Business & Markets
Lisa Cook’s lawyer challenges White House inquiry over Nov. 5 hearing
The White House set a closed hearing to investigate mortgage-statement allegations and recommend whether there is cause to remove the Fed governor. Cook’s lawyer says the panel is not impartial and seeks a later appearance; neither the allegations nor the panel’s process have received a final ruling.
Executive summary
- Cook’s lawyer cites a scheduling conflict: In an Oct. 13 letter reported by the Associated Press, Abbe Lowell said Cook cannot attend the White House committee’s Nov. 5 hearing because she will be carrying out official duties at financial and monetary policy meetings in Europe. He said the earliest she could appear would be after the Federal Reserve’s Dec. 8–9 policy meeting; the letter did not rule out a later appearance.[1][2]
- The defense disputes the panel’s impartiality: Lowell called the committee “demonstrably biased,” according to AP’s account of the letter. He pointed to member Kevin Hassett’s prior statement that the president had cause to remove Cook. That is the lawyer’s challenge, not a court finding about the committee or the mortgage allegations.[1][3][2]
- The inquiry follows an unresolved removal dispute: A June Supreme Court opinion denied the administration’s request to pause an injunction that kept Cook in office and said she was entitled to notice of the evidence and an opportunity to respond before removal. The Court did not decide whether the mortgage allegations are true or whether they amount to cause for removal.[4][1]
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s lawyer told White House Counsel William Scharf that Cook could not attend the committee’s Nov. 5 hearing because she would be performing official duties at financial and monetary policy meetings in Europe. The Associated Press reported the contents of the Oct. 13 letter. Lowell said the earliest Cook could appear would be after the Federal Reserve’s Dec. 8–9 policy meeting; AP reported that he did not close the door on her participating at a later date.[1][3][2]
President Donald Trump’s Oct. 7 memorandum orders a closed, in-person hearing at the White House on Nov. 5, lasting no more than four hours. It directs a committee of three administration officials to investigate allegations that Cook made false statements on one or more mortgage instruments, consider evidence and recommend whether there is cause to remove her. The memorandum is the administration’s order; it does not establish that Cook made false statements.[2]
Lowell described the committee as “demonstrably biased,” AP reported. The letter cited member Kevin Hassett’s earlier statement that the president had cause to remove Cook, and raised concerns about the other members’ objectivity and the timing of evidence disclosure. Those are arguments made by Cook’s lawyer; they have not been adjudicated. The White House memorandum names the offices on the committee. AP identifies the members as Hassett, Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Andrea Rich; the Labor Department says Sonderling also serves concurrently as acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, the role named in the memorandum.[1][3][2][5]
The dispute now concerns both scheduling and process: whether Cook will appear, when she can do so, what evidence she will receive, and whether a committee created by the president can fairly assess allegations that could support her removal. The cited reports do not establish that the committee has changed the hearing date or that the White House has accepted Lowell’s proposed timing.[1][3][2]
In June, the Supreme Court denied the administration’s application to stay an injunction restoring Cook to her post. The Court said she was entitled to an explanation of the evidence, a way to respond and a deadline before removal. It emphasized that the factual question of whether the president could remove her for cause had not been decided. The Court also described limits on presidential removal as important to the Federal Reserve’s independence from executive influence.[4]
The current inquiry is a new administration process after that ruling, not a judicial finding on the underlying mortgage claims. Cook has denied wrongdoing, AP reported, and no criminal charges have been filed. Whether the committee’s work satisfies the required process—or supports a removal recommendation—remains unresolved.[1][2][4]