Trump wants ‘the right to do anything I want’ but ‘only dictators have that power,’ constitutional expert argues

President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has sparked a major legal fight that could reshape the balance of power between the White House and the nation’s central bank. Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed board, is refusing to step down after Trump announced her removal in August over unproven allegations of mortgage fraud.

The confrontation began when Trump cited allegations brought by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte that Cook made false statements on mortgage applications for properties in Michigan and Georgia before joining the Fed in 2022. Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with any crime. Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, called the firing attempt legally baseless and filed a lawsuit to challenge it.

According to The Hill, Trump has previously claimed that as president he has “the right to do anything I want to do” and said under Article II of the Constitution, “I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” Constitutional experts argue this view is fundamentally wrong, noting that only dictators have unlimited power without constraints.

Federal judge blocks Trump’s unprecedented move

On September 9, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump from firing Cook while her lawsuit proceeds. The judge found that Cook had made a strong showing that Trump’s attempted removal violated the Federal Reserve Act, which requires “cause” for removing board members. Cobb wrote that the “for cause” provision applies only to a governor’s behavior while in office, not conduct before they joined the Fed.

The ruling allows Cook to remain on the board and participate in the Fed’s upcoming September meeting on interest rates. Judge Cobb noted that “the public interest in Federal Reserve independence weighs in favor of Cook’s reinstatement” and that such independence is critical for banking system stability. The Trump administration has already filed an appeal, setting up what could be a Supreme Court battle.

This marks the first time in the Federal Reserve’s 112-year history that a president has attempted to fire a board member. The Fed was designed by Congress to be independent from political pressure, with governors serving 14-year terms to insulate them from electoral cycles. Trump has previously raised questions about his constitutional powers, including suggesting he would terminate the Constitution over claims of election fraud.

Broader pattern of targeting political opponents

The mortgage fraud allegations against Cook are part of a broader pattern by the Trump administration targeting perceived political enemies. Pulte has also made similar accusations against New York Attorney General Letitia James and Senator Adam Schiff of California, both prominent Trump critics. Meanwhile, ProPublica found that at least three Trump Cabinet members have also claimed multiple properties as primary residences on mortgage applications, the same practice Cook is accused of.

Real estate experts say claiming primary residences on different mortgages is often legal and rarely prosecuted. The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into Cook based on Pulte’s referral, though no charges have been filed. Senator Elizabeth Warren called Trump’s action “an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act.”

If Trump succeeds in removing Cook, he would be able to appoint her replacement and potentially secure a majority on the seven-member Fed board. This would give Trump significant influence over interest rate decisions, which he has been demanding the Fed lower. The case highlights ongoing tensions over Trump’s interpretation of presidential authority and the constitutional limits on executive power.

Legal experts predict the case will ultimately reach the Supreme Court, where justices will determine whether Trump had valid cause to fire Cook and potentially set new precedents for presidential power over independent agencies. The outcome could have lasting implications for Federal Reserve independence and the broader structure of government institutions designed to operate free from political interference.