Trump's Trials - Supreme Court doubtful of Trump claim he can fire Fed governors by fiat

Episode Date: January 22, 2026

The Supreme Court Wednesday seemed likely to block President Trump's attempt to immediately remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve's governing board.Support NPR and hear every episode of Trump's Terms sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

I'm Scott Detrow, and this is Trump's terms from NPR. We're under invasion from within. If you're not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will. We all serve at the pleasure of the president. The golden age of America is upon us. We are in the golden age. Every episode, we bring you one of NPR's latest stories about the 47th president and how he is trying to remake the federal government. Today's story starts right after this.

I'm Elsa Chang. The Supreme Court seemed likely to block President Trump's attempt to immediately remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board. Both liberal and conservative justices had a pretty spirited argument lasting more than two hours. They expressed doubts about the president's claim of absolute power to fire members of the Fed Board. NPR Legal Affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports. Trump announced on Truth Social last August that he was firing Cook from the Fed Board of Governors. In subsequent comments, he accused her of mortgage fraud prior to her appointment in 2022. Cook, an economist and the first black woman appointed to the board, has vehemently denied

the charge through her lawyers, and the Supreme Court, which has allowed Trump to remove other agency heads balked at the administration's emergency request to allow Trump to fire Cook. Today was the day of reckoning, and for the most part, things did not go well for the president. Solicitor General John Sauer opened this way. Deceit or gross negligence by a financial regulator in financial transactions is cause for removal. That prompted this exchange with Chief Justice Roberts. You began by talking about deceit. Is what you said after that apply in the case of an inadvertent mistake contradicted by other documents in the record?

The president determined that this is at least gross negligence, even if it was inadvertent or mistake. It's quite a big mistake, so to speak. So it doesn't make a difference whether this was an inadvertent mistake or whether it was a devious way to get a better interest rate. Justice Sotomayor noted that a Michigan bank had given Cook permission to rent her home there after she moved away. And Sotomayor recalled her own experience when she was appointed to the Supreme Court. I had to move from New York, and frankly, I renovated my apartment the year before, thinking I would. be in New York for the rest of my life. Things change.

Several justices observed that this is the first time since the Fed was established by Congress 112 years ago that any president has interfered with the statutory independence of the Fed by firing one of its members. Justice Jackson had this question. What is the evidence that has been presented and considered with respect to Ms. Cook's alleged misconduct?

General Sauer replied that the firing was justified in a letter to Cook, but he maintained that the president's decision on the matter is not subject to review even by the Supreme Court and that Cook was not entitled to notice or a hearing before being removed. So what would be required? asked Justice Gorsuch. Just a meeting across a conference table finished with you're fired? I mean... Justice Alito wondered whether the case should be sent back to the lower courts for fact-finding about the mortgage allegations. But Justice Kavanaugh was far more doubtful about the Trump administration's position. But on that, your position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the president alone determines, and that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed. And Kavanaugh talked as well about what.

he called the real downstream effects if Trump were to prevail. Just thinking big picture, what goes around, comes around. All the current president's appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20th, 20, 29 if there's a Democratic president or January 20th, 2033. So what are we doing here? If we accept all these, no procedure, no judicial review, no remedy. What's more said, Katow. A ruling for the president's me-only position would incentivize presidents to come up with

trivial misdeeds or old and inconsequential allegations that are very difficult to disprove in order to get rid of Federal Reserve Board governors who are supposed to be independent and won't do the president's bidding. Making the counter-argument for Lisa Cook in court today was lawyer Paul Clement, who served as Solicitor General for President George W. Bush. He argued that the president alone cannot determine what is a legitimate cause to fire a member of the Fed. If there's no judicial review, then this is all kind of a joke. I understand your position, said Justice Alito, but... How about if after the person assumes office, videos are disclosed in which the office holder

is expressing deep admiration for Hitler or for the Klan? Replied Clement. That's an official that would be impeached in a heartbeat, and the fact that they would be impeached in a heartbeat is going to cause them to resign in half a heartbeat. So asked Alito, what is the minimum that the executive, in your view, has to provide? Three elements, said Clement, a hearing, notice in advance of the firing, and an opportunity to provide evidence to the decision maker. Sitting in the Supreme Court chamber and listening to the arguments was Federal Reserve Board

Chairman Jerome Powell, who very likely would be Trump's next target for removal should the President win this case. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington. Before we wrap up a reminder, you can find more coverage of the Trump administration on the NPR Politics podcast, where you can hear NPR's political reporters break down the day's biggest political news with new episodes every weekday afternoon. And thanks, as always, to our NPR Plus supporters who hear every episode of the show without sponsor messages. You can learn more at plus.npr.org. I'm Scott Detrow. Thanks for listening to Trump's terms from NPR.