One Woman’s Refusal: the Ordeal of Lisa Cook

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments that could reshape the global financial system. The case asks a deceptively simple question: Can the president fire Dr. Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, before the end of her term?

But everyone watching knows the real question: Can Trump also fire Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell — and, by doing so, end the Fed’s independence?

Dr. Cook, the first Black woman ever to serve on the Fed’s Board of Governors, faced pressure to resign last year after the Trump administration claimed that she engaged in mortgage fraud. But no criminal charges were filed against her. No wrongdoing was proven.

Dr. Cook refused to step down. That refusal — and the lawsuit she filed to defend her position — now stands as the last legal barrier between the Trump administration and its stated goal of bending America’s central bank to presidential will.

I spent a little over three years working at the Federal Reserve’s Office of Board Members. I later managed a congressional subcommittee overseeing the Fed. I learned how the institution works, how it moves, how carefully it guards its independence — and perhaps most importantly, its profound focus on its work to advance the public good.

I believe what is unfolding now is unprecedented, dangerous, and likely to turn on whether one woman holds her ground — and whether the Supreme Court is willing to stand with her in defense of an independent monetary system.

At the hearing, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that in the Federal Reserve’s 112-year history, a Federal Reserve Officer has never been removed. “The unprecedented nature of this case is a part of what the president did, not what Ms. Cook did,” she said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh explored the slippery slope: if this precedent stands, what prevents the next president from removing all Fed officials appointed by predecessors, effectively turning Fed governors into at-will employees? He warned, “What goes around comes around.”

However, there was something glaringly absent in the courtroom but ever present: the economic impact of the Court’s decision. For that point, there was a different hearing held just a week prior at the Congressional Task Force on Monetary Policy. Dr. William English, a former head of monetary policy for the Fed board who helped set interest rates for two decades, warned members that when central bank independence erodes, inflation typically follows.

When Turkey’s central bank lost independence, he said, the lira collapsed. But Turkey isn’t the world’s reserve currency. If the Federal Reserve loses credibility, the dollar’s global dominance is at stake. That means higher borrowing costs for the U.S. government, American businesses, and American families.

Some argue that unelected officials shouldn’t wield such enormous economic power without accountability. It’s a serious concern, and I’ve seen how important congressional oversight is. But the historical record is clear: when presidents control monetary policy, short-term political pressures overwhelm clear economics. The result is inflation spirals that hurt ordinary families most.

The Fed’s independence is about protecting Americans. What the justices must decide is whether one woman’s courage to defend the institution matters more than a president’s power.

Dr. Cook’s refusal to resign is about far more than one woman’s career. Cook is defending an entire system of economic governance. Her refusal to be fired carries consequences far beyond herself. Families concerned about grocery prices who will never know her name could feel the reverberations of the high court’s ruling at their dinner table.