EDITORIAL: The Court gives and takes away — Trump's ambivalent scorecard on June 29

Introduction: A historic day of light and shadow for Donald Trump

June 29, 2026: victories and defeats mixed into a single day

The 29th of June 2026 will remain in American political history as one of the most paradoxical days of the Trump presidency. In the space of a few hours, the United States Supreme Court gave with one hand what it withheld with the other. A "BIG WIN" on the power to fire federal agency commissioners. A block on his right to dismiss Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. A rejection of his vision for mail-in voting. A refusal to review the 5 million dollar judgment in favor of E. Jean Carroll. Rarely has an American president experienced a day so rich in judicial contradictions.

On Truth Social, Trump posted in capitals that the ruling on federal agencies was a "BIG WIN", while calling other decisions a "tremendous loss." This rhetorical bipolarity faithfully reflects reality: he found himself simultaneously winner and loser in the same institutional arena, the same day, before the same court.

An editorialist facing a complex reality

As a columnist, I must resist the temptation of one-sided narratives. Trump did not win. He did not lose. He obtained what looks like a negotiated result: a few major concessions, a few limits maintained. The question is not who won on June 29 — it is to understand what that day reveals about the trajectory of American democracy and the limits that even the most conservative Supreme Court in living memory refuses to cross.

And those limits, however imperfect, deserve to be noted. Because in the current political context, every institution that still holds is precious.

The victory on agencies: a structural transformation of presidential power

Humphrey's Executor buried: the real scope of the ruling

Overturning Humphrey's Executor of 1935 is not a procedural victory — it is an architectural transformation of American executive power. The president may now fire at will the commissioners of the FTC, the SEC, the NLRB, and other agencies without justifying the decision on grounds of misconduct or incapacity. Ninety years of institutional doctrine have just been swept away by six votes to three.

For Trump, this is the realization of a conservative doctrinal project that had been simmering for decades within the Federalist Society. The idea of the unitary executive — according to which all executive power belongs constitutionally to the president — has just received its greatest judicial boost. This victory will have effects long after Trump has left power.

What Trump can now do — and what he will probably do

With this new power, Trump can now replace all Democratic agency commissioners with loyalists. He can restructure the FTC's mandate to loosen antitrust rules in favor of major tech companies. He can neutralize the CFPB to protect banks from investigations into abusive financial practices. These are concrete possibilities, not far-fetched scenarios.

Several names are already circulating to replace current commissioners with profiles more aligned with the White House's deregulatory agenda. The purge is not inevitable — but the probability that it occurs at least partially is considerable. Trump is not known for restraint when he holds power.

The defeat on the Fed: the red line of financial markets

Lisa Cook protected by 5 votes to 4: the systemic exception

In a separate decision voted 5 to 4, the Supreme Court kept Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, in her post, blocking the dismissal Trump had attempted to impose. The reasoning: the Fed's independence is too fundamental to global economic stability to be subjected to direct presidential political control. This is a pragmatic exception to the unitary executive doctrine.

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

The market needed this assurance

Global financial markets reacted with relief to the protection of the Fed. The US dollar had dipped slightly on the morning of June 29 at the announcement of the first decisions, before recovering as soon as confirmation came that the central bank remained untouchable. For institutional investors, the independence of the Federal Reserve is an absolute red line — without it, the credibility of American 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 closed, at least temporarily. It is a concrete political defeat, even if Trump did not officially comment on this part of the scorecard.

Mail-in voting survives: a symbolic defeat for Trump

The Court rejects the Trumpist vision of the ballot

Simultaneously, the Supreme Court refused to validate the restrictions on mail-in voting that Trump sought to impose through his executive order. This decision — which connects with the block 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 an absolute priority, convinced that this mode of voting favored Democrats. The combined judicial resistance — federal courts and the Supreme Court — closes that avenue before the midterms. It is a concrete limitation on his electoral agenda.

E. Jean Carroll and the limits of presidential immunity

The Supreme Court also declined to review the 5 million dollar judgment in favor of E. Jean Carroll against Trump. This refusal of certiorari definitively confirms 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 leaves the lower appeals court decision in effect.

But politically, it is a clear signal: even the most conservative Supreme Court in modern history is not prepared to erase all of Trump's civil convictions. The line between protecting a president in the exercise of his official functions and exonerating him of his personal actions remains drawn, however imperfectly.

Trump's reading: "BIG WIN" on Truth Social, private fury

Trumpist communication facing a mixed reality

The presidential communication on June 29, 2026 perfectly illustrates Trump's rhetorical strategy: amplify victories, minimize defeats, dominate the narrative. On Truth Social, he immediately labeled the ruling on federal agencies a "BIG WIN" for the presidency and for America, making no mention of the blocks on the Fed, mail-in voting, or Carroll.

This selective communication is effective with his electoral base, which retains the presidential framing rather than the legal nuances. But constitutional experts, financial markets, and international partners have a more nuanced reading — and it is that reading which will determine the long-term effects of June 29, 2026.

Trump's legal advisors between satisfaction and caution

Within the White House's legal circle, satisfaction over the agency ruling is real but tempered. Advisors know that the victory on dismissals opens concrete possibilities for restructuring the federal government — but also risks: every mass firing will be challenged in court, every loyalist nomination will be scrutinized, and the Washington D.C. federal appeals court remains a potential obstacle in several jurisdictions.

Trump's legal strategy for the coming months is to use the new dismissal power in a targeted fashion — a few key commissioners in the most strategic agencies — rather than a wholesale purge that would create administrative chaos and immediate judicial mobilization. Tactical patience is not Trump's usual hallmark, but his advisors appear to have learned from the mistakes of the early purges.

The implications for the November 2026 midterms

A SCOTUS scorecard that enters the electoral campaign

The November 3, 2026 midterm elections are four months away. The ambivalent Supreme Court scorecard of June 29 will enter the campaigns of both sides. Democrats will use the agency ruling to mobilize their voters around the theme of power concentration. Republicans will capitalize on the doctrinal victory against the administrative state.

For Republicans, maintaining their majority in Congress is vital to consolidating judicial gains. For Democrats, retaking at least one chamber becomes the only credible avenue to slow the White House's agenda. In this context, every SCOTUS decision is as much electoral ammunition as institutional reality.

Congressional control as the last remaining check

With a strengthened executive, a six-justice conservative 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 parliamentary oversight: investigative hearings, budgetary power, ability to block nominations.

That is not perfect protection — Congress is often paralyzed by its own internal divisions — but it is the only institutional option remaining in the short term. The outcome of the midterms will determine whether America chooses to accelerate or brake the executive centralization that the rulings of June 29, 2026 have set in motion.

What Europe and NATO allies take away from June 29

An American partner growing ever more unpredictable

European governments and NATO allies followed the June 29, 2026 decisions with close attention. For Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and Ottawa, the agency ruling raises a practical concern: if the American FTC becomes a tool of commercial policy under direct White House control, transatlantic regulatory negotiations become infinitely more complex. Every bilateral agreement must now account for the risk of a unilateral political reversal.

But the protection of the Federal Reserve was welcomed with relief in European capitals. The stability of American monetary policy is fundamental to the entire global financial architecture. A politically controlled Fed would have triggered instability in bond markets and interest rates with devastating consequences for Europe and the world economy.

The West cannot afford a weakened America facing its adversaries

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are watching every sign of American institutional dysfunction with strategic interest. Beijing and Moscow have every interest in seeing the United States focused on its internal turbulence rather than on external geostrategic challenges. June 29, 2026 offers these adversaries a new narrative of American democratic fragility that they will not fail to amplify in their influence operations.

For the West as a whole, the message is clear: allies must strengthen their own institutional capacities and strategic autonomy, without severing 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 requiring permanent adaptation.

The immediate economic scorecard: markets, dollar, and regulatory uncertainty

Wall Street between euphoria and anxiety

American financial markets reacted with nuance to the full set of June 29, 2026 decisions. The S&P 500 recorded a slight gain in technology and financial sectors, driven by hopes of accelerated deregulation. But warning signals accompanied that gain: 10-year government bonds dipped slightly before recovering, as investors assessed the actual level of regulatory uncertainty created by the agency ruling.

The US dollar maintained its stability as soon as confirmation came that the Federal Reserve was out of reach. That was the signal that mattered most to global currency markets. For major investment banks, the worst-case scenario — a politically controlled Fed — had just been ruled out. Everything else, however important doctrinally, remains secondary to trading algorithms.

Regulatory uncertainty as a new systemic risk

But economists warn that the regulatory uncertainty created by the agency ruling could become a brake on investment. Companies planning mergers, acquisitions, or launches of regulated products no longer know what version of the FTC or SEC they will face six months from now. An agency staffed with loyalist commissioners may adopt radically different positions than one with its original composition.

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

Conclusion: read June 29 as a signal, not a sentence

The West must adapt without surrendering

For the democracies allied with the United States, the lesson of June 29, 2026 is clear: America remains an indispensable but increasingly unpredictable partner. Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia must strengthen their own institutions and their capacity to act more autonomously, without severing the fundamental alliance. That is a difficult balance. And yet it is the only viable one.

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

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

My acknowledged biases in this editorial

This article is an editorial: it explicitly reflects my personal opinions on the Supreme Court decisions of June 29, 2026. I am deeply attached to independent democratic institutions and constitutional checks and balances. This conviction shapes my reading of the described events. I consider that the concentration of executive power represents a systemic risk to liberal democracy, regardless of the identity of the president who benefits from it.

I have no partisan affiliation. I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am an observer convinced that the West needs an institutionally sound America to face the geopolitical challenges posed by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

What I don't know

I do not have access to the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court, nor to the real positions of Trump's legal advisors on the future use of his new powers. My analysis of presidential intentions is extrapolated from past behavior and public sources — not direct sources. I may be wrong about how Trump will use these new capabilities.

All factual claims in this editorial — votes, dates, decisions, names — are verifiable in the sources listed below and were carefully verified before publication.

Sources

Primary sources

USA Today — Trump's wins and losses at the Supreme Court: firings, voting and more — June 29, 2026

CNBC — SCOTUS rulings: Fed, FTC, consumers — what they mean — June 29, 2026

Axios — Trump, the Supreme Court, and the economy: the scorecard — June 30, 2026

Secondary sources

The Guardian — Live updates: Supreme Court, Trump, US politics — June 29, 2026

The New York Times — Live: Trump, Supreme Court and presidential power — June 29, 2026

Axios — SCOTUS overturns Humphrey's Executor, Trump and the FTC — June 29, 2026