 |
| Lisa Cook |
I just want to very briefly comment on this. Lisa Cook is member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve. She was nominated by Biden and her nomination was confirmed on September 6, 2023. Her term on the board expires January 2038.
Yesterday, President Trump said he fired her because of mortgage fraud. Lisa Cook says that she is not going anywhere. What is her position? One of these:
1. She can't be fired by the President for any reason. (Maybe the Board could fire her for malfeasance). It seems like this is her position. She said: "President Trump purported to fire me 'for cause' when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so."
2. She can be fired by the President, but her actions do not constitute cause. Even if she misstated something on her mortgage applications, that is a petty event that doesn't rise to an event that justifies firing her.
She will probably sue, and this will be up to the Supreme Court to decide.
I wonder what the law about the Federal Reserve says about this. To be continued.
============================
ChatGpt, yesterday President Trump said that he fired Lisa Cook from being a governor of the Federal Reserve. She claimed that he did not have authority to fire her. What is your opinion of this?
You’re absolutely right to question what happened yesterday, August 25, 2025. President Trump announced that he was firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing alleged mortgage fraud and claiming “sufficient cause” under his authority ABC NewsReuters.
However—this is the crux—legal experts and Cook herself strongly dispute that he has the authority to do so. Lisa Cook, who was appointed by President Biden for a 14-year term and confirmed in 2022, responded that “no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority” to remove her ABC NewsThe Washington PostReuters. Legal scholars emphasize that Federal Reserve governors can only be removed “for cause”—and such removals have practically never been attempted. The move is widely seen as a highly unusual and legally questionable assault on the Fed’s independence The EconomistReuters+1.
Many analysts warn this could spark a prolonged legal fight, and even Tampering with the Fed’s independence may unsettle financial markets and institutional norms Reuters+1. Market reaction so far has been muted, but there are growing concerns about undermining central bank autonomy—a cornerstone of stable monetary policy Reuters+1.
My Opinion
-
Legally Shaky Ground: Based on current law—including the Federal Reserve Act and relevant court interpretations—there’s no clear legal basis for a president to unilaterally dismiss a sitting Fed governor. Cook appears to have strong justification to contest this in court.
-
Erosion of Institutional Independence: The Federal Reserve’s independence is a critical element of economic stability. Politically motivated firings set dangerous precedents that could undermine trust in the central bank’s ability to make decisions based on data, not political pressure.
-
Risks to Market Confidence: Even if markets are reacting mildly for now, such a high-profile and politically charged move risks shaking investor confidence. Any perceived politicization could amplify volatility and long-term economic uncertainty.
-
Precedent with Broad Implications: If this move succeeds, even temporarily, it could redefine the limits of executive power over independent agencies—not just for the Fed but across the executive branch.
In short: while the president claimed to fire Lisa Cook, the legal and institutional framework does not support such a removal, and the broader implications for central bank independence and democratic governance are deeply troubling.
Would you like a breakdown of potential legal arguments in play, or how this compares to past episodes of executive overreach into independent institutions?
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Great clarification — here’s how the situation breaks down legally and practically:
1. Does a president have authority to fire a Fed governor?
-
The Federal Reserve Act says governors “may be removed for cause by the President.”
-
That phrase “for cause” is critical: it means presidents do not have blanket “at-will” firing authority like they do over cabinet officials.
-
Historically, no president has ever removed a Fed governor, so the exact boundaries of “for cause” have never been tested in court.
2. What counts as “for cause”?
Legal scholars generally interpret it narrowly:
-
Valid examples might be corruption, incapacity, serious misconduct, or clear neglect of duty.
-
Invalid examples would be policy disagreements, political disputes, or decisions the president dislikes.
So, the key legal fight is whether the allegations Trump raised (mortgage fraud) actually qualify.
3. Do allegations alone count?
-
No, not typically. Courts have consistently said “cause” requires substantial evidence—not just accusations.
-
Presidents cannot simply declare “cause”; there would need to be a demonstrable factual basis.
-
That does not necessarily require a criminal conviction, but usually it means misconduct has been established through investigation, due process, or an adjudicative process.
4. Where Lisa Cook stands
-
Cook is essentially arguing: Trump cannot fire her at all unless there is proven, substantial cause.
-
Since the allegations are unproven, and since she disputes them, she’s saying he has no authority right now.
-
If Trump insists, the issue is almost certain to end up in federal court, where a judge would decide if the president exceeded his power.
✅ So, to answer directly:
-
Trump does not have authority to fire her “for any reason.”
-
Alleged mortgage fraud, even if true, might qualify as “for cause,” but that would depend on the facts.
-
A criminal conviction is not required, but some credible, legally established proof of misconduct would likely be needed before a court would uphold such a firing.
No comments:
Post a Comment