President Donald Trump has launched an urgent appeal to the Supreme Court, aiming to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors. This bold move signals a historic clash over the independence of the nation’s central bank.
According to AP News, the Trump administration filed for an emergency order on Thursday after lower courts rebuffed efforts to unseat Cook. This push to reshape the Fed’s seven-member board is unprecedented in the agency’s 112-year history, where no president has ever fired a sitting governor.
The White House claims Cook, appointed by President Joe Biden, engaged in mortgage fraud by allegedly misrepresenting property statuses in Michigan and Georgia as primary residences in 2021, before joining the board. Such actions, they argue, could have secured her lower interest rates and down payments, raising questions about her fitness to influence national monetary policy.
Trump first attempted to fire Cook on Aug. 25, but a federal judge ruled the move likely illegal, reinstating her last week. The judge, Jia Cobb, found the administration failed to meet the legal standard of “for cause” removal, which she limited to misconduct during a governor’s tenure.
Cook joined the Fed board in 2022, after the alleged property claims, and has denied any wrongdoing, with no criminal charges filed against her. Documents obtained by AP News show she labeled her Atlanta condo as a “vacation home” and “2nd home” in 2021, undermining the administration’s fraud accusations.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in the Supreme Court filing that a governor who “appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself” should not set rates for Americans. Yet, without concrete evidence of deceit or legal conviction, this reasoning seems more like a political jab than a judicial standard.
Cook has publicly refused to step down, declaring she won’t be “bullied” by Trump’s efforts. Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, affirmed she will “continue to carry out her sworn duties as a Senate-confirmed Board Governor.”
Meanwhile, she participated in a Fed vote on Wednesday to cut the key interest rate by a quarter-point, alongside Stephen Miran, a recent Trump nominee confirmed by Senate Republicans on Monday. Her next chance to vote comes at the Fed’s interest rate committee meeting scheduled for Oct. 28-29.
The administration’s persistence, despite setbacks, shows a determination to test the boundaries of executive power over independent agencies. But with the Supreme Court historically distinguishing the Fed from other bodies where Trump has successfully ousted leaders, the odds may not favor this gambit.
A federal appeals court in Washington, by a 2-1 vote, rejected the administration’s request to allow Cook’s firing to proceed. Judge Cobb also ruled that the dismissal would violate Cook’s due process rights to contest the action.
Trump’s legal team counters that even pre-office conduct can question Cook’s “trustworthiness” as a steward of the economy and interest rates. This argument, while provocative, sidesteps the legal precedent that cause must tie directly to her current role.
The Supreme Court has previously allowed Trump to remove leaders of other independent agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board, without cause. However, its past rulings suggest the Fed’s unique status may protect governors like Cook from such unilateral action.
The administration’s latest filing asks Chief Justice John Roberts for a temporary order to remove Cook, alongside a lasting directive from the full court while her case unfolds. This dual request underscores a broader agenda to assert control over institutions designed to operate beyond daily political whims.
For many, this battle isn’t just about Cook or even the Fed, but about whether a president can bend independent bodies to personal or partisan will. If successful, Trump’s move could set a precedent that erodes the firewall between politics and monetary policy, a shield many argue is vital for economic stability.
As the Supreme Court weighs this emergency plea, the nation watches a rare test of constitutional limits and executive reach. Cook’s fate may well define how much autonomy the Federal Reserve can claim in an era of sharp political divides.
