The Trump administration has formally restarted its effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her seat, sending her a letter demanding she answer mortgage fraud allegations within three weeks, a move that sets up yet another legal confrontation over the independence of the central bank.
Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino signed the letter, dated August 5, notifying Cook that President Trump is "considering removing" her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for what the White House calls "gross negligence." The letter gives Cook 21 days, until August 26, to respond to allegations that she falsified bank documents to obtain favorable loan terms, AP News reported.
The allegations stem from a criminal referral made by Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who accused Cook of identifying two different homes as her primary residence on mortgage documents filed two weeks apart in 2021. Cook has never been charged with any crime. Her attorney has called the discrepancy an inadvertent notation.
The White House letter goes further, alleging Cook committed crimes that could carry prison sentences of up to 30 years, but then argues that even if her conduct does not rise to a criminal offense, it still constitutes negligence serious enough to call her trustworthiness as a Federal Reserve governor into question.
This latest move follows the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in June, which blocked Trump's initial attempt to fire Cook and allowed her to remain in her position while her legal challenge proceeded. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond to the charges against her before any removal "for cause" could proceed.
Roberts wrote plainly in the opinion:
"Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her... may a final decision be made. And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges."
But the opinion contained a footnote that left the door wide open. As Newsmax noted, nothing in the ruling forbade Trump from trying again, so long as he followed the procedural steps the Court outlined. The White House letter cites the June ruling directly as its legal basis.
Roberts also stressed that the Court had taken no position on the underlying facts of the case:
"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."
That language gave the administration room to argue it was not defying the Court but complying with it, by providing the notice and process the justices demanded.
Cook's attorney, Abbe Lowell, wasted no time responding. In a statement to ABC News, Lowell dismissed the renewed effort as a replay of last year's failed attempt:
"These allegations are as baseless now as they were a year ago when President Trump tried to remove Governor Cook and interfere with the independence of the Federal Reserve. No matter what President Trump tries to do next, this much is clear under the facts and Supreme Court precedent -- there is no valid cause for removing Governor Cook. As we did before, we will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position and the historic role of the Fed."
Cook herself has framed the dispute as political from the start. After the Supreme Court's June ruling, she issued a statement that made her position clear:
"This was never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor. It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people."
Those are strong words, and they point to the core tension in this fight. The administration says Cook committed fraud. Cook says the administration wants her off the board because she won't bend on interest rates. The courts will have to sort out which version holds up.
The legal path ahead for the White House is far from clear. Both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit previously refused to allow Cook's firing. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, in her ruling, emphasized the structural independence baked into the Federal Reserve's design:
"Cook is one of seven members of a Board that is, by design, not intended to be susceptible to policy pressure, let alone tasked with implementing the President's agenda."
Lower courts also ruled that the Federal Reserve Act's "for cause" removal provision covers only actions taken while serving on the board, meaning Cook could not be removed for alleged conduct that predated her appointment. If that interpretation holds, the mortgage allegations from 2021, which came before Cook joined the Fed, would not qualify as grounds for removal regardless of their severity.
The Supreme Court's June ruling did not directly address that question. Just the News reported that the high court found the administration had not shown it was likely to prevail on the merits during the appeals process, a significant signal, though not a final judgment.
Trump, for his part, has characterized the Court's ruling as purely procedural. On June 29, he posted on social media:
"The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability in sitting on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis, we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!"
The allegations against Cook trace back to criminal referrals made by Bill Pulte, who has become one of the most aggressive figures in the Trump administration's accountability apparatus. Pulte made two criminal referrals against Cook to the Justice Department, which then launched an investigation.
But Pulte's referral activity extends well beyond Cook. He has also made multiple criminal referrals against several of Trump's prominent critics, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Senator Adam Schiff. During a brief stint as Acting Director of National Intelligence, Pulte fired a third of his office, a move that drew bipartisan scrutiny.
That pattern matters because it shapes how courts and the public evaluate the Cook allegations. If the referrals look like part of a broader effort to use government machinery against political opponents, judges may view the "gross negligence" claim with skepticism. If the mortgage discrepancies are genuine and material, the administration's case gets stronger, but it still has to clear the legal hurdle that lower courts have already set: whether pre-appointment conduct qualifies as cause for removal under the Federal Reserve Act.
No president in the Federal Reserve's 111-year history had ever attempted to fire a sitting governor before Trump moved against Cook last August. The effort was part of a broader pressure campaign to push the central bank to lower interest rates, a campaign that has raised fundamental questions about the boundary between executive power and monetary policy independence.
Cook was confirmed to the Fed board by the Senate in a razor-thin 50-50 vote, with then-Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaker. That narrow confirmation has made her a political target from the start, but it also means she was duly confirmed through the constitutional process, a fact that complicates any argument that she lacks legitimacy in the role.
The DOJ's involvement adds another layer. Ed Martin, the U.S. Pardon Attorney who also directs the DOJ's "Weaponization Working Group," sent a letter last year to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell urging him to act on his own:
"At this time, I encourage you to remove Ms. Cook from your Board. Do it today before it is too late! After all, no American thinks it is appropriate that she serve during this time with a cloud hanging over her."
Powell did not comply. The Fed has maintained its institutional position throughout the dispute, and broader questions about institutional independence have only intensified as the standoff drags on.
As Breitbart reported, the renewed effort marks an unprecedented challenge to the central bank's independence, one that will test whether the procedural framework the Supreme Court laid out in June can actually produce a result, or whether it simply created an endless loop of letters, lawsuits, and delays.
Cook now has until August 26 to respond. Whatever she submits, the next step almost certainly leads back to court. And the question at the center of it all remains unanswered: can a president remove a Federal Reserve governor for conduct that allegedly occurred before she ever took the job?
If the answer is yes, the Fed's independence isn't a structural feature, it's a courtesy extended at the president's discretion. That's a question worth settling, and the courts should settle it on the merits, not on procedural technicalities that let both sides claim victory while the country waits.