Trump Fed bid heads to Supreme Court

Published: 21 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The US supreme court will hear arguments over the Trump Fed bid, testing the president’s authority to remove a sitting Federal Reserve governor. The case involves Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook, citing alleged discrepancies in mortgage applications, which his administration claims demonstrate misconduct. Legal experts warn that the outcome of this Trump Fed bid could redefine the balance of power between the executive branch and independent financial institutions in the United States, highlighting the constitutional limits on presidential influence over the Fed.

Trump first pursued Cook’s removal last August, arguing that she misrepresented several properties to secure favourable mortgage terms. A federal court blocked the action, allowing her to remain on the Fed’s rate-setting board. The supreme court will now consider whether the president may dismiss a sitting Fed governor without explicit cause, a question with historical and economic importance.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has launched a separate criminal investigation into Fed chairman Jerome Powell, drawing criticism from legal and financial observers. The inquiry focuses on renovations to Powell’s historic office buildings, which critics argue is politically motivated because Powell resisted implementing Trump’s preferred interest rate cuts. Powell is expected to attend Wednesday’s hearing in person, underscoring the high-profile nature of the Trump Fed bid case.

Cook’s removal attempt marked a historic first, as no president had previously tried to fire a sitting Fed governor. She was appointed in 2022 as the first woman of colour on the board, with her term running until 2038. Her lawyers insist that Fed governors can only be dismissed “for cause,” and that firing her without due process would violate the Fifth Amendment.

The administration alleges that Cook committed mortgage fraud, claiming she misrepresented her primary residence to obtain better loans. Bill Pulte, a Trump ally and head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, initially raised the accusations. Cook’s attorneys counter that the administration selectively highlighted minor discrepancies, noting that her property declarations were correct in other documents.

Beyond Cook’s case, Trump has publicly criticised Powell, calling him “a stupid person,” and privately pressured advisers to consider firing him. Economists emphasise that interfering with interest rate decisions risks destabilising markets, since the Fed’s dual mandate balances inflation and employment levels.

Last year, the Fed held eight rate-setting meetings, lowering rates at only three. Officials warned that Trump’s policies, including tariffs and mass deportations, were influencing prices and the labour market, increasing economic uncertainty. Legal analysts suggest the supreme court may provide special protections to Fed officials due to its unique quasi-private structure, potentially shielding them from arbitrary presidential dismissal.

Congress created the Fed in 1913, ensuring independence from direct political control. Its Federal Open Market Committee meets eight times yearly to set interest rates, insulating monetary policy from short-term political pressures. Economic studies show that central bank independence is essential for stabilising markets, yet Trump’s relentless public campaign demonstrates his determination to influence policy.

Historically, presidents attempting to control independent agencies have met strong judicial resistance. Last spring, justices hinted at the Fed’s unique protections in unrelated rulings involving labour officials, signalling that governors might enjoy special safeguards. Legal experts warn that the supreme court ruling on the Trump Fed bid will likely shape future presidential interactions with independent institutions.

Cook’s case now symbolises the tension between political pressure and institutional independence. Economists caution that weakening Fed authority could destabilise interest rates, inflation control, and investor confidence. The supreme court’s ruling may establish a precedent for future conflicts between presidents and quasi-independent federal agencies, affecting economic policy beyond the current administration.

The public and global markets are closely watching. Supporters argue elected officials should influence monetary policy, while critics insist preserving a nonpartisan central bank is vital. Supreme court deliberations are expected to examine historical precedent, statutory interpretation, and the separation of powers, with implications for the federal system.

Ultimately, this case highlights the limits of executive power. Whether Trump succeeds or fails, the Trump Fed bid represents a defining moment in American governance, testing constitutional safeguards and the independence of critical financial institutions. The supreme court’s decision will resonate far beyond the immediate dispute, shaping US economic and political dynamics for years to come.

Check our latest news