President Donald Trump is considering renewing his push to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud allegations amid an ongoing legal debate over the president’s ability to remove members of the independent central bank, FOX Business has learned.
The White House is seeking a response from Cook within the next three weeks about the allegations that the administration leveled against her last year.
White House Personnel Office Director Dan Scavino indicated in a letter to Cook this week that the president is considering moving forward with firing her. It asked for a response to the allegations that prompted the president to announce her termination in August 2025 – which sparked an ongoing legal battle over his ability to remove Cook from her role at the Federal Reserve.
The White House’s letter told Cook that she was “hereby provided notice that the President is considering removing you from your position” as a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors.
The letter explained that there is “sufficient reason to believe that you made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements,” and requested a written response “with your explanation for your false statements and accompanying evidence within 21 days.”
SUPREME COURT RULES ON TRUMP’S ATTEMPT TO FIRE FED GOVERNOR LISA COOK
Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling that allowed Cook to remain in her role while the case challenging her dismissal plays out.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which indicated the Court can’t accept the administration’s argument that it has the ability to “remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after. That would turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment.”
“To be clear, the ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts. In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards. Rather, we have simply addressed the parties’ arguments about the appropriate legal standards under which the facts must be evaluated,” Roberts’ majority opinion concluded.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Read the full article here
