Legal AF – “Trump’s Emergency Motion on Fed Backfires Instantly”

Date: September 16, 2025
Hosts: Michael Popok (MeidasTouch Network)
Main Theme:
This episode provides a fast-paced, detailed legal analysis of former President Donald Trump’s emergency effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the resulting 2-1 appeals court ruling, and what it reveals about the independence of the Federal Reserve, executive power, and the critical role of due process in high-stakes political-legal battles.

Episode Overview

Michael Popok leads the discussion, breaking down the breaking news surrounding Donald Trump’s failed attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook through an emergency judicial maneuver. The episode explores:

• The legal showdown between Trump’s team and Lisa Cook
• The importance of due process and “for cause” removal protections for Federal Reserve governors
• The implications for presidential power over independent agencies
• What happens next as Trump takes his case to the Supreme Court

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Immediate Context: Lisa Cook’s Role and Lawsuit

• [00:56] Lisa Cook, current Federal Reserve Board of Governors member, was targeted by Trump, seeking her removal based on unproven mortgage fraud allegations.
  • Trump’s attempted firing took place via social media, with no formal due process or hearing.
• Popok underlines the foundational issue:

  “If Donald Trump can fire people at will without regard to whether they did anything, then he could just take over the Federal Reserve.”
  — Michael Popok [01:32]

2. Why This Case Matters for the Federal Reserve’s Independence

• The Federal Reserve is designed to be insulated from direct political control.
• Popok emphasizes the dangers:

  “We never want the same person to be able to have one hand on monetary policy and one hand on fiscal policy ever. Bad things happen when that happens.”
  — Michael Popok [02:12]

3. Legal Arguments – Due Process and “For Cause” Removal

• Trump’s case centered on alleged mortgage fraud, largely promoted by Bill Pulte (Trump ally and housing industry heir).

• Multiple news sources found Cook’s mortgage filings were proper; allegations were not substantiated.

• Federal law states removal must be “for cause”—specifically related to inefficiency, malfeasance, or neglect of duty on the job.

  “The for cause that’s required to terminate somebody on the Board of Governors... has to be something she does on the job.”
  — Michael Popok [03:38]

4. The Court’s Reasoning and Ruling

• The appellate panel (2–1 decision) ruled Trump denied Cook due process, a clear constitutional protection.

• They opted not to rule on “for cause,” focusing only on due process at this emergency stage.

  “Did she get [due process] or not? ...Because if she got due process... she’d be able to bring in the evidence that she didn’t commit any mortgage fraud.”
  — Michael Popok [06:46]

• The majority found that:

  • Cook has a property right in her governor’s seat; thus, procedural safeguards (due process) were mandatory.
  • The Trump team’s argument that employment is not a protected interest was rejected by the court.

5. Dissenting Opinion (Judge Katz)

• Judge Katz, a Trump appointee, dissented:
  • Asserted that Cook did not have a constitutionally protected property interest and that Trump’s actions did not violate due process.
  • Katz appeared to accept (without qualification) the mortgage fraud allegations, highlighting contrasting judicial philosophies.

  “He’s already convicted her on the first page of his dissent.”
  — Michael Popok [10:53]

6. What Happens Next

• Trump’s team intends to file an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court to block Cook’s continued service.
• Popok predicts the legal steps:
  • If Chief Justice Roberts grants a stay, Cook would be immediately suspended.
  • Otherwise, full briefing and oral argument could be scheduled, likely in October or November.

  “What should happen is... let the record be developed by Judge Cobb. That’s what really should happen.”
  — Michael Popok [12:31]

7. Broader Implications

• The case tests the Supreme Court’s commitment to its own May precedent requiring “for cause” removal and due process.
• Underscores the deeper stakes: the balance between executive authority and the independence of critical agencies like the Fed.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On political interference:

  “If Donald Trump can fire people at will... he could just take over the Federal Reserve. And now he’s in control of fiscal policy, which he’s failing at.”
  — Michael Popok [01:45]

• Explaining procedural fairness:

  “Most principal officers are removable at will. [But] Cook enjoys uncontested ‘for cause’ protection, so she does have that interest.”
  — Michael Popok, quoting court decision [09:41]

• On the importance of due process:

  “There must be due process before you remove a Federal Reserve governor, plain and simple.”
  — Michael Popok [14:18]

• Predicting the Supreme Court’s next move:

  “They’ll set oral argument because it’s such an important issue, and they’ll have an oral argument in October or November.”
  — Michael Popok [13:15]

Essential Timestamps

• [00:56] – Intro to the Lisa Cook legal saga and its implications
• [03:30] – Legal requirements for removing a Federal Reserve governor
• [06:46] – Court’s reasoning: Focus on due process rights
• [09:41] – Court’s rejection of Trump’s “no property interest” argument
• [10:53] – Critique of Judge Katz’s dissent
• [12:31] – How the Supreme Court is likely to proceed
• [13:15] – Expectations of oral argument and future reporting
• [14:18] – The centrality of due process and what’s at stake

Summary Takeaways

• The attempt to remove Lisa Cook has become a high-profile constitutional showdown, raising stakes for both the independence of the Federal Reserve and the boundaries of presidential power.
• Robust due process rights for protected federal officers—especially at independent agencies—are at the heart of this dispute.
• Trump's bid to oust Cook—to be taken up by the Supreme Court—will likely set important precedent.
• The MeidasTouch team will continue coverage as the case evolves, emphasizing transparency and legal accountability.

For more detailed analysis and court filings, visit Legal AF on Substack and YouTube.