Trump renews effort to fire Fed’s Cook, continuing attacks on central bank

US President Donald Trump has renewed his effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, keeping his challenge to the central bank’s independence alive despite a US Supreme Court ruling in June that blocked his earlier attempt to dismiss her.

According to a letter seen by Reuters, the White House told Cook this week that Trump was “considering” removing her from her position. She was given three weeks to respond to allegations of mortgage fraud, which her attorney has described as baseless.

The latest move marks the second time this week that Trump has sought to revive an action previously blocked by the Supreme Court. Earlier this week, he issued another order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship after the high court rejected his previous attempt to limit automatic US citizenship.

The letter, signed by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino and first reported by ABC News, accused Cook of conduct that could constitute criminal violations punishable by up to 30 years in prison. It also alleged negligence serious enough to raise questions about her suitability to serve as a Federal Reserve governor.

Cook’s attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, rejected the allegations.

“There is no valid cause” for removing Cook, Lowell said in a statement. “As we did before, we will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position and the historic role of the Fed.”

The Federal Reserve and the White House declined to comment.

Trump Previously Sought to Fire Cook

Trump first cited mortgage fraud allegations last year when he attempted to remove Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Federal Reserve governor. Cook denied the allegations and said they were being used as a pretext to remove her because of disagreements over monetary policy.

In June, the US Supreme Court declined to allow Trump to immediately remove Cook, providing a significant safeguard for the Federal Reserve’s independence. No previous US president since the central bank was established in 1913 had attempted to remove a Fed governor.

The court’s 5-4 ruling, written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, said Trump had failed to provide Cook with the procedural protections required by law.

“Without such protections, she could not properly dispute the charges the president laid against her,” Roberts wrote.

However, the court did not rule on whether the allegations against Cook were factually valid. The case has since returned to lower courts.

Roberts wrote that it remained an open question whether Cook had committed “gross negligence” or “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct,” as alleged by the president.

Peter Conti-Brown, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, said the Supreme Court’s ruling, which focused on procedural protections, left room for the president to make another attempt.

“There is no doubt among any Fed watchers of any partisan stripe of whom I’m aware about the motivation here. It is pretextual,” Conti-Brown said, arguing that the mortgage fraud allegations were being used as a vehicle to target Cook.

He predicted that Cook would ultimately prevail because the allegations remain unproven, but said the legal process could take about a year, similar to the previous case.

Mortgage Fraud Allegations Resurface

The latest White House letter revives mortgage fraud allegations first raised last year by William Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Pulte had asked the Justice Department to investigate Cook and others over alleged mortgage fraud.

There has been no indication that such a criminal investigation has moved forward.

A Reuters report last year found that Cook had identified one of the properties involved as a vacation home in documents submitted to a lender. Reuters later reported that Michigan’s local tax authority determined Cook had not violated rules governing tax breaks on a property she had declared as her primary residence.

In September, US District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that Trump’s earlier attempt to remove Cook without notice or a hearing likely violated her due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Cobb also found that the allegations likely did not provide sufficient legal grounds for removing Cook under the Federal Reserve Act because they concerned conduct that allegedly occurred before she became a Fed governor.

Chief Justice Roberts did not fully endorse that interpretation of the legal standard. However, he said the threshold for removing a Federal Reserve governor would have to be “substantial” and that Cook must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.