Trump Creates Committee to Try Firing Fed's Lisa Cook — SkimNews
Get the Finance newsletter
Daily finance — markets, central banks, M&A, the prints that move money. Free.
- Trump created a three-person "committee of inquiry" to recommend whether to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, scheduling a White House hearing for Nov. 5 and giving Cook until Nov. 10 to submit follow-up after the proceedings.
- The panel consists entirely of executive branch officials who report to the president: NEC director Kevin Hassett, acting Office of Government Ethics director and Labor secretary Keith Sonderling, and EEOC chair Andrea R. Lucas.
- Chief Justice John Roberts cited a 1912 precedent in which President William Howard Taft convened a similar committee to consider removing two members of the Board of General Appraisers, but the Supreme Court did not require future presidents to follow that model.
- Cook's attorneys — Abbe Lowell and Norm Eisen — said she "welcomes the opportunity" to clear her name but expressed "grave doubts" the hearing is legitimate, and the Supreme Court previously blocked Trump's first removal attempt on procedural grounds.
- Cook remains a Fed governor in good standing and is expected to participate in the Fed's Oct. 28 interest rate vote; any final firing decision after the committee process will likely return to the Supreme Court in litigation that could take months.
- The committee must establish only cause for removal, not criminal guilt, and Cook's testimony carries potential criminal exposure — the order doesn't specify whether her answers would be shielded from later prosecution, and Fifth Amendment protection is not guaranteed in this proceeding.
Why it matters: The committee gives Trump a procedural vehicle to retry Cook's removal after the Supreme Court blocked his first attempt, but the three-person panel is staffed entirely by his own appointees — meaning the "independent" weighing of evidence runs through the same executive branch that wants her gone. Cook retains her seat and her Oct. 28 rate vote, yet she now faces a hearing where her own answers could expose her to criminal liability with no guaranteed Fifth Amendment shield.
Ask SkimNews
