President Trump is taking another run at removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, this time armed with a formal process the Supreme Court essentially drew up for him. The White House sent Cook a letter on August 5 notifying her that the president is considering her removal, citing allegations of mortgage fraud tied to property applications in Georgia and Michigan.
Cook has 21 days to respond. She has denied the allegations and signaled she has no plans to resign.
Round two, with paperwork
This isn’t Trump’s first attempt to oust Cook. He initially moved to remove her back in August 2025, a decision that triggered an immediate legal fight and eventually landed before the Supreme Court. The justices issued their ruling on June 29, and while the decision’s full implications are still playing out, the court made one thing clear: if the president wants to fire a Fed governor, there’s a procedural playbook to follow.
That playbook includes proper notice and an opportunity for the targeted official to respond. The latest letter appears designed to check those boxes.
The allegations at the center of the notice involve mortgage applications Cook reportedly submitted around 2021. The White House claims these applications contain fraudulent information. Cook, who joined the Fed’s Board of Governors and became the first Black woman to hold the position, has pushed back on the claims throughout the saga.
Her response window closes on August 26, setting up what could be yet another legal confrontation if the administration proceeds with removal after that date.
Why Fed independence matters here
The Federal Reserve was deliberately structured to operate with a degree of independence from the White House. Governors serve 14-year terms specifically so they can make unpopular decisions without worrying about getting a pink slip.
Trump’s effort to remove Cook tests the boundaries of that arrangement in ways that haven’t been tested before. While the president has the statutory authority to remove governors “for cause,” no president has actually followed through on firing one. The phrase “for cause” has historically been understood to mean serious malfeasance, not policy disagreements, but its precise legal meaning remains surprisingly unsettled.
The Supreme Court’s June ruling didn’t fully resolve this question. Instead of issuing a sweeping decision about the scope of presidential removal power over Fed governors, the justices focused on process, telling the executive branch to follow proper procedure before the courts would weigh in on the bigger constitutional questions.
The political and institutional stakes
Cook’s supporters argue that the mortgage fraud allegations are a pretext, designed to provide legal cover for what is fundamentally a politically motivated removal. Her critics counter that if the allegations have merit, the president has every right to act.
If Trump successfully removes Cook, every future president would have a roadmap for ousting Fed governors they find inconvenient. The first removal attempt in August 2025 already demonstrated how disruptive the effort can be, consuming months of legal bandwidth and injecting uncertainty into an already complex policy environment.