In a dramatic turn for the U.S. financial system, a bipartisan coalition of the nation's most respected economic minds—including every living former Federal Reserve chair and a slew of ex-Treasury secretaries—has called on the Supreme Court to block President Donald Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The move, formalized in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on September 25, 2025, underscores the gravity of a legal battle that could reshape the very foundation of American monetary policy.
The controversy erupted in August when President Trump sought to remove Cook, citing unproven allegations of mortgage fraud dating back to before her appointment. Cook, who was confirmed to a 14-year term by former President Joe Biden, immediately challenged the firing in court. A lower court sided with her, ruling she could remain on the job while her lawsuit proceeds. But now, the highest court in the land must decide whether she stays—or whether Trump can remove her before the legal dust settles.
At the heart of the matter lies a question with sweeping implications: Can a sitting president unilaterally dismiss a Federal Reserve governor, or does such a move threaten the independence of the central bank and, by extension, the stability of the American economy?
According to the brief, signed by former Fed chairs Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, and Alan Greenspan, along with former Treasury secretaries and White House economic advisors from both parties, the answer is clear. "The Federal Reserve’s independence and the public’s perception of that independence are important for economic performance, including achieving the goals Congress has set for the Federal Reserve of stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates," they wrote. "Allowing the removal of Governor Lisa D. Cook while the challenge to her removal is pending would threaten that independence."
This isn't just a matter of bureaucratic turf wars. The experts warn that if the Supreme Court allows Trump to proceed, it could set a precedent enabling any future president to bend the Fed to their will. That, they argue, would open the door to short-term economic fixes—like slashing interest rates to gin up growth before an election—at the cost of long-term economic health. In other words, it could invite the kind of reckless money-printing and inflation that has plagued less stable economies around the world.
The law that established the Federal Reserve was designed to insulate it from political meddling. Governors are appointed for long, staggered terms and, crucially, can only be removed by the president "for cause." The current case hinges on whether the allegations against Cook—still unproven—constitute such cause. Until that is determined in court, the group argues, Cook should remain in her post.
The brief pulls no punches about what’s at stake. "Allowing the government to remove a member of the Board of Governors for the first time in the Nation’s history, while under the cloud of legal challenge, will erode public confidence in the Fed’s independence and threaten the long-term stability of our economy," the former officials wrote. Research cited in the brief points to a clear correlation: countries with less independent central banks tend to suffer higher inflation and more frequent economic crises.
The stakes are heightened by President Trump’s well-documented desire to see the Fed lower interest rates—dramatically. According to reporting from Bloomberg and other outlets, Trump has repeatedly pressed for rate cuts, a stance that has found little support among the Fed’s 12-member policy committee. The lone exception? Stephen Miran, a White House economic advisor who was recently installed on the board by Trump. The outcome of the Cook case, therefore, could determine whether Trump gets the votes he needs to push through his preferred policies.
For everyday Americans, the implications are anything but abstract. The Federal Reserve’s decisions affect everything from mortgage rates to credit card bills to job prospects. If the central bank’s independence is compromised, experts warn, it could lead to higher inflation and economic instability—outcomes that would squeeze household budgets across the country.
The brief also addresses the temptation faced by political leaders to stimulate the economy for short-term gain, even if it means risking inflation and long-term harm. "Insulating the Fed from short-term political pressures is important to preventing such abuse, including attempts to artificially overstimulate the economy or to have the Federal Reserve effectively print money to cover the government’s budget deficit," the signatories wrote.
It’s a sentiment echoed by many mainstream economists, who argue that the Fed’s ability to make tough, sometimes unpopular decisions—like raising interest rates to cool inflation—depends on its freedom from political interference. The brief warns that allowing Cook’s removal during a pending legal challenge would send the opposite message, undermining both the reality and perception of that independence.
Supporters of Cook’s removal, including some within Trump’s circle, argue that the president should have the authority to shape the Fed’s direction, especially if a governor is suspected of wrongdoing. However, critics counter that such a move, especially absent proven cause, would set a dangerous precedent—one that could be exploited by future presidents of any party.
The legal battle has also reignited debate over the proper balance between accountability and autonomy in America’s most powerful economic institution. While the law allows for removal "for cause," it does not spell out exactly what that means—leaving it up to the courts to interpret. As the Supreme Court weighs the arguments, the financial world is watching closely, aware that the outcome could reverberate for decades.
For now, Lisa Cook remains on the job, her fate—and that of the Fed’s independence—resting in the hands of the justices. The case has already galvanized an extraordinary coalition of economic heavyweights, who argue that the stakes go far beyond one individual or one administration. As they put it, "The health of the economy is at stake."
With the Supreme Court set to decide, the future of the Federal Reserve’s independence—and the economic security of millions of Americans—hangs in the balance.