WEBVTT - Why Trump v. Cook Matters 0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:11.200 Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. President Donald Trump achieved 0:00:11.240 --> 0:00:15.880 reality TV fame by telling contestants on The Apprentice two. 0:00:16.040 --> 0:00:18.040 Infamous words, you fired. 0:00:18.920 --> 0:00:21.319 And on Wednesday, those words were at the center of 0:00:21.320 --> 0:00:24.239 a Supreme Court case that could have big implications for 0:00:24.280 --> 0:00:28.240 the global economy and the independence of the US Central Bank. 0:00:28.600 --> 0:00:31.400 Just a meeting across a conference table finished with your fired. 0:00:31.480 --> 0:00:34.760 I mean, that was Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsch, speaking 0:00:35.000 --> 0:00:37.960 as the court heard arguments over one of Trump's latest 0:00:38.040 --> 0:00:39.200 attempted firings. 0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:43.640 President Trump says he's removing FED Governor Lisa Cook effective immediately. 0:00:44.080 --> 0:00:47.879 He cites allegations that she committed mortgage fraud, which she denies. 0:00:48.200 --> 0:00:50.960 No president has fired a sitting governor in the one 0:00:51.080 --> 0:00:53.360 hundred and twelve year history of the FED. 0:00:53.840 --> 0:00:57.960 Bloomberg reporter Amara Amoqua, who covers the Federal Reserve, was 0:00:58.000 --> 0:00:58.480 in the room. 0:00:58.840 --> 0:01:00.720 This was my first time at his Spreme Court hearing. 0:01:00.760 --> 0:01:03.120 I mean, it's not every day that a FED related 0:01:03.160 --> 0:01:06.520 matter comes before the Supreme Court, And you know, when 0:01:06.600 --> 0:01:08.520 all the reporters walked into the room, we were all 0:01:08.600 --> 0:01:10.840 kind of just kind of stretching our next to see 0:01:11.040 --> 0:01:14.280 who was in sort of the public part of the room. 0:01:15.560 --> 0:01:18.679 Former FED Chair Ben Bernanke was there, so was current 0:01:18.760 --> 0:01:19.880 Chair Jerome Powell. 0:01:20.200 --> 0:01:23.360 It is pretty noteworthy that Jay Powell came to this argument. 0:01:23.720 --> 0:01:26.920 Greg Storre is a Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg who's 0:01:26.959 --> 0:01:28.600 been following Cook's case. 0:01:28.760 --> 0:01:32.040 Up until very recently. J Powell has tried to remain 0:01:32.160 --> 0:01:35.920 studiously neutral in this case. The FED itself has not 0:01:36.000 --> 0:01:38.600 been taking a position in this case. 0:01:39.000 --> 0:01:43.120 Wednesday's hearing came just over a week after federal prosecutors 0:01:43.160 --> 0:01:46.640 served grand jury subpoenas to the Central Bank over renovations 0:01:46.680 --> 0:01:51.240 at its headquarters and congressional testimony Powell gave about that project. 0:01:51.760 --> 0:01:54.760 The fact that he showed up, I think did send 0:01:54.760 --> 0:01:57.560 the message about how important he sees it as being, 0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:01.160 especially after that rather extra ordinary statement that he gave 0:02:01.200 --> 0:02:04.200 the other night about the criminal investigation involving him. 0:02:04.520 --> 0:02:07.120 No one, certainly not the Chair of the Federal Reserve 0:02:07.480 --> 0:02:11.120 is above the law. But this unprecedented action should be 0:02:11.160 --> 0:02:14.640 seen in the broader context of the administration's threats and 0:02:14.720 --> 0:02:15.600 ongoing pressure. 0:02:16.160 --> 0:02:21.440 That is a remarkable departure from the posture that Chair 0:02:21.520 --> 0:02:24.800 Powell and the FED have taken towards all of the 0:02:24.840 --> 0:02:28.000 attacks that President Trump has directed at them since he 0:02:28.040 --> 0:02:30.800 returned to office last year. And so I think it 0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:33.160 raises the stakes in the Lisa Cook case right because 0:02:33.639 --> 0:02:36.679 if the justices signaled that it is in a way 0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:39.280 easier to remove a FED governor than has been thought 0:02:39.280 --> 0:02:42.560 of in the past, then it could be open season 0:02:42.720 --> 0:02:43.760 on any FED governor. 0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:51.800 I'm Sarah Holder, and this is the big take from 0:02:51.840 --> 0:02:56.200 Bloomberg News Today. On the show, Bloomberg reporters Amara Amoquay 0:02:56.280 --> 0:02:59.560 and Greg Store take us inside the Supreme Court for 0:02:59.639 --> 0:03:00.640 Trump the Cook. 0:03:01.400 --> 0:03:03.000 We take a look at the arguments from. 0:03:02.840 --> 0:03:05.680 Both sides and unpack what a ruling could mean for 0:03:05.840 --> 0:03:16.720 FED independence, for the economy, and for Trump. President Trump 0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:19.560 tried to fire Lisa Cook eight months ago. In a 0:03:19.639 --> 0:03:24.240 letter posted on truth Social Almost immediately, she sued the president, 0:03:24.560 --> 0:03:27.519 saying his effort to fire her could cause irreparable harm 0:03:27.600 --> 0:03:31.120 to the US economy. A district court sided with Cook, 0:03:31.440 --> 0:03:34.080 saying she could remain on the job while she continues 0:03:34.120 --> 0:03:35.680 to challenge Trump's attempt. 0:03:36.120 --> 0:03:38.480 That decision then went to the appellate level, and the 0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:41.400 appeals court said the same thing essentially cited with Lisa 0:03:41.400 --> 0:03:43.800 Cook that she could stay on the job while she 0:03:43.840 --> 0:03:46.920 fights to stay on the job permanently. And so then 0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:49.560 the administration went to the Supreme Court and that is 0:03:49.560 --> 0:03:50.800 how we landed there today. 0:03:51.280 --> 0:03:54.480 But this isn't a typical Supreme Court case. It's on 0:03:54.520 --> 0:03:57.560 the court's emergency docket. It came about after the Trump 0:03:57.600 --> 0:04:01.800 administration filed an emergency application asking the court to let 0:04:01.880 --> 0:04:05.440 them remove Cook immediately even as a legal fight continues. 0:04:06.040 --> 0:04:09.600 And what's the fundamental question that the judges are being 0:04:09.680 --> 0:04:13.080 asked to consider here? What is this case really about? 0:04:13.360 --> 0:04:16.960 So you've basically got two things that Lisa Cook is arguing. One, 0:04:17.200 --> 0:04:20.800 she says, I can't be fired without some sort of 0:04:20.839 --> 0:04:23.760 process more than just a social media post, which is 0:04:23.839 --> 0:04:27.039 how she was notified that Trump was trying to remove her. 0:04:27.440 --> 0:04:29.279 And so there's a question of is she entitled to 0:04:29.640 --> 0:04:32.560 a chance to make her case before she's removed. And 0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:36.239 then the bigger question is, even if these allegations are true, 0:04:36.240 --> 0:04:39.359 and the allegations are that she engaged in mortgage frauds, 0:04:39.440 --> 0:04:42.440 she denies that vehemently, and her lawyer said at most 0:04:42.520 --> 0:04:46.039 it was inadvertent. Even if those are true, is that 0:04:46.320 --> 0:04:49.080 enough grounds for the president to fire her, So that's 0:04:49.120 --> 0:04:52.400 sort of the issues in the backdrop. And then because 0:04:52.560 --> 0:04:54.640 it is coming to the court in the context of 0:04:54.680 --> 0:04:58.080 an emergency application, not looking for a final ruling, the 0:04:58.160 --> 0:05:02.039 court is also thinking about what would be the consequences 0:05:02.080 --> 0:05:05.280 in the short term of say, letting Trump fire her 0:05:05.640 --> 0:05:08.720 for the time being, And they're thinking about things like 0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:11.240 what would the impact on the markets be, what would 0:05:11.279 --> 0:05:15.480 the impact on FED independence be? So there are kind of, 0:05:15.560 --> 0:05:18.120 you know, non legal factors that are at least in 0:05:18.200 --> 0:05:19.560 the air in this argument. 0:05:20.800 --> 0:05:24.000 Mara, how central were those broader questions going into these 0:05:24.400 --> 0:05:27.360 oral arguments about not just the question of whether or 0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:31.279 not Trump has the power to fire or remove Lisa Cook, 0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:35.320 but the questions around presidential authority and the future of 0:05:35.360 --> 0:05:35.720 the FED. 0:05:36.040 --> 0:05:38.000 As someone who covers the FED, I mainly talk to 0:05:38.000 --> 0:05:41.840 FED watchers and economists. I don't think that they're necessarily 0:05:41.920 --> 0:05:44.799 focused on sort of the nitty gritty legal details. Everyone 0:05:44.880 --> 0:05:47.360 is kind of thinking about the broader context, which is 0:05:47.400 --> 0:05:51.919 that the attempt to fire Lisa Cook comes amid the 0:05:51.920 --> 0:05:56.240 Trump administrations and the president's really effort to try to 0:05:56.320 --> 0:05:58.960 have more influence over the FED and try to have 0:05:59.040 --> 0:06:02.520 more influence over monetary policy. The President has made clear 0:06:02.560 --> 0:06:05.520 that he wants to nominate a FED chair to replace 0:06:05.600 --> 0:06:07.600 Jerome pal when his term is up, a FED chair 0:06:07.640 --> 0:06:11.240 who will cut interest rates drastically. He has pressured the 0:06:11.240 --> 0:06:14.960 FED from several different sides, and so I think FED 0:06:15.000 --> 0:06:17.839 watchers are looking at this and saying, if the President 0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:21.919 is able to remove Lisa Cook over an unproven mortgage 0:06:21.960 --> 0:06:27.000 fraud allegation, that would essentially erode this job protection that 0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:30.320 FED governors enjoy in a way that would really then 0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:34.000 erode FED independence and the ability of the FED to 0:06:34.040 --> 0:06:36.840 set interest rates free of political pressure. 0:06:38.080 --> 0:06:40.600 With that backdrop, I want to walk through the actual 0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:43.960 arguments that the court hurt this week. So let's start 0:06:44.000 --> 0:06:47.640 with Cook, the plaintiff in this case. Greg What was 0:06:47.640 --> 0:06:50.679 it the center of her lawyer's argument to the court. 0:06:51.080 --> 0:06:53.480 We will hear an argument this morning in case twenty 0:06:53.520 --> 0:06:57.960 five A three twelve Trump versus Cook. Whether essentially are 0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:03.920 two prongs that she was not given any process, not 0:07:03.960 --> 0:07:08.000 given a chance to make her case that any problems 0:07:08.000 --> 0:07:13.360 with the mortgage applications were inadvertent, And secondly, that this 0:07:13.720 --> 0:07:16.760 allegation is not enough for the President to fire her. 0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:21.480 Coupled with that, the lawyer for Lisa Cook, Paul Clement, 0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:25.400 was also talking about the impact on FED independence. 0:07:26.120 --> 0:07:30.000 It's less important that the president have full faith in 0:07:30.120 --> 0:07:34.560 every single governor, and it's more important that the markets 0:07:34.720 --> 0:07:38.080 and the public have faith in the independence of the 0:07:38.120 --> 0:07:41.920 FED from the President and from Congress. 0:07:42.440 --> 0:07:45.880 You know, this is something the Supreme Court has suggested earlier. 0:07:46.160 --> 0:07:49.679 It cares about, and so trying to make the case 0:07:49.760 --> 0:07:53.280 that whatever you think about those legal questions, at the 0:07:53.400 --> 0:07:57.200 end of the day, just be really careful about doing 0:07:57.240 --> 0:08:00.560 something in this case that would shatter that FED in dependence. 0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:05.240 And Greg, what about the lawyers arguing in favor of 0:08:05.360 --> 0:08:09.239 President Trump, how did they counter that argument in front 0:08:09.280 --> 0:08:10.600 of the justices. 0:08:11.000 --> 0:08:14.320 So, US Solicitor General John Sower, who's the top Supreme 0:08:14.320 --> 0:08:17.440 Court lawyer for the Trump administration, had multiple levels to 0:08:17.480 --> 0:08:21.720 his argument. One level was, Hey, the Supreme Court has 0:08:21.760 --> 0:08:24.880 no business here. This is something the president has total 0:08:25.080 --> 0:08:29.200 authority over, total discretion. That didn't get him very far too, 0:08:30.040 --> 0:08:33.280 he said. On that issue of process, he said, first, 0:08:33.520 --> 0:08:37.080 Lisa Cook doesn't have any property right in this job. 0:08:37.240 --> 0:08:40.320 She's not doing any process because she's not entitled to 0:08:40.440 --> 0:08:42.599 this job. He also said that even if she is 0:08:42.760 --> 0:08:45.800 entitled to some process. She got plenty, She was told 0:08:45.840 --> 0:08:49.439 publicly that she was being fired, and she has not responded, 0:08:49.720 --> 0:08:53.840 in his view, in any adequate way to those allegations. 0:08:54.400 --> 0:08:58.520 And that also met some resistance, Justice Barrett asking, you know, 0:08:58.800 --> 0:09:00.520 why would it be so hard to to give her 0:09:00.520 --> 0:09:03.480 a hearing. One step you could take to reduce your 0:09:03.520 --> 0:09:06.600 irreparable harm to show that there really was cause is 0:09:06.640 --> 0:09:08.200 just to have a hearing. Why not? 0:09:09.600 --> 0:09:11.760 I don't think it's a question of resource allocation. It's 0:09:11.800 --> 0:09:14.760 our position that adequate process was already provided. 0:09:15.280 --> 0:09:19.040 And then finally he made the argument that if these 0:09:19.080 --> 0:09:23.000 allegations are true, this is not somebody we want setting 0:09:23.120 --> 0:09:26.200 interest rates. It means that it's somebody untrustworthy. 0:09:26.720 --> 0:09:29.560 The American people should not have their interest rates determined 0:09:29.559 --> 0:09:33.280 by someone who was at best grossly negligent and obtaining 0:09:33.320 --> 0:09:35.319 favorable interest rates for herself. 0:09:35.679 --> 0:09:38.840 And that was sort of where the justices had the 0:09:39.000 --> 0:09:42.600 harder time, because that's a kind of a judgment call 0:09:42.720 --> 0:09:46.400 that they seemed reluctant to get too deep into to 0:09:46.480 --> 0:09:50.360 try to figure out whether these allegations were the kind 0:09:50.400 --> 0:09:54.040 of things that were serious enough that the president ought 0:09:54.040 --> 0:09:56.560 to be allowed to fire her. For cause, and. 0:09:56.480 --> 0:09:59.760 Whether they were material to how she does her job, 0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.080 whether she fulfills her responsibilities in the right way. 0:10:03.520 --> 0:10:06.680 Exactly. These are allegations about things that happened before she 0:10:06.800 --> 0:10:09.680 became a FED governor, and there was a question of 0:10:09.960 --> 0:10:12.760 given that it's not something that was happening while she's 0:10:12.800 --> 0:10:16.199 doing the job, is it something that is of lesser importance? 0:10:18.240 --> 0:10:21.480 And amara, how did the justices respond to these arguments? 0:10:21.520 --> 0:10:24.319 What were you seeing in the room about what they 0:10:24.320 --> 0:10:26.400 were paying attention to and asking about? 0:10:26.640 --> 0:10:29.000 Well, I thought one of the most notable moments was 0:10:29.040 --> 0:10:33.520 when Justice Kavanaugh questioned sour about FED independence and he 0:10:33.559 --> 0:10:36.839 basically started that line of questioning asking him why is 0:10:36.880 --> 0:10:40.439 FED independence important? And then he went on to basically 0:10:40.480 --> 0:10:44.760 talk about how you know, a decision to remove Lisako 0:10:44.840 --> 0:10:47.120 could essentially create a slippery slope where you have a 0:10:47.160 --> 0:10:51.120 cycle where presidents continuously kind of remove governors at will. 0:10:51.200 --> 0:10:54.640 Because if this were set as a precedent, it seems 0:10:54.679 --> 0:11:00.520 to me, just thinking big picture, what goes around comes around. 0:11:01.240 --> 0:11:07.160 All the current president's appointees would likely be removed for 0:11:07.360 --> 0:11:10.120 clause on January twenty, twenty twenty nine. 0:11:10.160 --> 0:11:10.600 If there's a. 0:11:10.559 --> 0:11:13.079 Democratic that was a point in the hearing where you 0:11:13.120 --> 0:11:15.720 saw people kind of perk up because it kind of 0:11:15.720 --> 0:11:17.840 got to the heart of the matter, the thing that 0:11:17.880 --> 0:11:20.120 we've all been thinking about, which is the question of 0:11:20.160 --> 0:11:21.040 FED independence. 0:11:21.640 --> 0:11:24.680 I mean to tie this all together, Greg, after hearing 0:11:25.360 --> 0:11:29.040 these arguments and the justices responses, what's your sense of 0:11:29.080 --> 0:11:33.040 where the justices are leaning on this case as a 0:11:33.080 --> 0:11:34.280 body or individually. 0:11:34.800 --> 0:11:37.000 It sure seemed like and not just a you know, 0:11:37.080 --> 0:11:40.679 a five justice majority, but a larger majority was really 0:11:40.720 --> 0:11:44.280 concerned about the prospect of what it would mean if 0:11:45.000 --> 0:11:48.079 the court sided with Donald Trump and let him fire her, 0:11:48.200 --> 0:11:51.079 at least right away. It seems like the big question 0:11:51.160 --> 0:11:54.200 now is a court going to issue a narrow ruling 0:11:54.200 --> 0:11:56.040 that just kicks the can down the road a little 0:11:56.080 --> 0:11:58.839 bit and maybe it comes back to them a ruling 0:11:58.840 --> 0:12:00.800 maybe that says, hey, she's got to have some sort 0:12:00.840 --> 0:12:04.200 of opportunity to be heard before you fire her. Or 0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:07.800 do they do something broader that says allegations of these 0:12:07.840 --> 0:12:10.679 sort are not the kind of things that let a 0:12:10.679 --> 0:12:14.280 president remove a FED governor. That would give much deeper 0:12:14.320 --> 0:12:17.840 protection for FED governors going forward. That would be a 0:12:18.000 --> 0:12:20.880 very big deal. Whether the Court is ready to go 0:12:21.000 --> 0:12:23.119 there yet that's not clear. 0:12:26.200 --> 0:12:29.199 Up next what prior rulings by the Court could tell 0:12:29.280 --> 0:12:33.040 us about where the justices might land this time, and 0:12:33.360 --> 0:12:36.319 just how big the stakes are for Trump, for the FED, 0:12:36.720 --> 0:12:49.720 and for the US economy. This isn't the first time 0:12:49.840 --> 0:12:52.079 the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on 0:12:52.240 --> 0:12:56.840 President Trump's power to fire top officials at independent federal agencies. 0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:00.760 Last year, the Court ruled in his favor, allowing him 0:13:00.800 --> 0:13:04.080 to oust officials at the National Labor Relations Board and 0:13:04.160 --> 0:13:08.480 the Merit System's Protection Board, but notably, it exempted the 0:13:08.520 --> 0:13:12.520 Federal Reserve from that decision. It was an indication that 0:13:12.559 --> 0:13:16.880 the Court was prioritizing FED independence, an argument that Lisa 0:13:16.920 --> 0:13:20.120 Cook's lawyer Paul Clement invoked on Wednesday. 0:13:20.600 --> 0:13:23.400 There's a reason that monetary policy has been treated differently 0:13:24.200 --> 0:13:27.120 for lo these many years, and there's a reason that 0:13:27.200 --> 0:13:30.000 the markets watch the FED a little more closely than 0:13:30.040 --> 0:13:33.120 they watch really any other agency of government. 0:13:33.480 --> 0:13:36.600 So I asked Bloomberg Fed reporter amea Amokway to walk 0:13:36.640 --> 0:13:39.320 me through what it would mean if the Court decided 0:13:39.360 --> 0:13:42.679 to rule in Trump's favor this time and allow the 0:13:42.679 --> 0:13:45.360 President to fire a FED governor in this way. 0:13:45.640 --> 0:13:48.440 If you talk to any mainstream economist, when a central 0:13:48.440 --> 0:13:53.520 bank is independent, it provides for better economic outcomes. It 0:13:53.600 --> 0:13:58.160 reassures investors, it reassures the public that a central bank 0:13:58.320 --> 0:14:02.240 like the FED is willing to take decisions that may 0:14:02.280 --> 0:14:06.600 be unpopular to produce the best economic outcomes, particularly when 0:14:06.640 --> 0:14:09.199 it comes to inflation. So a good example is, in 0:14:09.240 --> 0:14:11.319 the wake of the pandemic, we had an inflationary surge 0:14:11.520 --> 0:14:14.320 in the United States and the FED raised interest rates 0:14:14.320 --> 0:14:19.240 aggressively to combat that. Painful for Americans, but necessary to 0:14:19.800 --> 0:14:22.360 push back against inflation, right. And the FED was able 0:14:22.400 --> 0:14:25.360 to do that because it is an independent institution and 0:14:25.400 --> 0:14:29.720 it doesn't have to worry about the political ramifications of 0:14:29.840 --> 0:14:33.400 taking unpopular steps. And so the idea is that if 0:14:33.440 --> 0:14:36.080 you have a less independent FED, if you have a 0:14:36.160 --> 0:14:40.440 board of governors where people can be fired basically at 0:14:40.440 --> 0:14:42.880 will by the President, then perhaps they aren't going to 0:14:42.920 --> 0:14:45.880 be willing to take those unpopular steps when necessary. And 0:14:45.920 --> 0:14:48.200 then maybe you have an economy that is less strong, 0:14:48.240 --> 0:14:50.680 You have an economy where inflation is not well controlled, 0:14:51.040 --> 0:14:54.160 and that in turn erodes confidence that investors both here 0:14:54.160 --> 0:14:57.800 and abroad have in the US economy and our assets. 0:14:57.800 --> 0:15:00.360 So it would have implications for the US dollar, would 0:15:00.360 --> 0:15:03.200 have implications for US stocks, it would have implications for 0:15:03.280 --> 0:15:07.640 US treasuries, and so economists worn of basically a downward 0:15:07.640 --> 0:15:11.560 spiral if we see FED independence eroded. 0:15:12.840 --> 0:15:16.680 And Greg let's play out the other possible scenario here. 0:15:16.680 --> 0:15:19.560 If the court rules against Trump, as perhaps seems more 0:15:19.640 --> 0:15:23.760 likely after these oral arguments, where does that put the president? 0:15:24.440 --> 0:15:27.560 More broadly, how big of a loss is that? 0:15:28.200 --> 0:15:31.560 It's significant, But keep in mind this is a Supreme 0:15:31.600 --> 0:15:34.040 Court that, over the last year in particular, has that 0:15:34.200 --> 0:15:38.040 a lot of things to expand presidential authority, and so 0:15:38.280 --> 0:15:41.560 in the non FED context, the Court is still giving 0:15:41.640 --> 0:15:44.840 him very broad power to fire other people in the 0:15:44.840 --> 0:15:48.720 federal government when he wants to. But in terms of 0:15:48.760 --> 0:15:52.600 the FED, it means that the FED continues as we've 0:15:52.640 --> 0:15:55.920 known it for the most part. It means that even 0:15:55.920 --> 0:15:58.560 though they'll still be subject to political pressure, the bully 0:15:58.560 --> 0:16:02.640 pulput the president will be, you know, no doubt still 0:16:02.680 --> 0:16:05.160 talking about you should lower interest rates. He's going to 0:16:05.200 --> 0:16:08.200 have the ability to appoint a new chair and other 0:16:08.280 --> 0:16:12.080 members going forward. But in terms of where the FED 0:16:12.160 --> 0:16:15.920 stands legally, it will be basically where it has always stood, 0:16:16.000 --> 0:16:20.680 which is once members are appointed and confirmed by the Senate, 0:16:21.120 --> 0:16:23.760 unless they do something are really really wrong, they are 0:16:23.800 --> 0:16:25.560 there throughout their term. 0:16:26.560 --> 0:16:29.240 And against this backdrop, Amera, the decision that we're waiting 0:16:29.280 --> 0:16:33.280 for seems quite high stakes. But I'm wondering, you know, 0:16:33.320 --> 0:16:35.960 you've described the Supreme Court as the Fed's last line 0:16:36.280 --> 0:16:39.600 of defense in the past. Are there other lines well? 0:16:39.640 --> 0:16:44.600 Prior to us learning about the DOJ investigation, it really 0:16:44.720 --> 0:16:47.840 had been the Supreme Court with their initial sort of 0:16:47.840 --> 0:16:50.720 decision to allow Lisa Cook to remain on the job. 0:16:51.200 --> 0:16:52.960 That was kind of the first time we saw any 0:16:53.000 --> 0:16:56.360 of Washington's kind of institutions come to the fed's defense 0:16:56.840 --> 0:17:00.400 because really Republicans in Congress, since they can troll built 0:17:00.440 --> 0:17:04.000 chambers of Congress, have been very reticent to sort of 0:17:04.040 --> 0:17:06.360 push back on all the attacks from the Trump administration 0:17:06.960 --> 0:17:10.040 on the FED. We haven't really seen much market reaction 0:17:10.160 --> 0:17:13.000 to some of these attacks. You know, last year, over 0:17:13.040 --> 0:17:16.280 the spring and early summer, Trump was sort of talking 0:17:16.359 --> 0:17:18.359 about firing chair Pow. We didn't see much of a 0:17:18.400 --> 0:17:21.240 market reaction after he said he was firing re Lisa Cook. 0:17:21.359 --> 0:17:23.400 We didn't see much of a market reaction, and so 0:17:23.720 --> 0:17:26.000 the idea that the markets act as a check on 0:17:26.119 --> 0:17:30.080 President Trump wasn't really applicable in the case of the Fed. 0:17:30.080 --> 0:17:33.040 We didn't really see much market reaction, But now with 0:17:33.080 --> 0:17:35.959 this dj investigation, we did see a few Republicans come 0:17:36.000 --> 0:17:38.560 out and say, you know, this is going a little 0:17:38.600 --> 0:17:40.560 too far. We kind of need to pull this back. 0:17:40.760 --> 0:17:43.160 And so I think this investigation is being seen as 0:17:43.560 --> 0:17:45.679 sort of a more serious threat, in part because it 0:17:45.720 --> 0:17:48.920 is a criminal investigation than some of the other sort 0:17:48.920 --> 0:17:51.040 of attacks that we've seen from the Trump administration. 0:17:53.800 --> 0:17:56.679 And Greg, I also want to understand what comes next. 0:17:56.840 --> 0:17:58.919 This is on the court's emergency docket, So what does 0:17:58.960 --> 0:18:01.800 that actually mean for when and weather we'll get a 0:18:01.840 --> 0:18:04.919 conclusive ruling on whether or not Lisa Cook can be 0:18:04.960 --> 0:18:07.119 removed from her post as FED governor. 0:18:07.320 --> 0:18:08.919 The only thing I can say with a lot of 0:18:08.960 --> 0:18:11.639 confidence is that it will come out sometime before the 0:18:11.760 --> 0:18:15.280 term ends, which is typically end of June, very early July. 0:18:15.800 --> 0:18:20.120 And amara what's next for the Fed as they await 0:18:20.520 --> 0:18:21.200 this decision. 0:18:21.720 --> 0:18:23.560 There's a lot going on. So we have a FED 0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:28.119 meeting next week where Fed officials are widely expected to 0:18:28.160 --> 0:18:32.000 hold interest rates steady after cutting three consecutive times at 0:18:32.040 --> 0:18:34.600 the end of last year, and so FED officials are 0:18:34.600 --> 0:18:38.000 actually dealing with a pretty complicated economic picture on top 0:18:38.040 --> 0:18:41.440 of everything else, because they are trying to figure out 0:18:41.840 --> 0:18:44.360 what's happening in the labor market and what's happening with inflation, 0:18:44.520 --> 0:18:47.080 which are kind of pulling their policy choices in kind 0:18:47.080 --> 0:18:50.119 of opposite direction. So there's a complicated economic backdrop that 0:18:50.119 --> 0:18:52.800 they're dealing with. The other big thing that's happening is 0:18:52.800 --> 0:18:55.560 that President Trump is weighing who he wants to pick 0:18:55.640 --> 0:18:58.840 for FED chair chaired. Jerome Pal's term is up in May, 0:18:58.920 --> 0:19:03.359 and President Try is considering mainly four candidates, and that 0:19:03.480 --> 0:19:06.520 his whole selection process has been complicated by this DOJ 0:19:06.680 --> 0:19:10.240 investigation because you now have some Republicans who are pushing 0:19:10.280 --> 0:19:13.680 back against that and saying that they will not advance 0:19:13.800 --> 0:19:18.480 any of President Trump's phennominees until that situation is resolved. 0:19:18.560 --> 0:19:21.560 So there's a question of who Trump will pick to 0:19:21.640 --> 0:19:25.200 be FED chair and how easily that person will be 0:19:25.280 --> 0:19:26.399 able to be confirmed. 0:19:32.400 --> 0:19:35.520 This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm Sarah Holder. 0:19:36.320 --> 0:19:38.840 To get more from the Big Take and unlimited access 0:19:38.880 --> 0:19:42.600 to all of Bloomberg dot com, subscribe today at bloomberg 0:19:42.640 --> 0:19:44.440 dot com Slash Podcast offer. 0:19:45.000 --> 0:19:47.200 Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.