The administration is doing its best to root out those who are opposed to President Donald Trump’s agenda at all levels of government.
That includes at the Federal Reserve, whose economic policies over the past 18 months of the president’s current term have often been at odds with what Trump wants to do.
Advertisement
One member of the board Trump has targeted is Lisa Cook, who was appointed to the Fed Board by President Joe Biden in May 2022.
Now, Trump is moving forward with an effort to remove Cook from the central bank’s Board of Governors over allegations involving mortgage fraud.
Advertisement
According to a letter obtained by Just the News, the White House notified Cook on Wednesday that the president is considering removing her from office and requested that she respond within three weeks to allegations that she made false statements on mortgage loan documents.
A copy of the letter was also sent to Cook’s attorney, Abbe Lowell.
Advertisement
The administration’s latest effort could lead to another legal dispute over the independence of the Federal Reserve and the president’s authority to remove members of its governing board.
The matter stems from a criminal referral submitted last year by then-Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte to the Department of Justice.
Pulte alleged that Cook committed mortgage fraud by listing a secondary residence as her primary residence on mortgage documents, prompting the Trump administration to argue that she should be removed “for cause.”
Lower federal courts have ruled that the Federal Reserve Act’s “for cause” removal provision generally applies to conduct occurring during a governor’s service on the board and does not authorize removal based on alleged actions predating a member’s appointment.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant the administration’s requested relief while the litigation continues, concluding that the administration had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits at that stage of the case.
Earlier this month, Trump continued his long-running legal battle against Hillary Clinton by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that dismissed his civil conspiracy claims and imposed nearly $1 million in sanctions.
Trump reportedly moving to fire Fed Gov. Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud claims.
SCOTUS in June: presidents can limit, but can’t fire Fed board members without due process. – RobertsCan this work in our country? pic.twitter.com/DOSUrY3VDX
— EddyNorm✰☻🇬🇭🇨🇦 (@edwinappiah56) August 7, 2026
Justice Clarence Thomas last week granted Trump’s request for additional time to file a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Advertisement
Trump now has until Sept. 9 to submit his petition in Trump v. Clinton, which stems from allegations that Clinton and others helped promote claims that Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia.
The extension is a routine procedural action and does not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case.
As the justice assigned to matters arising from the relevant federal circuit, Thomas handles administrative requests such as filing extensions.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the appeal only after the petition is filed, and at least four justices must vote to grant review before the case can proceed.
Advertisement
Trump’s legal team filed the extension motion on July 23 at the Supreme Court.
In it, his lawyers argued the forthcoming petition will raise “exceptionally important” issues and that the appellate ruling and sanctions order “carries with it profound impact on the Presidency, and the nation as a whole.”
Trump’s appeal is expected to focus not only on the underlying allegations surrounding the Russia investigation but also on the broader legal question of when courts may impose sanctions against a president and his attorneys for filing civil litigation.
Advertisement
The federal appeals court that reviewed the case sharply criticized the lawsuit, concluding that many of the legal arguments advanced by Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba, lacked merit.
The court upheld sanctions totaling nearly $1 million against Trump, Habba, and her New Jersey-based law firm.
The sanctions represent a significant financial penalty, and Trump’s appeal is expected to address both the underlying lawsuit and the broader authority of courts to impose substantial sanctions on litigants whose claims are found to lack legal merit.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
