Connect with us

America

US Supreme Court bolsters Trump’s executive power over agencies but blocks swift removal of Fed governor

Published

on

The US Supreme Court on Monday delivered a mixed set of rulings for President Donald Trump, simultaneously bolstering his executive control over independent federal agencies while rejecting a key pillar of his political agenda aimed at restricting mail-in voting.

The justices ruled that the heads of independent agencies can be removed by the president, significantly strengthening executive authority over the federal bureaucracy. However, the court also ruled that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook must be afforded due process rights before she can be removed from her post, and rejected the president’s appeal in a separate civil lawsuit.

Major expansion of presidential authority

In a 6-3 decision, the court cleared the way for Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, triggering a major expansion of the president’s removal powers.

The ruling sweeps aside 91 years of judicial precedent that had guaranteed a degree of independence from the White House for certain regulatory agencies, achieving a long-sought goal of conservative legal scholars.

Trump characterized the decision as the “largest increase” in presidential powers seen in a century.

The conservative majority framed the ruling as restoring the presidency to its constitutionally intended form.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Trump’s expanded removal power is inherent to the constitutional system:

“When authority is exercised well, the public knows whom to thank; when it is exercised poorly, they know whom to blame and whom to remove. This is the very foundation of our system of government.”

The ruling enables the president to dismiss officials across numerous agencies beyond the FTC.

More than a dozen other agencies across the executive branch enjoy similar protections. These bodies oversee critical sectors, including nuclear energy, aircraft accident investigations, product safety recalls, and credit unions.

The court’s liberal justices dissented, arguing that the decision grants Trump a level of authority “unknown even to the British Crown.”

“Today, the Court casts aside this democratic regime in favor of one that distorts the structure of government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary and absolute executive control,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. “The result is a president who emerges with greater power than ever before.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that Congress retains the power to remedy the balance:

“The power to define new regulatory infractions remains, but the pen is now ultimately in the president’s hand. The ability to adjudicate disputes within the house continues, but that house is now white.”

Acknowledging that the decision concentrates presidential power, Gorsuch argued that the remedy lies with the legislative branch, which could make the agencies less powerful by stripping away their broad authority to regulate American life.

Roberts rules both for and against Trump in a single day

While Roberts led his conservative colleagues in greenlighting the president’s authority to remove certain independent agency heads without cause, the court stopped short of extending that same immediate authority to the Federal Reserve.

In a 5-4 decision also authored by the Chief Justice, the majority found that Trump failed to provide adequate due process to Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook before attempting to remove her over allegations of mortgage fraud.

Roberts argued that bypassing this step would allow a president to dismiss a Federal Reserve Board member “at any time, for any reason, without prior notice, and without subsequent judicial review.”

The decision capped a contradictory day for Trump’s executive powers, with Roberts positioned at the center of the rulings.

Roberts is widely known for attempting to keep the court out of partisan political battles. However, Trump’s agenda has continued to dominate the docket at a time when public approval of the court has fallen to record lows.

In the Federal Reserve case, Roberts went out of his way to emphasize that the ruling against Trump was narrow in scope.

He stressed that the decision did not resolve the ultimate question of whether Cook could eventually be removed.

This qualification allowed Trump to maintain a confident posture. Pressing for Cook’s removal shortly after the ruling was announced, Trump took to Truth Social to emphasize that the decision was merely “purely procedural.”

Trump suffers defeat on mail-in ballots

In another significant setback for Trump, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots arriving up to five days after Election Day to be counted.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the Mississippi statute does not conflict with federal election law, defeating an effort by the Republican National Committee to halt the post-Election Day ballot-counting practice.

Quoting from the Federalist Papers, Barrett wrote:

“The Framers recognized the difficulty of drafting election laws ‘applicable to every possible change in the state of the country.’ For that reason, rather than constitutionalizing election law, they decided that ‘a discretionary power’ over elections ‘must exist somewhere.’ Suffice it to say, that power was not given to this court.”

Justice Samuel Alito led the dissent alongside the court’s three other conservative justices.

“In this day and age, not all voting occurs in person on Election Day. Both mail-in voting and early voting have proliferated, and the respondents do not contest the legality of these modern practices. Neither do I. But the adoption of these practices cannot alter the fact that, under federal law, the collective choice of the electorate must still be authoritatively expressed on Election Day,” Alito wrote.

Reacting to the defeat, Trump renewed his push for Congress to pass the “American Voter Eligibility Protection Act.”

Hours later, however, he conceded that the bill was unlikely to pass, stating: “Because we have four, maybe five Republican senators who absolutely will not vote for it. It’s crazy.”

Trump appointees cast decisive swing votes

Two of the conservative justices appointed by Trump cast decisive votes against him in the separate cases, developments that could leave Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett open to criticism from the president.

During his tenure and post-presidency, Trump has frequently expressed dissatisfaction with Supreme Court rulings that go against him, particularly when those decisions involve his own appointees.

Barrett, the most junior conservative on the bench, authored the majority opinion on the mail-in voting case. She and Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices to form the majority, leaving the other four conservative justices in dissent.

The ruling deals a blow to the Trump administration’s systematic campaign against mail-in voting, a practice the president has repeatedly claimed contributes to widespread fraud, despite a lack of supporting evidence.

Meanwhile, Kavanaugh joined the 5-4 majority that ruled against Trump in the Federal Reserve case, voting alongside Roberts and the three liberal justices.

In a brief concurring opinion, Kavanaugh highlighted the unique position of the central bank and urged the court to formally protect its independence.

“Even temporary uncertainty regarding the status of the Federal Reserve—including confusion over whether the president can summarily dismiss multiple board members at will—could trigger political turmoil and cause upheaval in the US and global economies. I would not embark on that road,” Kavanaugh wrote.

America

Wealthy Americans drive surge in New Zealand golden visa demand

Published

on

More than 700 wealthy foreign nationals have applied for New Zealand residency under the country’s “golden visa” programme over the past 14 months, compared with just 115 applications during the previous three years.

Applicants are required to invest at least NZ$5 million in local funds, companies or charitable organisations within three years.

A further 127 people have applied under a separate programme that requires an investment of NZ$10 million in passive assets such as bonds for five years.

The surge followed a relaxation of rules governing property purchases, investment requirements and the amount of time applicants must spend in the country to qualify.

According to the Financial Times (FT), the increase in applications for the right to live, work and study indefinitely in New Zealand has coincided with a period of geopolitical uncertainty that has made the country’s security and remote location increasingly attractive.

Dozens of countries around the world, from Portugal to the US, offer preferential immigration treatment in exchange for investment or, in some cases, cash payments.

Many have had mixed experiences with such schemes. Ireland, Malta and Australia have scrapped their programmes because of insufficient demand or concerns over abuse.

In New Zealand’s case, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon hopes the visas will attract more foreign investment and help reverse a “brain drain” that threatens the country’s economic growth.

Although tourists often fall in love with New Zealand and dream of moving there, many young New Zealanders leave in search of better economic opportunities.

According to Luxon, New Zealand start-ups have already begun benefiting from the policy.

“While everyone else around the world is tightening restrictions, we’ve opened the doors and our start-ups have benefited enormously from the capital flowing in, as well as from the knowledge and technical expertise these investors have brought,” he said.

Since the programme was comprehensively overhauled in April 2025, applicants from North America, Europe and Asia have committed a combined NZ$4.8 billion, through investments of either NZ$5 million or NZ$10 million each.

That figure is comparable to the NZ$14.8 billion in foreign investment recorded during the first quarter of this year.

Lachlan Nixon, co-founder of venture capital firm Motion Capital, said the programme had become “a badge of honour in Silicon Valley”.

Data show that 277 applications have come from Americans, with Californians showing particularly strong interest in obtaining New Zealand residency.

“A massive influx of capital is coming, but what really matters is the quality of the people now investing in the New Zealand economy,” Nixon said. He added that 40% of a recent NZ$27 million fundraising round for high-growth New Zealand companies came from 30 holders of “golden visas”.

According to Luxon, companies benefiting from the programme include critical minerals firm Zethos, which appointed European steel industry veteran Francesc Rubiralta to its board.

Nixon said other companies backed under the programme include seed oil protein producer Miruku and magnesium mining company Aspiring Materials.

In the mountain town of Queenstown, a preferred destination for many applicants, locals refer to billionaires such as Peter Thiel and Anthony Malkin, whose foundation owns New York’s Empire State Building, as “the secret residents on the hills”.

Most prefer to keep their wealth and presence private. Thiel’s citizenship was inadvertently revealed during a parliamentary debate, while Malkin’s presence became public after fireworks he set off on New Year’s Eve sparked grass fires.

According to Cotality, their arrival has made Queenstown New Zealand’s most expensive property market, with a median home price of NZ$1.8 million, double the national average.

Under the visa programme’s rules, participants may purchase only residential properties worth more than NZ$5 million, a provision designed to prevent their presence from distorting the broader housing market.

“There are a lot of billionaires here. They just wear gumboots,” one property adviser said.

However, doubts remain about the programme’s benefits. Sam Stubbs, chief executive of pension fund Simplicity, said people should make “genuine investments” in the country rather than seek special treatment in exchange for “a small amount of money” invested in a venture capital fund.

“Heaven comes at a price. It’s a price we all pay,” Stubbs said.

Some applicants have also voiced concerns. Courtney Andelman, who runs a venture capital fund in Santa Barbara with her husband Jim, successfully obtained a visa last year and now visits New Zealand regularly.

“There’s something magical in the air and the water. It’s an incredibly healthy place,” Andelman said.

However, she said she wanted to settle in a smaller South Island city such as Nelson, where her investments could have a greater impact, but found very few properties worth more than NZ$5 million.

She also complained that under New Zealand’s tax rules, if her family spends more than 183 days a year in the country, their worldwide income becomes subject to New Zealand taxation.

Andelman said she loved New Zealand but expressed concern and issued an implicit warning.

“How to make every dollar achieve its highest and best use is a question we constantly ask ourselves. If New Zealand doesn’t offer the best value, we’ll go somewhere else. Every one of those dollars is mobile.”

Continue Reading

America

Oil industry lobbies White House to avert potential Trump export ban

Published

on

Oil industry executives and White House officials are engaging in a new push to prevent any move by the administration to restrict US oil exports.

According to a report by Politico, industry representatives say these efforts extend to the White House Domestic Policy Council, the National Energy Dominance Council, the Department of Energy, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

Trump believes that oil prices could harm the Republicans’ chances of maintaining control of Congress in the November mid-term elections.

“Everyone from the industry and within the administration is working hand in hand to prevent this,” an energy industry executive said.

The individual added that White House officials had not formally raised the idea, “but everyone knows Trump will act like Trump again.”

The White House maintains that export restrictions are not on the agenda.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement: “While the President and the entire energy team are taking various measures to mitigate temporary disruptions in the energy market, the administration has been very clear: there is no plan to impose restrictions on oil and gas exports.”

White House representatives did not confirm whether industry lobbyists had approached specific agencies or officials to discuss the export issue. Department of Energy representatives did not respond to queries.

However, although administration officials have guaranteed since the early days of the Iranian war that an export ban was off the table, Trump’s directive to the Department of Justice in June to investigate oil companies on charges of price gouging put the sector on high alert.

Concerns within the industry mounted after Trump stated on Monday that oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron were making “too much money.”

Industry executives now fear Trump may try to make a move against them by restricting fuel export activities abroad, which have boomed since the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran.

Another industry official said the sector had reiterated its concerns regarding export controls to the White House “very recently.”

The Trump administration has already tried several different approaches to lower prices that enjoy broader support from the oil industry.

These include the release of millions of barrels of oil from the country’s strategic petroleum reserve and the temporary suspension of the Jones Act to make it easier for non-American vessels to transport oil and natural gas between US ports.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil company CEO, and Vice President JD Vance have repeatedly opposed the idea of limiting or banning exports.

Wright stated in May that the administration had “definitely” ruled out the option of banning diesel exports.

Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said he was “confident” Trump understood the need to maintain oil exports, recalling that early in the crisis, the president had encouraged other countries to buy American oil:

“The administration has repeatedly expressed that they are opposed to [export controls]. Therefore, I do not think there is any change in their stance at the moment. Frankly, it feels as though we have to clarify this issue every three weeks.”

In a note sent to clients on Tuesday, consultancy firm ClearView Energy stated that the moment for the White House to take a step toward limiting fuel exports “might be approaching.”

The firm noted that former President Joe Biden had considered imposing export restrictions ahead of the 2022 mid-term elections following a “long summer of high petrol prices” caused by the war in Ukraine.

US crude oil exports increased by approximately 30% compared with last year, reaching nearly 3.5 million barrels per day by the end of July.

Shipments of refined products such as diesel, petrol, and other types of oil rose by 20%, exceeding 8 million barrels per day.

Opponents of exports argue that sending these cargoes abroad leads to rising prices domestically.

However, the oil and gas industry contends that closing the door to exports would harm the domestic market and cause their production to decline.

“Export bans may seem politically attractive, but ultimately they will lead to the exact opposite of the intended effect,” said a refining industry lobbyist who noted they were in contact with the White House on the matter, arguing that cutting off American exports from international markets would mean “a decline in US production, supply shortages, further upward pressure on domestic prices, and even greater disruptions in the global market.”

Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, stated that export controls would force US refiners to produce less petrol because they would lose commercial channels to ship other surplus fuels, such as diesel, produced during the process.

Continue Reading

America

US and Ukraine restore intelligence sharing to former levels

Published

on

Three US senators have reported that intelligence sharing between Washington and Kyiv has reached its former level. The White House declined to disclose details of the current intelligence relationship, emphasizing that President Donald Trump remains focused on ending the conflict.

American senators reported that intelligence sharing between the US and Ukraine has returned to its previous level.

According to a report by Politico, the senators offering this assessment include Democratic Senator Mark Warner, a long-standing advocate for increasing aid to Ukraine.

Commenting on the matter, Warner said: “I don’t want to get into details, but things have improved.” Republican senators John Cornyn and Roger Wicker stated that information sharing has accelerated during a period of “strategic importance”.

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine also noted that he has observed signs of a revival in information sharing between the US and Ukraine.

The White House did not disclose details regarding the current state of its intelligence-sharing relationship with Ukraine. However, in comments to Politico, it emphasized that US President Donald Trump is focused on contributing to the termination of the conflict.

A White House official told Politico: “The President and his team remain committed to playing a constructive role in ending the war between Russia and Ukraine and remain optimistic that we will ultimately reach a peace agreement.”

Last autumn, the Financial Times reported that Trump had issued instructions to prepare for sharing intelligence data that could assist Ukraine in conducting strikes deep inside Russian territory.

Russian authorities are demanding that Western nations cease providing military aid to Ukraine, emphasizing that such assistance will not prevent Moscow from achieving its military campaign objectives.

Last year, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested that the US side clarify information regarding the transfer of intelligence data to Ukraine.

According to statements from the Kremlin, Russia has long been aware that the US and NATO countries collect intelligence and transfer it to the Ukrainian military, noting that this is “not a new development”.

Nevertheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Russia will not tolerate attacks by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and will continue to respond forcefully.

In June, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia is prepared to conduct negotiations with Ukraine on the basis of the agreements reached in Istanbul.

According to Putin, the parties must also take into account the agreements reached between Moscow and Washington in Anchorage, the situation on the front line, and the conditions for a settlement previously set out by Russia.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey