Trump's Fed aggression poses new legal test of presidential power

President Trump is pushing his drive for unilateral control of the U.S. government to new levels as he seeks to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, potentially crossing a red line the Supreme Court has suggested protects the central bank from direct political manipulation.

- Jess Bravin

Since taking office, Trump repeatedly has taken aim at federal laws protecting a range of government officials from arbitrary dismissal, firing without cause. Democratic appointees serving fixed terms to supervise agencies that oversee consumer safety, labor organizing, fair-trade practices and the integrity of the civil service, among others.

In a Monday letter published on social media, Trump told Cook that unproven allegations of mortgage fraud were sufficient cause for dismissal.

Cook, a Biden administration appointee, has vowed to fight Trump's action. "President Trump purported to fire me 'for cause' when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so," she said in a Tuesday statement. "I will not resign. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022," she said. Her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said he would file suit, setting up a case likely to reach the Supreme Court.

In a statement Tuesday, the Federal Reserve said the governors' lengthy terms and tenure protection "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 the Fed would obey any court decision concerning Cook's "ability to continue to fulfill her responsibilities as a Senate-confirmed member."

Robert Post, a Yale law professor, said the stakes could hardly be higher.

"Everyone agrees that if a Fed governor is taking a bribe, they should be removed. It's not controversial. So the question is, What is cause?" he said.

If courts permit Trump to remove Cook based only on his say-so, rather than requiring proof of wrongdoing, then the for-cause protection is meaningless, Post said.