Trump Moving Forward With New Attempt to Fire Lisa Cook After Supreme Court Setback, Sources Say
President Donald Trump is renewing his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, opening another potentially historic legal fight only weeks after the Supreme Court blocked his earlier effort to push her out of the central bank.
The White House has now formally notified Cook that Trump is considering removing her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and has given her until August 26 to respond. The move follows the Supreme Court’s June 29 ruling that allowed Cook to remain in office while her challenge to Trump’s previous removal attempt continues.
The new confrontation goes far beyond Cook’s individual job. At stake is how much power a president can exercise over Federal Reserve governors and how strongly federal law protects the central bank from direct political control.
Trump Begins a New Process to Remove Lisa Cook
The latest White House action appears designed to address one of the biggest problems the Supreme Court identified with Trump’s first attempt to remove Cook. According to reporting on the letter, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino informed Cook that Trump was “considering” removing her and gave her a period to respond to the allegations against her.
That is substantially different from what happened in August 2025. Trump previously announced that Cook was being removed after Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte accused her of making false statements connected to mortgage applications involving properties in Michigan and Georgia.
Cook challenged the attempted firing in federal court, arguing that Trump lacked sufficient legal cause to remove her and had failed to provide the process required before terminating a Federal Reserve governor. Lower courts prevented the removal from taking effect, and the administration eventually took the dispute to the Supreme Court.
The White House’s new strategy suggests the administration believes it can overcome at least the procedural problem identified by the justices. But satisfying the notice requirement does not necessarily mean Trump will ultimately have the legal authority to remove Cook.
That question could produce another significant court battle.
Supreme Court Did Not Give Trump Unlimited Power to Fire Cook
The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in June against immediately allowing Trump’s earlier removal of Cook to take effect. Importantly, the decision did not conclude that Cook could never be removed.
Instead, the Court found that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to answer the accusations against her before a final decision was made.
The Court said the president’s authority to remove Federal Reserve governors “for cause” does not mean a president can dismiss them for any reason or no reason at all. Courts can still examine whether the stated justification actually satisfies the legal protections Congress created for Federal Reserve governors. That distinction now sits at the center of Trump’s renewed effort.
The Court also indicated that determining whether legitimate cause exists could depend on how serious the alleged misconduct is and whether it has a meaningful connection to the governor’s ability to perform the job. The justices warned that allowing every alleged past mistake to become grounds for removal could weaken the independence Congress intended the Federal Reserve to possess.
In practical terms, Trump has another opportunity to make his case. Cook also has another opportunity to fight it.
Mortgage Allegations Remain at the Center of the Dispute
The confrontation began with allegations involving mortgage documents connected to homes in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta, Georgia.
Pulte accused Cook of improperly identifying both properties as primary residences. Primary residences can sometimes qualify borrowers for more favorable mortgage terms than investment properties or vacation homes.
Cook has denied committing mortgage fraud, and she has not been charged with a crime in connection with the allegations. Her lawyers have provided a different account of the disputed documents.
Cook’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, has said Cook had primarily lived in her Ann Arbor home since purchasing it in 2005. According to her legal team, calling that property her primary residence during a 2021 refinancing was therefore accurate.
Cook purchased the Atlanta condominium shortly afterward. One document described that property as a primary residence, but Lowell has characterized that designation as an isolated notation rather than evidence of an intentional scheme.
Her attorneys have also pointed to other documents that identified the Atlanta property differently. An earlier mortgage application reportedly described it as a vacation home, while financial disclosures connected to Cook’s Federal Reserve confirmation identified it as a second home.
Those details could become increasingly important because the Supreme Court made clear that courts may evaluate whether Trump’s stated cause is legally sufficient.
Cook’s Lawyer Says the New Attempt Will Be Challenged
Cook is showing no indication that she intends to leave voluntarily. Lowell called the renewed allegations baseless and said Cook’s legal team would fight Trump’s latest effort. He argued that there remains no valid cause for removing her and linked the dispute to the larger question of preserving the Federal Reserve’s institutional independence.
Cook has previously argued that the mortgage accusations are being used as a pretext because she resisted political pressure over monetary policy.
Trump and his allies reject that interpretation and argue that allegations involving financial integrity are relevant to whether someone should continue occupying one of the most powerful financial policymaking positions in the country.
The courts may ultimately have to decide where the line falls.
Why Lisa Cook’s Federal Reserve Position Is Unusually Protected
Federal Reserve governors do not serve like ordinary presidential political appointees.
The seven members of the Board of Governors receive staggered 14-year terms, a structure intended to prevent a president from quickly reshaping the entire central bank. Federal law states that governors may be removed by the president “for cause.”
Cook originally joined the board in May 2022 and was later confirmed for a full term. Her current term is scheduled to continue until January 31, 2038, meaning that without resignation or a legally valid removal, she could remain at the Fed long after Trump’s current presidency ends.
Trump’s original attempt to fire Cook was historically significant because no president had previously attempted to remove a sitting Federal Reserve governor in the institution’s more than century-long history. The Supreme Court itself highlighted that extraordinary history when reviewing the dispute.
That is one reason the case has attracted attention well beyond Washington legal circles.
Federal Reserve Independence Is the Bigger Fight
The Federal Reserve controls monetary policy decisions that affect mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, business borrowing, savings rates, employment and inflation.
Presidents naturally have strong political incentives to favor economic conditions that benefit their agendas. But Congress deliberately gave the Fed substantial independence so monetary policy decisions would not simply change according to the immediate wishes of the White House.
The Supreme Court’s June ruling emphasized precisely that distinction. The majority said Federal Reserve governors do not serve at the pleasure of the president and described both the reality and the appearance of central bank independence as important parts of the institution’s design.
The issue remains especially relevant because interest rates continue to be closely watched across the economy.
At its July 29 meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee voted 9 to 3 to maintain the federal funds target range at 3.5 percent to 3.75 percent. Three officials preferred a quarter-point increase as the central bank continued grappling with inflation that remains above its 2 percent goal.
Cook’s vote is therefore not ceremonial. Federal Reserve governors participate directly in decisions that can move financial markets and influence borrowing costs throughout the United States.
Trump’s New Approach Could Put the Meaning of ‘For Cause’ to the Test
Providing Cook with time to respond may solve one procedural weakness in Trump’s original effort, but it creates the possibility of an even more consequential legal question. What exactly qualifies as “cause” for removing a Federal Reserve governor?
The Supreme Court has already rejected the idea that a president possesses unchecked discretion. At the same time, it did not establish a rigid definition that automatically resolves Cook’s case.
Instead, the Court indicated that the seriousness of alleged misconduct and its relationship to a governor’s professional responsibilities matter when evaluating whether removal is justified. That means future litigation could move deeper into the substance of the accusations rather than focusing primarily on the process Trump followed.
If Trump ultimately issues another formal removal decision after Cook submits her response, her lawyers are expected to challenge it.
Courts could then be asked to determine whether the allegations constitute genuine legal cause or whether they fall short of the threshold required to remove an independent central bank official.
What Happens Next in the Trump Lisa Cook Fight
The immediate date to watch is August 26, the deadline Cook has been given to respond to the White House’s latest notice.
After reviewing Cook’s response, Trump could decide not to proceed, request additional information, or issue another decision seeking her removal. Based on the positions already taken by both sides, another removal order would almost certainly send the dispute back into federal court.
Cook remains a Federal Reserve governor while the existing litigation continues.
What began as a dispute over mortgage documents has consequently developed into something much larger: a test of presidential removal power, the legal meaning of “for cause,” and the degree of independence Congress can guarantee the Federal Reserve from political pressure.
Trump’s Supreme Court setback did not end his effort to remove Lisa Cook. It instead gave the administration a roadmap for trying again, while also establishing significant limits that could make the second attempt just as difficult to sustain.
