The standoff between President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has reached the nation’s highest court, with the White House insisting that his attempt to fire her falls squarely within presidential authority.
In a filing to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer argued that Congress, when writing the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, respected presidential control over top U.S. officials by not binding removals to rigid procedures. Fed governors, the law states, can only be dismissed “for cause” — but it leaves the phrase undefined.
Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, has fought back fiercely. After Trump accused her of mortgage fraud and declared his intent to remove her, she sued, saying the charges were a flimsy pretext to punish her economic stance. She has consistently denied the allegations, pointing instead to Trump’s relentless pressure campaign for the Fed to slash interest rates deeper and faster than it has.
The clash now tests a precedent never before touched: no president has ever removed a Federal Reserve governor. Cook’s legal team warned the justices this week that Trump’s move would shatter the central bank’s independence, destabilize markets, and open the door to political control of monetary policy.
The administration countered that Cook’s alleged “misrepresentations on financial documents” created a serious appearance of impropriety, more than enough justification for dismissal.
The case now sits with the Supreme Court, which could, at any moment, issue a ruling that decides whether Trump has the power to breach a century-old wall designed to shield the Federal Reserve from political interference.
