Fed responds to Trump effort to fire Lisa Cook

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CNBC

Published Tue, Aug 26 2025 3:10 PM EDT Updated 12 Min Ago


The Federal Reserve on Tuesday said it would abide by any court decision on whether President Donald Trump has the legal authority to fire Board of Governors member Lisa Cook.

The Fed, in a statement from a spokesperson, noted that “Cook has indicated through her personal attorney that she will promptly challenge this action in court and seek a judicial decision that would confirm her ability to continue to fulfill her responsibilities as a Senate-confirmed member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.”

The statement was the Fed’s first response to Trump’s announcement on Monday night that he was removing Cook as Fed governor because of allegations she committed mortgage fraud. The spokesperson did not explicitly criticize Trump for trying to remove Cook.

But the statement pointedly noted that “Congress, through the Federal Reserve Act, directs that governors serve in long, fixed terms and may be removed by the president only ‘for cause.’ ” “Long tenures and removal protections for governors serve as a vital safeguard, ensuring that monetary policy decisions are based on data, economic analysis, and the long-term interests of the American people,” the statement said.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/26/trump-fed-cook-respond-court.html

[Karasu]

1. Fucking sick and tired of these fascists getting away with firing people they have NEVER historically had the authority

to fire.

[MissouriDem47]

2. So TACO

is going to have to charge her and take her to court. Good, rack up another loss for TACO.

[newdeal2]

5. Is that cause for firing though?

Even if it’s proven true, I don’t understand what it has to do with her job performance or how she got the job.

It seems like a separate issue entirely.

[TomSlick]

13. The Trump administration has accused her of mortgage fraud.

Importantly, her mortgage holder has not made the allegation.

Mortgage fraud is the Trump administrations current go-to when they want to accuse someone of something.

I would hope that a baseless allegation will not be found to be "just cause."

[FBaggins]

15. Yes and no

The claimed behavior is a felony - and one that is clearly related to her job (since the mortgage(s) would be part of the financial system that she oversees). That would pretty clearly constitute "cause" for her firing (if, ironically, not enough to block someone from the presidency)...

... but she hasn't been indicted (let alone convicted) of that crime. So it's a tougher sell.

[WokeAintWhatIAm]

17. An accusation can be made against anyone...

But investigations and the inconvenience of answering questions is to intimidate and cause less critical process thinkers to believe it because it is said (on TV, on media). We have to apply more critical thinking in time of misinformation and distraction.

[WokeAintWhatIAm]

16. Allegations is not...

Guilt, an allegation is an accusation.

[jgmiller]

3. The whole point of this is intimidation

He wants anyone else that might think they want to oppose him to be worried that Bondi will dredge up a jay walking offense 30 years ago and use it again them.

[Attilatheblond]

4. "Allegations" are easy to assert but action requires proof of wrong doing. Trump just likes to bully people

particularly black women who have the courage so many white men seem to lack.

[Bayard]

7. Plus, she's a black woman

He just can't abide that fact.

[calimary]

12. Yep. Intimidation is the name of the game.

That's the donald's not-so-secret weapon.

[MLWR]

6. If the court finds she did nothing wrong or dismisses the case

as having no merit, she needs to sue him for defamation and for bringing this suit against her for political harrassment.

[iluvtennis]

9. TSF''s cause is she is a "DEI" hire. What a fkn moron. n/t

[BidenRocks]

10. Do they have a legal finding of guilt?

Chump is guilty of sex crimes.

Cook should sue for slander and defamation.

I don't care if you are the president.

[TomSlick]

14. There had been no charge, much less a conviction.

[BidenRocks]

11. Chump says she's a liar!

Pot, kettle!

She must have an impeccable record.

She's better than chump who is a (not enough words).

[Capperdan]

18. Won't happen

SCOTUS told him a few months ago he can't touch the Fed Reserve

[FBaggins]

19. No they didn't

When SCOTUS allowed him to fire two members of the Labor board a few weeks ago they pointed out that the ruling did not mean that he could fire Powell just because he wasn't in line with executive policy preferences.

But that has little to nothing to do with whether or not he can fire a fed governor "for cause"... which is clearly allowable within the law that created the fed in the first place.

The question in this one almost certainly comes down to whether or not "cause" can include an accusation of a crime without charges (let alone conviction)... and whether or not she actually did what she is accused of.