Trump’s new attempt to seize control of the Federal Reserve, explained

Federal Reserve Board of Governors member, and target of President Donald Trump’s ire, Lisa Cook. | David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images Less than two months after the Supreme Court ruled against President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors — a move that would have allowed him to seize control over the nation’s central bank if it had succeeded — Trump is once again trying to fire the very same member.

Earlier this month, Trump sent a letter to Lisa Cook , a Joe Biden appointee to the Federal Reserve, demanding that she respond to exceedingly flimsy allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.

This is the first step in a process that is likely to end in Trump attempting to remove her from the Federal Reserve’s board a second time — which means that the courts will inevitably have to get involved once again.

Cook has until Wednesday to respond to Trump’s allegations.

It’s tempting to blame this bout of déjà vu on Trump, but the Supreme Court is at least as responsible for his actions as the president itself.

If the Court didn’t want Trump to thumb its nose at their decision in Trump v.

Cook (2026), they should have written that decision clearly enough that lawyers could actually figure out what the president is and is not allowed to do.

This is a perennial issue with the Court’s current majority, which is unusually bad at explaining themselves .

They invent bold new doctrines that give them a near-complete veto power over the executive branch, then only apply this doctrine to Democratic presidents .

They once handed down an anti-abortion decision that, if taken seriously, would allow any state to nullify literally any constitutional right .

Every single one of their Second Amendment decisions are so incoherent that it is impossible for lower court judges to figure out how to apply them .

The Cook decision, which involved Trump’s first attempt to fire Cook, is similarly incomprehensible.

It was handed down the same morning as Trump v.

Slaughter (2026), which seems to hold that Trump can fire anyone who leads a federal agency .