Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., has dropped a bombshell by calling for the 25th Amendment to be invoked against President Donald Trump over his latest clash with the Federal Reserve.
According to Fox News, in a move that’s sparked heated debate, Waters is pushing to question Trump’s fitness for office after he removed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, an action that’s spiraled into a lawsuit and intensified friction between the White House and the central bank.
This drama kicked off on Monday when Trump ousted Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, claiming she misrepresented mortgage data. Well, turns out actions have consequences, and this decision has ignited a firestorm.
By Thursday, Cook wasn’t taking the dismissal lying down—she filed a lawsuit against Trump, arguing his removal didn’t meet the legal standard for cause and seeking a restraining order to stay on the board. This case is now on a fast track, likely headed to the Supreme Court for a showdown.
Enter Rep. Maxine Waters, who on Friday took to MSNBC’s “The Weeknight” to sound the alarm. She insisted, “It is time to call for [the 25th Amendment] to determine his unfitness.” With all due respect, Rep. Waters, isn’t this a bit of a leap when the courts are still sorting out the mess?
Waters didn’t stop there, warning of dire stakes. “This stands to basically upend the entire economy,” she declared, pointing to potential chaos on Wall Street and with interest rates. While her concern for economic stability is noted, one might wonder if invoking a constitutional crisis is the best way to steady the ship.
This isn’t just a personal spat—it’s a full-blown escalation between the White House and the Federal Reserve, an institution meant to operate with independence. The tension is palpable, and the implications for monetary policy are real.
During the MSNBC panel, host Symone Sanders-Townsend chimed in, admitting, “I think it’s jarring to hear Congresswoman Waters say it’s time for the 25th Amendment.” Jarring, indeed—perhaps a reminder that cooler heads should prevail before we start rewriting the Constitution over policy disagreements.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., also joined the fray, suggesting Trump’s real target isn’t Cook but Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. She argued that Trump is meddling with the Fed’s “component parts” by ousting Cook on baseless grounds. A fair critique, perhaps, but let’s not pretend the Fed is above scrutiny either.
Wasserman Schultz further defended Cook, noting the fraud allegations tied to mortgage rates are unfounded since Cook never received preferential treatment. “It’s preposterous,” she said, dismissing the claims as a pretext for removal. If true, that’s a problem—but shouldn’t we wait for the courts to weigh in before crying foul?
The White House, for its part, has been contacted by Fox News Digital for a response, though no comment has been provided yet. Silence can speak volumes, but it’s worth giving the administration a chance to explain its rationale.
Let’s step back and look at the bigger picture: the Federal Reserve’s independence is a cornerstone of economic stability, and any presidential overreach risks shaking that foundation. Trump’s supporters might argue he’s simply holding officials accountable, but the method matters as much as the motive.
On the flip side, Waters’ call for the 25th Amendment feels like a political sledgehammer when a scalpel might do. Her passion for protecting democracy is clear, but such a drastic measure demands ironclad justification, not just frustration with policy moves.
The economy is no game, and neither is the Constitution. While progressive voices may cheer Waters’ boldness, conservatives might see this as another overreach by those eager to undermine a president challenging the status quo. Isn’t it ironic when the cure seems riskier than the disease?
As this saga unfolds, all eyes are on the courts, the Fed, and the White House. The balance between executive authority and institutional independence hangs in the balance, and the outcome could ripple through markets and governance alike. Let’s hope reason prevails over rhetoric—because, frankly, we’ve got enough drama without scripting a constitutional crisis.
