The Trump administration has sent Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook a formal letter accusing her of "gross negligence" tied to mortgage-fraud allegations, restarting a removal fight the Supreme Court left open just weeks ago.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino signed the letter, which gives Cook three weeks, until August 26, to respond to charges that she made false statements on mortgage agreements, AP News reported. The letter alleges Cook committed offenses carrying possible prison sentences of up to 30 years and argues that, even if the conduct does not amount to a crime, it calls her trustworthiness as a Fed governor into question.
The move follows a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in June that blocked Trump's initial attempt to fire Cook but left a procedural door open. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said Trump could "try again", so long as Cook received proper notice and a chance to answer the charges before any final decision.
The underlying allegations trace back to 2021, before Cook joined the Fed. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee, accused Cook of mortgage fraud for identifying homes in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta as her primary residence on mortgage documents filed roughly two weeks apart. Separate paperwork from the Atlanta lender classified that property as a vacation home.
Pulte also alleged Cook received rental income from a Massachusetts condominium while listing it as a second home. He referred the matter to the Justice Department for investigation. No charges have been filed.
Cook's attorney, Abbe Lowell, has called the conflicting primary-residence designation on the Ann Arbor and Atlanta documents an "inadvertent notation." He told ABC News the charges remain meritless:
"These allegations are as baseless now as they were a year ago when President Trump tried to remove Governor Cook and interfere with the independence of the Federal Reserve."
Lowell added that he would challenge the latest removal effort in court, saying there is "no valid cause" for firing Cook under the facts or Supreme Court precedent.
Cook herself has framed the removal push as a political reprisal. After the Supreme Court's June ruling, she said the case was "never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor."
She went further, casting the effort as an attempt to punish her for refusing to bend on monetary policy:
"It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people."
That claim took on added weight when Cook publicly signaled she was open to raising rates if inflation remained elevated. The New York Post noted that the White House's renewed removal effort came shortly after Cook said, "I am prepared to act by raising rates, if necessary."
Trump, for his part, has made no secret of his frustration. On June 29 he posted on Truth Social:
"The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability in sitting on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis, we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!"
National Review's editors observed that Pulte has made similar fraud allegations against other political opponents of the administration, including Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James. That pattern raises a fair question about whether the FHFA director's referrals are driven by evidence or by political targeting, a question the Justice Department's eventual decision on the Cook referral may help answer.
National Review also noted that markets barely flinched at the initial removal effort. The S&P 500 closed slightly higher the day Trump first moved to fire Cook, suggesting investors did not view the action as a broader assault on the Fed's independence. The editors argued a genuine threat would look like Trump firing Chairman Jerome Powell without cause, and that markets "would immediately react harshly to such an event."
The June ruling was a mixed result for the White House. The five-justice majority upheld longstanding limits on a president's power to remove Fed governors, rooted in the central bank's historical independence. The Federal Reserve Act allows removal only "for cause", a standard that has never been tested in a contested firing.
But Roberts's opinion also laid out a procedural roadmap. He wrote:
"Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her may a final decision be made. And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges."
The White House letter follows that roadmap step by step. By giving Cook written notice and a three-week window, the administration is building a record designed to survive judicial review if the case returns to court, as it almost certainly will.
Cook was confirmed to the Fed on a 50-50 Senate vote, with then-Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie. She was a Biden appointee from the start, and her narrow confirmation underscored how contested her seat was before the fraud allegations ever surfaced.
Just the News, which obtained a copy of the letter, confirmed that it states the president is "considering" Cook's removal, careful language that stops short of a final decision and tracks the Supreme Court's procedural requirements.
Several questions remain unresolved. The Justice Department has not disclosed whether it has opened a formal investigation based on Pulte's referral. The specific statutes the White House letter cites as carrying up to 30 years in prison have not been publicly identified. And Cook's attorney has not said whether his characterization of the Atlanta mortgage designation as "inadvertent" appeared in a formal legal filing or only in public statements.
The administration's position is straightforward: a Fed governor who allegedly lied on mortgage documents, listing two different homes as a primary residence within two weeks, demonstrated the kind of dishonesty that disqualifies her from setting monetary policy for 330 million Americans. Cook's position is equally clear: the allegations are a pretext, the real target is Fed independence, and the courts will see through it.
One side is right. The three-week clock is ticking, and the answer will land in a courtroom, where the mortgage documents, not the talking points, will have to do the work.
