President Donald Trump on Friday announced an unusual legal step: He created a committee to help him decide whether to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud, and in 2025 ordered her to be fired. The Supreme Court blocked that effort on procedural grounds but said he could try again. Trump in August informed Cook that he was considering another attempt to fire her. Her attorneys responded later that month, denying the allegations of fraud and saying Trump had no cause to remove her.
The decision to form what Trump is calling a "committee of inquiry" raises a number of questions about the path forward for Trump and Cook.
How will the committee work?
According to the president's memo, Cook is expected to attend a hearing at the White House on Nov. 5. She can bring an attorney. The committee will weigh the evidence against her and her response. She will have until Nov. 10 to follow up after the proceedings.
Then the committee will make a recommendation to the president as to whether there is cause to fire her from the Fed. The final call is up to the president. There is no set deadline for that final decision.
Who is on the committee?
Trump appointed three people to hear the evidence against Cook: Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council; Keith Sonderling, acting director of the Office of Government Ethics and Labor secretary; and Andrea R. Lucas, chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. All three are Trump appointees.
Has a president used a committee like this before?
Yes, at least once. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Trump v. Cook, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, mentions a precedent.
President William Howard Taft in 1912 convened a similar "committee of inquiry" to consider the removal of two members of the Board of General Appraisers, a precursor to what is now the U.S. Court of International Trade. The committee ultimately recommended their removal. Roberts describes the committee as "a prime example of the view that Taft was our 'most judicial president,' as he was our most 'presidential chief justice.' "
But notably, the Supreme Court didn't require Trump or other presidents to follow that example. The court says Cook was entitled to notice of the president's decision, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to present her defense. That process could take place entirely in writing, Roberts notes.
A Fed governor is not "entitled to an audience with the President or a full-blown judicial trial," Roberts writes.
Will Cook cooperate with the committee hearing?
Her attorneys Abbe Lowell and Norm Eisen said in a statement she "welcomes the opportunity to present the facts so she can clear her name and demonstrate there is no legal basis to fire her." Still, they said they "have grave doubts that this 'hearing' is a legitimate one that would conform to the law." They have said repeatedly that Cook did not commit mortgage fraud.
Will the committee be independent from the president?
No, the committee is made up of executive branch appointees who report to the president. They are tasked with weighing the evidence, and are required to hear Cook's point of view. But they are not impartial members of the judicial branch.
Does the committee need to find that Cook committed a crime?
No, it only needs to show that the president has cause to fire her. The Supreme Court didn't make a detailed determination of what constitutes cause, and that question will almost certainly be the subject of future litigation should Trump ultimately decide to remove her.
Roberts wrote in Trump v. Cook that a finding of cause depends "at least in part, on the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, and the extent of any nexus that may exist to the Governor's professional duties."
Could Cook's testimony expose her to criminal jeopardy?
Potentially. The order requires Cook to appear and allows Justice Department officials to question her, but it does not say whether her answers would be protected from use in a later criminal case.
The Fifth Amendment generally protects government employees from having statements that are compelled under threat of losing their jobs used against them in a criminal prosecution. But it is not yet clear whether Cook's testimony in this proceeding would qualify as legally compelled.
Her attorneys could therefore seek assurances about how her testimony would be used before she answers questions that could expose her to criminal liability. Invoking the Fifth Amendment or seeking immunity would not legally amount to an admission of guilt, though Trump could seek to portray it politically that way.
Will the committee have the final word on Cook's employment?
Almost certainly not. The committee will make a recommendation to Trump, but his decision may not be final either. The Supreme Court's ruling establishes that it is entitled to review the president's determination of cause. Should Trump proceed with firing Cook after the hearing, the decision will likely end up in front of the justices again, a process that could take months.
Will interest rates change as a result of the committee?
Not immediately, or possibly ever.
Cook is expected to participate in the Fed's upcoming vote on interest rates scheduled for Oct. 28. After the Supreme Court blocked Trump's earlier attempt to fire Cook, she remains as a member in good standing of the Fed.
Trump has not yet made another attempt to fire her, though the committee is tasked with making a recommendation on that question. She would likely continue to serve on the Fed during any court challenges after the committee process concludes.
What does the committee's creation mean for former Chair Jerome Powell or other Fed members?
Trump's decision to establish the committee has no immediate bearing on Powell's standing at the Fed. Powell ended his term as Fed chairman in May but can remain on as a voting member of the Fed's Board of Governors through January 2028.
Past Fed chairs have resigned their governorships once their term as the Fed's leader expired, but Powell said in March he wanted to stay on in order to see the end of a separate investigation against him "with transparency and finality."
That investigation concluded two weeks ago without any criminal charges, and the Department of Justice said it would not pursue the matter further. Powell hasn't spoken about the Cook matter since the Supreme Court's ruling.
The White House criticized a third Fed governor, Michael Barr, over his involvement as the Fed's top bank regulator in the failure of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. But the White House stopped short of calling for his resignation.
