The U.S Supreme Court may run interference for the Federal Reserve amidst the feud between President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
After repeatedly allowing Trump to remove leaders of other independent agencies, the conservative court seemed to draw a line around the central bank in a much-debated paragraph last spring, writing that the Fed — with its enormous sway over the economy — is shielded from political manipulation because it is “uniquely structured” with a “distinct historical tradition.”
“What the court has in front of it is the question of how much this carveout really is a barrier to presidential control of the Fed,” said Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia University who published a book on the central bank in 2022. “This case is about a lot more than Lisa Cook. We’re going to find out what’s the relationship between the central bank and the president.”
If Trump ultimately is successful in dismissing Cook, it would mark the first time a president has fired a Fed governor in the central bank’s 111-year history.
READ: Central banks rally behind Fed chair Jerome Powell amid clash with Trump (
Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve Board governor, became the center of a major controversy in 2025–2026 after President Trump sought to remove her from office. The administration cited allegations that Cook may have misrepresented primary residence information on mortgage documents before joining the Fed. Cook has denied wrongdoing. She argues that the Federal Reserve Act allows governors to be removed only “for cause.”
“That the Federal Reserve Board plays a uniquely important role in the American economy only heightens the government’s and the public’s interest in ensuring that an ethically compromised member does not continue wielding its vast powers,” the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court last fall.
A federal court in September temporarily blocked Cook’s removal, finding that Trump had not identified anything relating to her conduct in her job to indicate she was harming the public.
At stake is not only the fate of a single Federal Reserve governor, but the durability of long-standing norms that separate monetary governance from partisan politics. The case forces the Supreme Court to clarify how far constitutional protections for independent agencies truly extend and whether exceptions carved out for the Federal Reserve are substantive limits or largely symbolic boundaries.
READ: Dollar drops, gold rises amid Trump and Powell feud (
The outcome will likely shape future interactions between presidents and technocratic institutions, influencing how confidently independent officials can act without fear of political reprisal. It may also redefine the meaning of accountability: whether it is best enforced through political oversight or through internal ethics standards and legal safeguards whose scope remains contested.
Beyond the legal questions, the controversy has amplified concerns among economists, investors, and international partners about the long-term credibility and predictability of U.S. economic leadership.
The resolution will signal how the United States reconciles democratic control with institutional independence in an era of heightened polarization. Whatever the Court decides, the case will serve as a reference point for future debates about executive power, governance norms, and the role of expert institutions in managing the nation’s economic stability.