The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that it is prohibited for Donald Trump to dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, firmly upholding the central bank's independence and rejecting an unprecedented challenge to its authority initiated by the Republican president.
The court's decision, reached with a 5-4 vote, prevents Trump from becoming the first president since the Federal Reserve's establishment by Congress in 1913 to remove one of its officials. During his second term, Trump has continued to test the boundaries of presidential power across numerous domains.
This ruling follows closely on the heels of another economically significant case decided in February, where the court found the bulk of Trump's sweeping global tariff policy unconstitutional, a decision that drew fierce condemnation from Trump towards the justices.
Last August, Trump sought to remove Cook based on unsubstantiated allegations of mortgage fraud. Cook, the first African American woman to serve as a Federal Reserve governor, stated that Trump's actions were a pretext, with the real reason being a policy disagreement over monetary matters. Cook has denied all related allegations.
Lower courts had previously issued a preliminary injunction, preventing Trump from immediately firing Cook pending the outcome of her legal challenge against the dismissal. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court to lift this injunction, but the justices denied the request.
The Federal Reserve, the world's most influential central bank, sets the cost of credit for the United States and globally. Since Trump resumed the presidency in January 2025, the Fed has been under consistent pressure from his administration.
Cook was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board by former Democratic President Joe Biden in 2022, with a term originally set to last until 2038.
Trump's move against Cook, combined with a criminal investigation launched and later dropped against then-Fed Chair Jerome Powell in January of this year, represents one of the most severe challenges to the Federal Reserve's independence in its history.
May 15th marked the final day of Powell's eight-year term as Fed Chair, though he retains his seat on the Board of Governors. The US Senate voted on May 13th to confirm Trump's nominee, Kevin Warsh, as the new Chair, with Warsh being sworn in on May 22nd.
Last October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Cook's case, temporarily preserving her position; oral arguments were held this January, with both Cook and Powell in attendance.
The Federal Reserve Act
The Federal Reserve was created by the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which includes provisions designed to shield the central bank from political interference. The Act stipulates that a president may remove a Fed governor only for cause, but it does not explicitly define "cause" nor specify a removal process.
On August 25, 2025, Trump posted a dismissal notice on social media, citing allegations disclosed by Bill Poulter, the Federal Housing Finance Agency Director he appointed. Trump claimed Cook had committed violations in mortgage filings for properties in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Georgia, and used this as grounds for her removal.
In September, US District Judge Ja Cobb ruled that Trump's attempt to fire Cook without prior notice or a hearing likely violated her Fifth Amendment right to due process. The judge also stated that since the alleged conduct occurred before Cook's Fed tenure, it did not constitute legal cause for removal under the Federal Reserve Act.
Subsequently, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also rejected Trump's request to stay the district court's injunction.
The Struggle for Fed Independence Amid Political Pressure
Faced with persistently high inflation, Trump repeatedly pressured the Fed to cut interest rates more quickly and aggressively, publicly criticizing Powell for refusing to align with his policy wishes.
The outcome of Cook's case directly impacts the Fed's ability to set interest rates free from political influence, a policy independence widely considered essential for central banks to stabilize inflation and fulfill their macroeconomic mandates.
As a Fed Governor, Cook helps set US monetary policy alongside the six other members of the Board of Governors and the presidents of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks.
In previous cases, the Supreme Court has progressively expanded presidential authority over officials at independent federal agencies, even signaling a potential overturn of a key 1935 precedent protecting agency heads from arbitrary dismissal.
However, a Supreme Court ruling in May 2025 suggested the Fed might be an exception. While allowing Trump to remove Democratic members of two federal labor boards, the Court explicitly stated that the Fed's unique structure and historical tradition entitled it to special protections for its independence.
The Legal Limits of Presidential Authority
Both the Cook dismissal case and the global tariff litigation are part of a series of legal disputes stemming from Trump's expansion of presidential power after returning to office in 2025.
Trump has also frequently used executive orders to enact major policy shifts in areas like immigration, military service, and federal hiring. While facing multiple lawsuits, the Supreme Court had previously allowed many such policies to take effect temporarily, making the tariff case loss a notable exception.
In the tariff ruling, the Court struck down a cornerstone of Trump's economic agenda: using a 1977 statute intended for national emergencies to impose tariffs on nearly all US trading partners, an unprecedented act for any president. Trump reacted with fury, lambasting some justices as "a disgrace" and labeling several Republican-appointed justices, including his own nominee, as "fools" and "lapdogs" for Democrats.
During oral arguments in the Cook case, the Trump administration argued for a broad interpretation of presidential power, contending that a president's determination of cause for removal is an unreviewable discretionary act.
Cook's legal team countered that granting the president such unconstrained power would destroy Fed independence, trigger severe market turmoil, and set a precedent for future presidential interference in monetary policy.
The Investigation Controversy Involving Powell
Similar to Cook, Powell believed that a criminal investigation launched by the Trump administration—citing budget overruns in a renovation project for two historic Fed buildings in Washington—was essentially an attempt to coerce the Fed into cutting rates and manipulate monetary policy indirectly.
On March 13, a federal judge halted a subpoena issued by a Trump-appointed prosecutor against Powell, deeming the investigation an improper attempt to pressure the central bank; the Justice Department formally dropped the entire investigation on April 24.
Trump had publicly derided Powell as a "fool" and a "total failure," accusing him of gross incompetence.
In January, Trump nominated Kevin Warsh for Fed Chair. Warsh, a former Fed Governor, is the son-in-law of billionaire Ron Lauder, a key political donor to Trump. Warsh's swearing-in was presided over by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, with conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh in attendance.
Republican Senator Thom Tillis publicly criticized the Powell investigation as an unjustified assault on Fed independence and threatened to block Warsh's confirmation unless it was terminated, after which the Justice Department withdrew the investigation.
Previously, FHFA Director Poulter had submitted criminal referrals to the Justice Department alleging mortgage fraud by Cook, but no criminal investigation was actually initiated by the time of the court cases.
Subsequent media investigations revealed that Poulter's father and stepmother had also claimed the same type of homestead property tax exemptions in two states—a policy allowing homeowners to declare a primary residence for tax relief. Local tax authorities in Ann Arbor confirmed to media that Cook had not violated any laws or regulations in her property tax filings, despite Poulter's allegations.
Comments