Donald Trump made ‘you’re fired’ a national catchphrase from his TV show ‘The Apprentice.’ Now the power of the president to unilaterally decide who can continue to serve in key government positions will be tested Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court, in another major case over leadership removals from independent agencies.

At the center of the latest constitutional showdown is Lisa Cook, who serves precariously on the Federal Reserve’s powerful Board of Governors.

Trump claims broad authority to force Cook from her leadership position on the central bank, free from judicial review, with his administration alleging she committed private mortgage fraud.

Oral arguments will be conducted by the nine justices, who will hear separately from lawyers representing Cook and the Justice Department.

As the elected head of the government, Trump believes federal law allows him unqualified discretion to fire ‘for cause’ any officer on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). 

But Cook will tell the court the Federal Reserve was created by Congress in 1913 as a wholly independent entity, to insulate it from political influence, and from any one president ‘stacking the deck’ with their own nominees.

She claims to be a political pawn in Trump’s very public efforts to dictate the Federal Reserve’s economic policies, by exploiting what she calls ‘manufactured charges’ of wrongdoing.

This appeal comes as Trump’s feud with the Fed has expanded, after its chairman, Jerome Powell, disclosed recently the agency was subpoenaed by the Justice Department for allegations he lied to Congress about a controversial multimillion-dollar renovation of the agency’s headquarters.

The high court will have at least four opportunities this term to define the limits of Trump’s aggressive view of his authority, including import tariffs and birthright citizenship.

‘A big fraction of the Supreme Court’s docket will present the question, can President Trump do: fill in the blank? And that could be imposed tariffs. Fire board members. Remove illegal aliens,’ said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department attorney and leading appellate attorney. ‘Trump is pushing at every limit and the Supreme Court this term is going to be telling us whether he’s exceeded those limits. That is, I think, going to the story of so much of what the Supreme Court is deciding this term.’   

The Issues

The conservative court has allowed much of President Trump’s challenged executive actions to be enforced at least temporarily – and will now decide whether the Fed’s special mandate statutorily protects its governing members from getting ousted.

The justices last month heard arguments in a separate case, on Trump’s efforts to remove Democrat-appointed Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which like the Fed is a congressionally created independent, multi-member regulatory agency.

The 6-3 conservative majority in that petition appeared ready to rule for the president when it involves semi-autonomous agencies like the FTC.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor at argument accused the administration of trying to ‘destroy the structure of government.’

But Justice Neil Gorsuch countered that when it comes to agencies like the FTC, ‘there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.’

Both Slaughter and Cook were named to their current staggered terms by former President Joe Biden, but Slaughter and another Democratic-appointed member are now not allowed to continue serving while their lawsuits are decided.

In the Cook case, lower courts ruled she did not receive due process when the president tried to fire her.

The current posture of the case is whether Trump can remove Cook — at least temporarily — while the dispute continues to play out on the merits. The ‘for cause’ removal restriction’s constitutionality is not directly before the justices.

A federal judge had issued a preliminary injunction against the administration, which then sought relief from the Supreme Court on the limited enforcement issue.

The nine-member bench now has the option of ruling narrowly on the injunction question — which would throw the case back to the district court. Or the high court could go ahead and decide the larger constitutional matters.

One key argument topic could center on whether the Federal Reserve has some administrative nexus to the executive branch, which could put it at least under limited Trump control.

Though its leaders are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the seven-member board is considered an independent government agency, since its monetary policy decisions do not need presidential or legislative approval. But the agency does provide Congress with regular reports on its work.

It also does not receive any federal funding, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

Under law, the Federal Reserve’s leadership has a three-fold mandate: ‘maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.’

The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are not part of the federal government, but set up like private corporations, and regionally located across the country.

The justices, in an unsigned order in a separate case in 2025, had suggested the Fed operates differently from other independent federal boards, since it is not funded by Congress through normal appropriations, but uses interest on securities the bank owns and acquired through open market operations.

‘The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,’ said the Supreme Court in May 2025.

After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve hands the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.

Federal feud

Trump repeatedly has blasted Powell and the Federal Reserve over reluctance to lower benchmark interest rates as aggressively as the president wants, in a fundamental disagreement over prudent ways to stimulate the national economy.

Like Cook, Powell in an extraordinary video statement Sunday accused the president of investigating him as ‘pretexts’ for ‘political pressure or intimidation.’

‘The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,’ he said.

Trump on Tuesday called Powell ‘either incompetent or crooked.’

Powell’s term as chairman ends in May, but he has the option of remaining on the Board for another two years. Trump has been conducting a very transparent interview campaign with candidates for Powell’s successor to lead the central bank.

The high court will try to cast all the Washington drama aside and focus on what shapes up as a major test of executive and judicial power.

The Federal Reserve Act (FRA) says the president can only remove members of the Fed board and FOMC ‘for cause.’ The exact parameters of that standard were not spelled out in the original law, and never fully tested in the courts.

Cook — appointed for a 14-year term by Biden in 2023 — will remain on the job at least until the court decides the current legal questions.

No president has fired a sitting Fed governor in the law’s 112-year history.

‘Put simply, the president may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself— and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,’ said Solicitor General D. John Sauer in the administration’s appeal.

The Justice Department will argue that removal protection power is discretionary and unenforceable.

But Cook’s lawyers counter, ‘Granting that relief would dramatically alter the status quo, ignore centuries of history, and transform the Federal Reserve into a body subservient to the President’s will.’

The court’s decision to take up the case comes months after U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a preliminary injunction last month blocking Trump from firing Cook from the Fed while the case continued to play out in court.’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 in September 2025 to deny Trump’s request for intervention, prompting the administration to make its case to the Supreme Court for emergency review.

The Stakes

The Supreme Court update comes as Trump has for months pressured the Federal Reserve to slash interest rates, in a bid to help spur the nation’s economic growth.

But his attempt to fire Cook for alleged mortgage fraud violations, which she has denied, has teed up a first-of-its-kind judicial clash that could have profound impacts on the Fed itself, and the Supreme Court’s review authority.

She strongly denies accusations of falsely claiming two homes in Georgia and Michigan as her primary residence to secure better mortgage terms. She has not been charged with any crime.

Cook’s legal team — featuring prominent conservative attorney and former Justice Scalia law clerk Paul Clement — sued Trump in late August 2025 for his attempt to fire her, arguing it violated her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the FRA.

She has not been charged with any criminal act.

The next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting is scheduled for Jan. 27–28, with an expected interest rate decision. Both Powell and Cook are each set to participate.

Financial markets, private banks, businesses and investors will be closely watching what the Supreme Court does in the Federal Reserve dispute, and a separate pending appeal over Trump’s sweeping reciprocal global tariffs.

A written ruling in that import tax case, which was argued by the justices in November, could come at any time.

The Fed case is Trump v. Cook (25a312). A decision there could come relatively quickly within weeks, or potentially as late as June or early July.

The Syrian army’s rapid-fire conquest of important areas and towns previously controlled by the U.S.-allied Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), culminated on Sunday in a fragile ceasefire agreement with a stern warning from a powerful U.S. Senator and experts about the reported crimes of forces controlled by President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Jim Risch, R-Idaho., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox News Digital, ‘The Syrian government’s decree to respect Kurdish rights is a good sign, but the conduct of its forces on the ground must match. Division and violence in Syria between U.S. partners only benefit bad actors like ISIS and Iran who exploit Syria to use as a breeding ground for international terrorism, including against the U.S. I welcome the announcement of a ceasefire and will be watching its implementation closely.’

Al-Sharaa, a former U.S.-designated terrorist who was a member of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, greenlighted an incursion into territory ruled peacefully by the SDF for over a decade.

Amid Risch’s warning, reports coming out of Syria claim skirmishes between the Syrian army and SDF are continuing. 

The news organization, Kurdistan 24, showed alleged footage of al-Sharaa’s forces releasing Islamic State prisoners. According to the report, ‘The Syrian Arab Army releases ISIS prisoners in al-Tabqah city.’ 

The footage has been widely posted on social media. Fox News Digital could not independently verify the video.

The State Department referred Fox News Digital to an X post from the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, who also serves as the Special Envoy for Syria. Barrack wrote on X about the deal between SDF General Mazloum Abdi and al-Sharra.

‘Two great Syrian leaders, driven by the shared vision of liberating their country and people from tyranny, have now come together to forge a brighter future for all Syrians. This agreement and ceasefire represent a pivotal inflection point, where former adversaries embrace partnership over division.’

Barrack added, ‘President al-Sharaa has affirmed that the Kurds are an integral part of Syria, and the United States looks forward to the seamless integration of our historic partner in the fight against ISIS with the Global Coalition’s newest member, as we press forward in the enduring battle against terrorism.’

However, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) commander Sipan Hamo — a Syrian organization that is part of the SDF — said on the Saturday meeting between U.S. envoy Tom Barrack and Kurdish officials produced no roadmap to a ceasefire. He denied Syria’s Kurds wanted to secede or create an independent state and said their future was in Syria.

‘Our greatest hope is that there will be a tangible outcome, especially from the coalition and the United States, meaning that they will intervene more forcefully in the existing problems than what they are currently doing,’ Hamo said.

The head of the main Kurdish forces told Reuters that the U.S. should intervene more forcefully to end a Syrian offensive that has gained key territory from Kurdish fighters in recent days.

Government troops launched an offensive on Saturday into territory run for the last decade by semi-autonomous Kurdish authorities in the northeast of Syria, capturing towns on both sides of the Euphrates River and the country’s largest oil and gas field, officials and security sources said.

But given Kurdish ‘concerns about the changes taking place,’ the U.S. should offer assurances of protection to them.

Hamo said that, ‘In the current situation and the chaos we are living in, the only ones who can offer guarantees are the United States or the coalition,’ he added in a rare interview from Hasakeh province, which is still under Kurdish control.

‘We believe that the responsibility for everything currently happening inside Syria lies with the Western countries, and especially the United States of America,’ he said.

‘Of course, we consider Israel a powerful state in the region with its own agenda. We hope that the same stance taken by other countries in the region towards certain minorities in Syria will be extended to the Kurds as well,’ Hamo said.

Asked if he was referring to Israel’s stance towards the Druze minority last summer — when Israel carried out air strikes on the defense ministry, near the presidential palace in Damascus and on Syrian troops advancing on Druze cities, Hamo said, ‘of course.’

Mutlu Civiroglu, a Kurdish affairs analyst, told Fox News Digital that, ‘President Trump has spoken about giving Syria and all its peoples a fresh opportunity to turn a new page. Yet, Ahmed al Sharaa’s actions appear to move against that intention, and many Kurds believe he is abusing the political space that was meant to support stability rather than deepen tensions. ‘

Civiroglu added that ‘I don’t think the U.S. is abandoning the Kurds, but President Trump’s good intention is being abused by Sharaa. Lawmakers in Washington have also expressed unease about the interim Syrian government’s treatment of minorities, which reflects broader questions about its commitment to inclusive governance.’

Civiroglu posted footage on his popular X account of al-Sharaa supporters toppling ‘a statue of a female Kurdish fighter after interim Syrian government forces seized Tabqa from the SDF. Kurdish fighters backed by the United States had liberated the town from ISIS in May 2017.’

Civiroglu said, ‘al-Sharaa’s confrontations with Kurdish forces, following earlier pressure on Alawite and Druze areas, reinforce doubts about the interim government’s legitimacy and its ability to represent Syria’s diverse population.

‘The International community must remember that the Kurdish people have long fought alongside the United States, France and the West in the campaign against ISIS, and many are watching closely to see how these partners interpret the latest escalation,’ he said.

Max Abrahms, a leading expert on counter-terrorism and a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Fox News Digital, ‘The YPG and then SDF were America’s primary counterterrorism forces against Islamic State in Syria during the war. Unlike the so-called ‘rebels,’ our Kurdish warrior friends exhibited both capability and moderation. It’s not surprising that the jihadists, upon taking power in Damascus, would turn their guns on the Kurdish forces. Of course, we need to stand with them.’

A group of House Democrats is moving to block President Donald Trump from acquiring Greenland in direct defiance of one of the commander in chief’s main foreign policy goals.

Rep. Gabe Amo, D-R.I., announced late Sunday that he introduced a bill to prevent Trump from using federal dollars to buy Greenland.

The legislation already has more than 20 House Democratic co-sponsors and is likely to get more as the week progresses.

‘Greenland is not for sale, no matter what Trump says. That’s why I led 21 [House Democrats] in introducing the NO NATO for Purchase Act to make sure your taxpayer dollars aren’t spent on Trump’s next property boondoggle,’ Amo wrote on X.

A publicly available summary of his bill stated its purpose as ‘to prohibit actions or expenditure of funds to purchase a North Atlantic Treaty Organization member country or NATO-protected territory.’

It comes as Trump and his allies continue to insist that getting Greenland under U.S. rule is critical to enhancing national security.

Trump has pushed to acquire Greenland, a territory of Denmark, since his first White House term.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with officials from Greenland and Denmark last week, but it appears that little progress has been made on either side.

‘The discussions focused on how to ensure the long-term security in Greenland. And here, our perspectives continue to differ, I must say. The president has made his view clear. And we have a different position,’ Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told reporters afterward.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of lawmakers — consisting mainly of Democrats — embarked on a congressional delegation trip to Denmark over the weekend to meet with officials there.

Trump himself posted on Truth Social on Sunday night, ‘NATO has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland.’ Unfortunately, Denmark has been unable to do anything about it. Now it is time, and it will be done!!!’

The Trump administration has made clear that it hopes to purchase Greenland from Denmark, but the president himself has not ruled out using military force either.

The idea of a military invasion of Greenland has rattled lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, with foreign relations hawks arguing it would be a violation of NATO’s Article V by one of the organization’s own leading members.

House Democrats’ bill is not likely to be taken up by the House, however, nor would it be likely to pass if it were.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for a response to the legislation.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) on Monday withdrew an invitation for Iran’s foreign minister to attend the Davos summit in Switzerland after an advocacy group urged it to bar Iranian regime officials amid nationwide anti-government protests that have left thousands dead.

In a post on X, the WEF confirmed that Abbas Araghchi would not be permitted to attend the five-day event.

‘Although he was invited last fall, the tragic loss of lives of civilians in Iran over the past few weeks means that it is not right for the Iranian government to be represented at Davos this year,’ the organization said. 

The announcement comes after the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) sent a letter to WEF President Børge Brende on Friday, urging him to rescind the invitation and bar Iranian regime officials from attending amid a brutal crackdown on civilians.

UANI CEO Ambassador Mark Wallace welcomed the decision, telling Fox News Digital in a statement after Araghchi’s invitation was withdrawn: ‘UANI commends the World Economic Forum for revoking the invitation of Iran’s Foreign Minister from this year’s gathering in Davos. Iranian regime representatives should not be platformed at international events given their crimes against the Iranian people and their long history of supporting terrorism.’

Iran is currently facing nationwide anti-government protests that have drawn a violent response from security forces and placed growing pressure on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which tracks human rights violations in Iran, said on Sunday that nationwide protests continued into the 22nd day as President Donald Trump weighs possible U.S. military action.

The group’s aggregated figures showed 624 recorded protests, the arrest of at least 24,669 people and the confirmed deaths of 3,919 individuals.

HRANA said 3,685 of those killed were protesters, including 25 children under the age of 18.

Nearly 9,000 deaths remain under investigation.

White House press secretary Karoline Levitt said at a press briefing last week that the Trump administration was closely watching the situation in Iran.

‘All options remain on the table for the president,’ she told reporters.

A Senate Republican wants to dramatically expand the federal government’s ability to denaturalize a citizen with legislation built to withstand challenges in court.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., plans to introduce his Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation (SCAM) Act to develop a series of wide-ranging legal triggers for the denaturalization process in the wake of the Minnesota fraud scandal.

Schmitt’s legislation is designed to bolster the government’s ability to strip a naturalized person of their citizenship, but it does not stop at targeting just fraudsters.

The SCAM Act creates a 10-year window, post-naturalization that, if a person were to hit a series of triggers, would lower the threshold for the federal government to strike their citizenship and begin the deportation process.

Among the acts that would fall under the scope of Schmitt’s legislation are whether a person defrauded a federal, state, local or tribal government of $10,000 or more, committed espionage, committed an aggravated felony, or is affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization.

The lawmaker argued that people who trigger those requisites ‘must be denaturalized because they have proven they never met the requirements for the great honor of American citizenship in the first place.’

‘The rampant fraud uncovered in Minnesota must be a wakeup call,’ Schmitt said. ‘People who commit felony fraud, serious felonies, or join terrorist organizations like drug cartels shortly after taking their citizenship oaths fail to uphold the basic standards of citizenship.’

Schmitt’s legislation specifically targets the ‘good moral character’ factor in the naturalization process, which requires a person to engage in moral and ethical conduct for up to five years before applying for citizenship.

The bill would automatically and retroactively undermine that key step in the naturalization process and contends that the aforementioned acts committed post-naturalization act as proof that a person never qualified for citizenship in the first place.

It also has a built-in mechanism to deal with challenges to the legislation in court, specifically to automatically switch out the 10-year window — if found unconstitutional — with a five-year window.

His legislation also has the backing of the White House and was lauded by Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and President Donald Trump’s Homeland Security advisor.

Prosecutors digging into the sprawling Minnesota fraud scandal estimate upward of $9 billion in stolen funds and have charged several native-Somali residents in connection with the boondoggle.

‘The Somali fraud scandal is one of the greatest financial scandals in American history,’ Miller said. ‘All Somali refugees, or any other immigrants, who have committed fraud against the United States must be immediately denaturalized and deported.’