The political and financial worlds are colliding once again. This week, President Donald Trump took the unprecedented step of firing Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, citing recent criminal referrals as “cause” for his decision. While Cook has not denied the substance of the allegations, she insists the president has “no authority” to remove her and is now suing to challenge the move.
The story didn’t end there. Bill Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, announced Thursday night that he has filed yet another criminal referral—his second in this case—adding fuel to the fire.
He posted the news to X:
“Today, U.S. Federal Housing sent a 2nd Criminal Referral in the matter of Lisa D. Cook, related to a mortgage on a 3rd property and alleged misrepresentations about her properties to the United States Government during her time as Governor of the Federal Reserve.”
Pulte laid out the details, pointing to a condominium in Cambridge, Massachusetts. According to him, in April 2021, “Cook entered a 15-year mortgage for a condominium in [Cambridge], representing it as her ‘Second Home.’” But, he continued, “Only eight months later, on December 1, 2021, Cook signed an ethics form with the U.S. Government that this property was an ‘investment/rental property.’”
From there, the pattern appeared consistent: “In subsequent filings from 2022 to 2025, Cook consistently listed this property as an investment/rental property, not a second home,” Pulte wrote. He added that “representing the property as a second home may have allowed Cook to secure a lower ‘Second Home’ mortgage down payment and rates, as investment properties typically carry higher down payments and higher rates due to increased risk.”
These revelations build on earlier concerns. The Department of Justice is already investigating whether, in 2021, Cook claimed two separate properties as her “primary residence” within weeks of each other. As one report put it, “The criminal referral in question accused Cook of claiming her primary residence in Michigan on mortgage documents, only to turn around and do the same thing with a different property in Georgia just a month later. As the letter [firing her] notes, it seems improbable that such a thing could be done unknowingly.”
Her attorneys, in new court filings, admitted there may have been an “unintentional clerical error” in her paperwork. That explanation, however, may not satisfy Americans who expect honesty and accountability from those in positions of power.
This controversy strikes at the heart of a bigger issue: whether the president truly has the authority to remove a Federal Reserve Governor. The Fed was designed as an independent agency back in 1913, with governors serving 14-year terms after presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. The law says a president may remove a board member “for cause,” but it has never been tested in practice, leaving the courts to interpret what “cause” actually means.
Some legal experts argue Trump’s move could stand, given that fraud allegations fall well within the category of “cause.” Others claim the courts may side with Cook to preserve the Fed’s independence. Either way, the fact that taxpayer money, mortgage fraud, and questions of government ethics are intertwined makes this case more than a technicality—it’s a matter of public trust.
A D.C. federal court will hear arguments Friday on Cook’s request for a restraining order against her removal. Until then, one thing is clear: the allegations are stacking up, and Cook’s reputation is under a growing cloud. Unless she can provide a convincing and transparent defense, the pressure isn’t going away.
For conservatives, the story highlights a deeper concern—whether government insiders are held to the same standards as ordinary Americans. A federal official accused of gaming the mortgage system for personal benefit raises real questions about fairness, accountability, and the credibility of our financial institutions. This isn’t just about one official—it’s about the principle that no one, especially those in unelected positions of influence, should be above the rules that every hardworking taxpayer must follow.
