On Monday, local time, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump currently lacks the authority to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. This ruling did not definitively determine whether Trump ultimately possesses the legal power to dismiss Cook or other Federal Reserve governors; it merely rejected Trump's request to postpone a lower federal court's decision.



A lower court had previously ruled to prevent Trump from firing Cook while his lawsuit against him was being heard. The Supreme Court upheld this temporary restriction by a 5-4 vote. Trump had previously claimed that Cook was fired because of allegations of mortgage fraud, a claim Cook has vehemently denied.

Legal basis for the ruling: upholding the independence of the Federal Reserve, but acknowledging procedural flaws.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, which was supported by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as well as three liberal justices: Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketangi Brown Jackson. The remaining four conservative justices dissented from the ruling.

In his opinion letter, Roberts clearly stated that the Federal Reserve's institutional design requires not only substantive independence but also an independent external image, which is a core element of the Fed's functioning. This ruling did not completely prohibit Trump from subsequently removing Cook from office again on mortgage fraud grounds, but it clarified that his first attempt to remove him was invalid. The core reason is that Trump failed to guarantee Cook's due process rights as required by federal law.

The court clarified that if Trump initiates another recall hearing, he must complete the full legal process: publicizing all evidence against Cook, providing him with ample opportunity to defend himself, and setting a clear time limit for such appeals. Only after all procedures are completed can the court determine the legality of the allegations and the sufficiency of the evidence. Roberts emphasized that the Federal Reserve's independent operational structure is established by congressional legislation, and any structural adjustments must be approved by congressional legislation, not unilateral decisions by the courts or the president. Allowing the president to arbitrarily recall Federal Reserve governors would completely undermine the Fed's independence and judicial oversight.

Supreme Court Justices Divided: Majority Upholds Central Bank Independence, Dissidents Question the Scale of the Ruling

This ruling exposed significant divisions within the Supreme Court. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the case was still in its early stages and involved novel and unique legal issues, and that issuing a comprehensive and broad opinion at this stage would be premature.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority ruling essentially advocated for the central bank's independent policy implementation, violating the spirit of the Constitution. He stated bluntly that this Supreme Court ruling unprecedentedly infringed upon the president's executive power and excessively interfered in the performance of duties by the executive system.

On the same day, a reverse ruling was made: expanding the president's power to remove FTC officials from office.

It is worth noting that on the same day, the Supreme Court issued a contrary ruling, further expanding the US president's power to appoint and dismiss personnel. The court formally confirmed that Trump's dismissal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slott was legal and valid.

The two rulings issued on the same day present a stark contrast: the court strictly limits the president's interference in the appointment of Federal Reserve officials and defends the central bank's independence, while recognizing the president's power to dismiss commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission, reflecting the Supreme Court's differentiated standards for defining the personnel authority of different independent federal agencies.

The underlying cause of the event: Political interference in monetary policy triggers a power struggle.

The controversy surrounding the dismissal began nine months ago. Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency director appointed by the Trump administration, accused Cook of mortgage fraud before he took office, and Trump subsequently dismissed him on this ground. Pulte also filed a criminal referral request with the Department of Justice against Cook.

However, both outside observers and Cook herself believe that the fraud allegations are merely an excuse by Trump, and the real conflict stems from disagreements on monetary policy. Early in his second term, Trump repeatedly pressured the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, but Cook consistently refused to cater to political demands, insisting on basing interest rate policies on economic fundamentals. This is the core reason why Trump was determined to remove her from office.

According to the Federal Reserve Act, the president can only initiate removal proceedings against a Federal Reserve governor for misconduct; he cannot remove a governor arbitrarily or without cause. Cook is the first African American woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in U.S. history, appointed by former President Biden.

Responses from all sides: Trump threatens further action, Cook defends central bank independence

Following the ruling, Trump responded on the Truth social media platform, stating that the court's decision was based solely on procedural issues and did not negate the charges against Cook. He threatened to take further action, stating that he would immediately take appropriate measures to prevent individuals with alleged misconduct from participating in core U.S. economic decisions and impacting the nation's well-being.

Cook herself issued a statement refuting the allegations, clarifying that the so-called mortgage issues from years ago were pure fabrication. She stated bluntly that Trump's impeachment was essentially political suppression, solely because she refused to succumb to political pressure, adhered to her duties as a Federal Reserve governor, and formulated interest rate policy with the interests of the American people at its core. Cook emphasized that this ruling defended the core principle of American economic governance: the Federal Reserve's policy decisions must be based on facts, remain independent, and be free from political interference—a principle that has been the foundation of the Federal Reserve's function since its inception.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, a long-time critic of Trump's interference in the Federal Reserve's operations, publicly stated that this ruling is a powerful rebuttal to Trump and Pulte. She pointed out that even the Supreme Court, composed of justices nominated by Trump, ruled his removal of Cook illegal, and that Trump's previous attempts to remove Fed Chair Powell and Governor Cook have failed. She also warned that Trump's attempt to control the US central bank is not over and called for the removal of Pulte, who has consistently targeted Cook.

Meanwhile, Pulte, who has consistently accused Cook of fraud, also spoke out on social media, asserting that Cook will eventually be formally prosecuted and maintaining his previous stance on all allegations.