The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped into uncharted waters, agreeing to hear arguments in January over Donald Trump’s unprecedented bid to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. For now, Cook remains in her post, marking a rare moment where the central bank’s long-guarded independence collides directly with presidential power.
This is the first time in history a president has attempted to oust a sitting Fed governor. Trump’s move, rooted in allegations of mortgage fraud that Cook denies, has already been blocked once by a federal judge who ruled the claims were unlikely to meet the legal standard for removal under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. That law allows a president to remove Fed governors only “for cause” — a phrase never tested in court.
Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed’s board, sued Trump in August, arguing that the accusations were a pretext to push her out for her policy stance. Her camp warns that granting Trump’s request would shred the central bank’s independence, rattling financial markets and setting the stage for presidents to dictate monetary policy on political timelines.
The stakes extend far beyond Cook’s tenure. If the court clears Trump’s path, it could rewrite the relationship between the White House and the nation’s most influential financial institution. With two Fed policy meetings scheduled before January’s arguments — and interest rate cuts on the horizon — Cook is expected to remain an active voice in the central bank’s decision-making for now.
The Supreme Court’s willingness to hear the case suggests the justices may weigh the Fed differently than other agencies where Trump has recently won dismissal powers. A ruling could decide not just Cook’s fate, but whether presidents can ever again try to bend the Fed’s hand.
Behind the courtroom drama lies a broader battle: Trump’s drive to reshape the Fed, potentially clearing the way for allies to replace Jerome Powell when his term as Fed Chair ends in May. The January hearing will be pivotal, not only for Cook, but for the century-old question of whether America’s central bank belongs to politics — or stands above it.
