• Key takeaway: Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook pushed back against the Trump administration's second attempt to oust her. In a formal filing responding to the White House, Cook's attorney argued that "an inadvertent error is not fraud." 
• Expert quote: "The President clearly recognizes that making such a mistake does not render a person — not himself, nor the five members of his cabinet — unfit for office." — Abbe Lowell, attorney for Fed Gov. Lisa Cook
• What's at stake: The case against Fed Gov. Lisa Cook has been viewed as a test of precisely how and under what circumstances the president may remove a member of the Federal Reserve Board, a question that holds the agency's monetary policy independence in the balance. 

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook pushed back against the Trump administration's second attempt to remove her from the central bank over unproven allegations of mortgage fraud.

In a statement Wednesday, Cook's attorney, Abbe Lowell, said there is no legal basis for President Donald Trump to remove the Fed governor for cause, noting that "an inadvertent error is not fraud."

"These attacks on Governor Cook are not about real estate paperwork; they are an attempt by President Trump to force the Federal Reserve to bend to his will," Lowell said. "Our response should put this matter to rest once and for all, but, if necessary and in keeping with the Supreme Court's ruling, we are prepared to challenge any illegal attempt to remove Governor Cook."

Lowell's statement was released alongside a formal filing responding to an Aug. 7 White House letter reviving Trump's threat to fire Cook. That letter told Cook that Trump was "considering removing" her and gave her until Aug. 26 to respond to allegations made by the White House.

In Lowell's response letter, addressed to White House Counsel David Warrington, Lowell argued that the Fed governor did not commit mortgage fraud and that there is "no legally cognizable cause" for removing her.

Specifically, the filing addresses claims that Cook knowingly listed primary residences on two mortgage applications for homes in Michigan and Georgia in 2021. Her attorney argued that her signing of a primary-residence mortgage agreement for the Georgia property was "an entirely inadvertent oversight."

The filing says the lender Cook worked with on her Georgia property was aware that she was a permanent resident of Michigan and confirmed that her Atlanta property was a second home. The filing also says Cook never received a preferential interest rate on any property she owns.

"Cook's actions demonstrate that there was no intentional misconduct and zero intent to defraud or mislead," the filing said. Further, Cook's attorney argued that Trump should know "firsthand" that listing two properties as a primary residence does not demonstrate intentional wrongdoing or make someone unfit for office. The filing points to reports that Trump obtained primary-residence mortgages for two different Florida homes weeks apart in 1993. It also says Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Attorney General Todd Blanche allegedly have primary-residence mortgages for multiple homes. 

"An inadvertent oversight is not fraudulent or criminal. At all times, Governor Cook provided information about her residence in Michigan, how long she had lived there, her more than 15 years of ongoing employment at Michigan State University, and her finances," the filing said. "Moreover, contrary to one of the grounds for removal cited in the letter, Governor Cook never rented her Atlanta property in 2022 or 2023, even though her mortgage and condominium association agreement permitted her to do so.

Read more:

• These are the Top Performing Banks of 2026 in four asset tiers
• New York bank regulator says vendor flaw hit its firms
• The best credit unions to work for in 2026
• Tokenized deposits are here. Banks need to manage the risks.

"The President clearly recognizes that making such a mistake does not render a person — not himself nor the five members of his cabinet — unfit for office," the letter continued.

The White House's latest effort to oust Cook comes after the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion issued in June, shot down the Trump administration's first attempt to fire her.

The Supreme Court majority said allowing Cook's removal would amount to an "interpretative leap" out of step with the law and tradition of central banking in the U.S.

The ruling held that the process by which Cook was purportedly removed was fundamentally flawed because she was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the accusations against her. Such an opportunity must be provided when the government seeks to remove an officer whose independence is critical to the constitutional structure, the court said."The Court decides this application on the narrow ground that the President failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute," said Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority. "Without such protections, she could not properly dispute the charges the President laid against her. Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her may a final decision be made. And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges."

Last August, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte sent a criminal referral letter to the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that Cook claimed two properties — one in Michigan, the other in Georgia — as her primary residence on separate mortgage applications.

Five days after the letter was sent, Pulte released it publicly, leading Trump to call for Cook's resignation. The following week, Trump announced that he had fired her "effective immediately." On Aug. 28, Cook filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asserting that the firing was unlawful under the Federal Reserve Act.