EDITORIAL: The Supreme Court Gives and Takes Away — Trump’s Mixed Record on June 29

Lisa Cook Uphheld by a 5-4 Vote: The Systemic Exception

In a separate 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the appointment of Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, blocking the dismissal that Trump had attempted to impose. The reasoning: the Fed’s independence is too fundamental to global economic stability to be subject to direct presidential political control. This is a pragmatic exception to the doctrine of the unitary executive.

This 5-4 vote reveals an interesting rift within the conservative majority. Chief Justice John Roberts appears to have played the role of arbiter, refusing to push the doctrine of the unitary executive to its logical conclusion when the economic consequences would be too devastating. This is judicial pragmatism, not ideology. And in this context, pragmatism is good news.

The market needed this reassurance

Global financial markets reacted with relief to the Fed’s protection. The U.S. dollar had dipped slightly on the morning of June 29 upon the announcement of the initial decisions, before rebounding once it was confirmed that the central bank remained untouchable. For institutional investors, the Federal Reserve’s independence is an absolute red line—without it, the credibility of U.S. monetary policy collapses.

Trump wanted to control the Fed to influence interest rates ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections. That door has just been shut in his face—at least temporarily. It’s a concrete political defeat, even if Trump hasn’t officially commented on this aspect of the outcome.

I’m relieved that the Fed is protected. I really am. But I remain deeply uneasy about the fact that this protection hinges on a single vote—5 to 4. A single judge stands between Trump and control over U.S. monetary policy. That’s a thin line of defense for such a colossal issue.

The Court Rejects the Trumpist View of the Election

At the same time, the Supreme Court refused to uphold the restrictions on mail-in voting that Trump sought to impose via his executive order. This decision—which aligns with the injunction issued by Federal Judge Indira Talwani in Boston on June 25, 2026—preserves mail-in voting for the November 3, 2026, midterm elections.

For Trump, this is a direct political defeat. He had made restricting mail-in voting a top priority, convinced that this method of voting favored the Democrats. The combined judicial resistance—from federal courts and the Supreme Court—has closed this avenue to him ahead of the midterms. This is a concrete setback for his electoral agenda.

E. Jean Carroll and the Limits of Presidential Immunity

The Supreme Court also declined to review the $5 million judgment in favor of E. Jean Carroll against Trump. This denial of certiorari definitively upholds the president’s civil conviction for sexual assault and defamation. Technically, the Court does not “validate” the judgment by refusing to review it—it simply allows the lower court’s decision to stand.

But politically, it sends a clear signal: even the most conservative Supreme Court in modern history is not prepared to overturn all of Trump’s civil judgments. The line between protecting a president in the performance of his official duties and exonerating him for his personal actions remains drawn, even if imperfectly.

The Carroll case affects me differently from the other decisions handed down on June 29. This isn’t a matter of constitutional doctrine—it’s a basic moral issue. That a man convicted of sexual assault and defamation could be president is troubling enough. That the Court upholds the judgment by refusing to overturn it—well, that’s at least something. Not much. But at least that.

Trump-Style Communication in the Face of a Mixed Reality

The presidential statement on June 29, 2026, perfectly illustrates Trump’s rhetorical strategy: amplify victories, downplay defeats, and dominate the narrative. On Truth Social, he immediately labeled the decision on federal agencies a “BIG WIN” for the presidency and for America, without mentioning the setbacks regarding the Fed, mail-in voting, or the Carroll case.

This selective messaging is effective with his electoral base, which focuses more on the president’s framing than on legal nuances. But constitutional experts, financial markets, and international partners have a more nuanced interpretation—and it is this interpretation that will determine the long-term effects of June 29, 2026.

Trump’s Legal Advisers: Between Satisfaction and Caution

Among the White House’s legal team, satisfaction with the agencies’ decision is genuine but tempered. The advisors know that the victory on the firings opens up concrete possibilities for restructuring the federal government—but also risks: every mass firing will be challenged in court, every appointment of a loyalist will be scrutinized, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remains a potential obstacle in several jurisdictions.

Trump’s legal strategy for the coming months is to use the new firing authority in a targeted manner—a few key commissioners in the most strategic agencies—rather than a blanket purge that would create administrative chaos and immediate legal challenges. Tactical patience is not Trump’s usual trademark, but his advisers seem to have learned from the mistakes of the early purges.

I’ll be blunt: Trump is a president who learns. Slowly, reluctantly, often through failure. But he learns. His second-term advisors are more skilled and more strategic than those from 2017. That’s what worries me. A clumsy Trump was limited by his own incompetence. A strategic Trump is far more dangerous to institutions.

A SCOTUS Ruling That’s Making Its Way Into the Election Campaign

The November 3, 2026, midterm elections are four months away. The Supreme Court’s mixed ruling on June 29 will play a role in both camps’ campaigns. Democrats will use the decision on government agencies to mobilize their voters around the issue of the concentration of power. Republicans will capitalize on the doctrinal victory against the administrative state.

For Republicans, maintaining their majority in Congress is vital to consolidating their judicial gains. For Democrats, regaining control of at least one chamber has become the only credible way to curb the White House’s agenda. In this context, every SCOTUS decision serves as both electoral ammunition and an institutional reality.

Control of Congress as the Only Remaining Check on Power

With a strengthened executive branch, a conservative six-vote Supreme Court, and federal agencies potentially under political control, Congress has become the last substantial constitutional check on Trump. If Democrats retake the House of Representatives or the Senate in November, they will have the tools of congressional oversight: investigative hearings, budgetary power, and the ability to block nominations.

This is not a perfect safeguard—Congress is often paralyzed by its own internal divisions—but it is the only remaining institutional option in the short term. The outcome of the midterms will determine whether America chooses to accelerate or slow down the centralization of executive power set in motion by the decisions of June 29, 2026.

The November 2026 midterms have become, whether we like it or not, a referendum on the concentration of power in America. This is not the campaign the Democrats had planned, nor the one the Republicans wanted to run. But it is the one that reality has imposed. And history will judge those who did not vote.

An Increasingly Unpredictable U.S. Partner

European governments and NATO allies have been closely monitoring the decisions made on June 29, 2026. For Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and Ottawa, the decision regarding federal agencies raises a practical concern: if the U.S. FTC becomes a trade policy tool under the direct control of the White House, transatlantic regulatory negotiations will become infinitely more complex. Every bilateral agreement must now factor in the risk of a unilateral political reversal.

But the protection of the Federal Reserve was met with relief in European capitals. The stability of U.S. monetary policy is fundamental to the entire global financial architecture. A Fed under political control would have triggered instability in bond markets and interest rates, with devastating consequences for Europe and the global economy.

The West cannot afford to have a weakened America in the face of its adversaries

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are watching every sign of U.S. institutional dysfunction with strategic interest. Beijing and Moscow have every interest in seeing the United States focused on its internal turmoil rather than on external geostrategic challenges. June 29, 2026, offers these adversaries a new narrative of American democratic fragility, which they will undoubtedly amplify in their influence operations.

For the West as a whole, the message is clear: allies must strengthen their own institutional and strategic capabilities, without breaking the Atlantic alliance. Trump’s America is a necessary evil—capable of results that no other Western leader can produce, but also a source of structural unpredictability that demands constant adaptation.

I say this with all the candor that this editorial format allows: Europe can no longer afford to passively endure institutional changes in the United States. It must build its own resilience, while maintaining the alliance. This is not anti-Americanism—it is strategic survival.

Wall Street Swings Between Euphoria and Nervousness

U.S. financial markets reacted with mixed sentiment to the decisions announced on June 29, 2026. The S&P 500 posted a slight gain in the technology and financial sectors, driven by hopes of accelerated deregulation. But signs of concern accompanied this rise: 10-year Treasury yields fell slightly before rebounding, as investors assessed the actual level of regulatory uncertainty created by the decision regarding the agencies.

The U.S. dollar remained stable once it was confirmed that the Federal Reserve was out of reach. It was this signal that mattered most to global foreign exchange markets. For the major investment banks, the worst-case scenario—a politically controlled Fed—had just been ruled out. The rest, however important it may be in theory, remains secondary for trading algorithms.

Regulatory Uncertainty as a New Systemic Risk

But economists warn that the regulatory uncertainty created by the decision on the agencies could become a drag on investment. Companies planning mergers, acquisitions, or launches of regulated products no longer know which version of the FTC or the SEC they will be dealing with in six months. An agency with loyalist commissioners may adopt positions radically different from those of an agency with its original membership.

This uncertainty carries a real economic cost, even if it is difficult to quantify precisely. Projections for U.S. GDP growth in the second half of 2026 will need to factor this in, with a potentially negative impact on long-term investment decisions—even in sectors that benefit from deregulation in the short term.

The ultimate paradox of the June 29 economic report: the companies most pleased with deregulation are also the most concerned about political unpredictability. You cannot have a compliant and a predictable regulator at the same time. These two desires are fundamentally incompatible. Wall Street will have to choose—and its response will define a great deal.

The West Must Adapt Without Giving Up

For the United States’ democratic allies, the lesson of June 29, 2026, is clear: America remains an indispensable partner but one that is increasingly unpredictable. Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia must strengthen their own institutions and their ability to act more autonomously, without breaking the fundamental alliance. It is a difficult balance to strike. Yet it is the only viable one.

And for American citizens who view their country with concern: civic, judicial, and electoral resistance remains possible. This is not romanticism—it is reality. American institutions have survived far more serious crises. But they survived because mobilized citizens refused to let them die. The question for November 3, 2026, is simple: how many will still be mobilized?

June 29, 2026, will go down in the history books. Not as the end of American democracy—not yet. But as the day when some lines were crossed, others were held, and when citizens realized that nothing could be taken for granted. I don’t know which side of history we’ll find ourselves on in ten years. But I hope that those eligible to vote in November 2026 understand the weight of this moment.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist