The sanctity of the US Federal Reserve hung in the balance today inside the Supreme Court, as Conservative justices appeared openly skeptical of President Donald Trump’s aggressive push to fire Governor Lisa Cook. The case, *Trump v. Cook*, is shaping up to be a defining battle for the independence of the world’s most powerful central bank.

Inside the hushed chamber, the Trump administration’s Solicitor General, John D. Sauer, faced a barrage of sharp questions. The administration’s argument—that the President can fire a Fed Governor for "inefficiency" without a formal hearing—seemed to crumble under scrutiny. Even justices appointed by Trump, like Amy Coney Barrett, seemed unconvinced by the "dictatorial" nature of the move.

"Where is the Due Process?"

"Why didn't the President just sit down with her in the Roosevelt Room?" Justice Barrett asked, cutting through the legalese. Her question exposed the core weakness in Trump’s case: the lack of procedural fairness. Trump had attempted to fire Cook via social media, citing vague "discrepancies" in mortgage applications—allegations that lower courts have already blocked.

Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed Board, issued a defiant statement from the steps of the court. "This case is not about me," she declared. "It is about whether the Federal Reserve will set interest rates based on economic data or political bullying." Her words resonated with markets, which jittered as the arguments proceeded.

• The Economic Stakes: If Trump wins, the Fed becomes a political arm of the White House. Interest rates could be slashed to boost short-term popularity, risking hyperinflation. For emerging markets like Kenya, a politically compromised Fed is a nightmare scenario, leading to unpredictable dollar volatility.
• The "For Cause" Standard: The legal battle hinges on the interpretation of "for cause" removal. The Trump team argues the President has broad discretion. The Justices, however, seem protective of the "independent agency" structure that Congress created to shield the economy from the whims of politicians.

As the session adjourned, the consensus among legal observers was clear: the Court is likely to side with Cook. But the very fact that this case is being heard is a tremor in the foundations of American democracy. The Fed is under siege, and the siege is coming from inside the house.