Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook survives Trump's firing attempt
Supreme Court upholds limits on removing Fed governors 5-4, rejecting Trump's unprecedented attempt to fire Lisa Cook.
Objective Facts
The Supreme Court dramatically expanded presidential power but carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, allowing Fed governor Lisa Cook to stay in her job while she fights Trump's effort to fire her over mortgage fraud allegations, which she denied. Trump moved to fire Cook from the Fed Board in August 2025, a move without precedent across the central bank's 112-year history. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which included fellow conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh, as well as the court's three liberal members, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The President failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute, without which she could not properly dispute the charges the President laid against her. In a footnote, Roberts said the ruling did not bar Trump from trying again to remove Cook over the alleged mortgage fraud if he chose to do so.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a longtime critic of Trump's efforts to pressure the Fed, seized on the ruling as a rebuke of both the president and Bill Pulte. Warren posted on X that "Even a Supreme Court stacked by Donald Trump agrees that his attempt to fire Lisa Cook was illegal," adding that "Donald Trump and his lackey Bill Pulte have now failed to fire former Chair Jerome Powell and Governor Cook," and called for Pulte to be removed, warning that "Trump's effort to take over America's central bank is far from over". Every living current or former Federal Reserve Board chair, plus Treasury secretaries and prominent economists from both parties signed on to a Supreme Court brief urging the court not to tinker with the Fed's independence.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Fox Business reported that the Supreme Court dealt a blow to Trump's effort to remove Cook, preserving long-standing protections that shield the central bank from political interference. The right-leaning media noted the ruling has implications for Jerome Powell's future and presidential influence, with Cook saying the ruling reaffirmed the Federal Reserve's independence as a principle that has underpinned sound economic stewardship for generations. Newsweek noted that the decision, while procedural, signals significant resistance from the court to expanding presidential power over the central bank and keeps protections for the Federal Reserve's independence in place for now.
Deep Dive
The Supreme Court delivered contradictory rulings on presidential removal power on the same day: it dramatically expanded presidential power to fire agency heads at will in the Slaughter case while carving out a unique exception for the Federal Reserve. Trump's critics argue his true motivation is desire to exert control over U.S. interest rate policy; if Trump succeeds in removing Cook, the first Black woman Federal Reserve governor, he could replace her with his own appointee and gain a majority on the Fed's board. Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has pushed for lower interest rates and criticized the Fed for failing to act on his wishes; he wants dramatic reductions so the government can borrow more cheaply and Americans can pay lower borrowing costs for new homes, cars or other large purchases. Chief Justice Roberts grounded the majority's distinction on procedural grounds, finding that Trump failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute, and that any new move against her would require additional steps, including an explanation of the evidence against her and a way for her to respond. Both the majority and concurring opinions frequently referred to the Fed's vital role in the modern economy, invoking the Fed's "unique historical status and role" and warning of economic "calamities" that would come with "political manipulation of monetary policy". The government did not try to argue that the "cause" provision was unconstitutional, waiving that argument early in the case, and in upholding the lower court ruling in Cook, the court more or less assumed that the cause provision in the Federal Reserve Act is valid. The Court's majority opinion technically rejected Trump's efforts to terminate Cook but laid out a clear path for the administration to do so in the future by providing her notice of the grounds upon which she is being terminated and giving her an opportunity to challenge those allegations, with nothing stopping the administration from commencing such a process on any basis it wants, or no basis at all, just to harass and intimidate Cook or any other member of the Federal Reserve. The case will continue through the courts and could ultimately return to the Supreme Court for a final ruling on the merits, which is expected to define the limits of presidential power over independent agencies and determine whether long-standing protections insulating the Federal Reserve from political control will endure.