slaughter warned the ruling "makes it possible for presidents to fire watchdogs who won't put politics over principle, and replace them with lap dogs," calling it "a recipe for corruption" where "working families will pay the price." Fellow commissioner Alvaro Bedoya was also fired but dropped his legal challenge, citing financial reasons.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, arguing the court used a narrow emergency request to issue a sweeping precedent. "While a modest approach would have been appropriate, the court chooses to go big," she wrote.
Trump celebrated on social media, calling it "one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers."
But on the Federal Reserve, the court drew a different line. A 5-4 majority—Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and the three liberal justices—ruled the central bank is "uniquely independent" and its governors cannot be fired at will. The ruling blocks Trump from removing Fed Governor Lisa Cook, whom the administration accused of mortgage fraud—a charge the Daily News characterized as "specious" and "ginned up" by Trump ally Bill Pulte.
Even Trump's own appointed Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, has refused to lower interest rates despite intense presidential pressure. With inflation rising, Warsh may actually need to raise borrowing costs, the Daily News reported.
The Times framed the FTC ruling as a dramatic expansion of presidential power, quoting Slaughter's warning that consequences "will be felt by every American in both tangible and imperceptible ways." The Daily News treated the Fed's insulation as a relief, warning that political interference would cause "immediate devastation of the global markets." Both outlets treated the Fed's independence as self-evidently good—neither dwelled on who exactly the central bank is accountable to when it inflates away working Americans' savings or chokes off their credit.
The Fed's decisions on interest rates and the money supply determine whether you can afford a mortgage, whether your paycheck holds its value, and whether inflation eats your wages. The people making those calls are appointed, not elected. The court just confirmed they answer to nobody the voters can touch.
The question the court left hanging: if the president is accountable to the people, and agency heads are accountable to the president, who exactly are the Fed governors accountable to?
