Back in June, I went out of my way to emphasize that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Lisa Cook case didn’t constitute high-court affirmation of the Fed’s independence.

All the court actually said in their determination was that Cook’s entitled to due process, which should’ve gone without saying, due process being the rug that ties the room together and all.

As I put it at the time, “it says a lot, none of it good, that the Supreme Court has to affirm citizens’ [constitutional rights] in the event the President of the United States decides he wants to cook up an excuse to fire us from our jobs.”

It was obvious from the court’s ruling that the conservative majority wanted to leave the door open for the administration to fire Cook. Or Jerome Powell for that matter. As Brett Kavanaugh wrote, the court “[did] not decide whether the president may lawfully remove Governor Cook for cause.”

Let’s not kid ourselves: There is no “cause” to remove Cook, nor Powell, from the Fed board. Or at least not that we know of.

Crucially, that’s not to say Cook didn’t commit, accidentally or purposefully, a clerical error on her mortgage documents. Similarly, the point isn’t to suggest Powell made no mistakes whatsoever while overseeing renovations at the Eccles building.

What critics of the administration’s crusade to free up another two Fed board seats are saying, even if they wouldn’t couch it in quite these terms, is that assuming the allegations against Cook and Powell are true and they constitute cause for dismissal, then we’re all criminals and none of us should have jobs.

People who study autocracies will know precisely what I mean. People like Steven Levitsky, Lucan Way and Daniel Ziblatt, mainstays of the debate around the future of American democracy. As they put it in the January/February print edition of Foreign Affairs, every autocrat knows that “if determined investigators look long and hard enough, they can invariably find some infraction committed by a person [the autocrat] wants to target.”

That’s a tried-and-true strategy in soft autocracies. In “Resignation,” I explained how it’s being implemented by Trump in America. You should read (or re-read) that Monthly Letter, but suffice to say the cases against Cook and Powell are textbook examples.

Well, on Friday, Trump released a memo announcing the formation of a “committee” to establish whether Cook’s guilty. Below is the text. Read it in full:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby establish a committee of inquiry (Committee) to investigate allegations that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa D. Cook made false statements in connection with one or more mortgage instruments. The Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Director of the Office of Government Ethics shall serve as members of the Committee.

As President, it is my job to ensure the laws are faithfully executed, including by firing subordinates who cannot be trusted to tell the truth and follow the law. U.S. Const. Art. II, sec. 3. To assist me in carrying out that responsibility, the Committee shall investigate the allegations against Governor Cook and report to me whether there is “cause” for Governor Cook’s removal within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. 242, as construed in Trump v. Cook, 146 S. Ct. 2234 (2026). The Committee may consult with appropriate personnel from executive departments and agencies, including the Department of Justice, to aid in its inquiry. The Committee shall, on November 5, 2026, conduct an in-person hearing to consider the evidence and allegations against Governor Cook. The hearing shall occur at the White House and shall last no longer than 4 hours.

Governor Cook may submit a written position statement to the Committee regarding the allegations, provided the statement is received at least 3 days before the hearing. Governor Cook shall appear at the hearing and be examined by the Committee, its representatives, and her legal counsel, if any. Governor Cook may present argument, written evidence, and written witness statements regarding the evidence and allegations. The Committee may also question Governor Cook about any representations she or her counsel make during the hearing, or it may authorize its representatives, including Department of Justice personnel, to conduct that questioning. The Committee may request documents or other evidentiary submissions from Governor Cook, as appropriate, and Governor Cook shall comply with any such requests.

Prior to the hearing, the Committee shall provide Governor Cook with the evidence it is considering in its inquiry. At the hearing, the Committee or its representatives may question Governor Cook or her counsel about the evidence and allegations against her. The hearing shall be closed to the public but shall be transcribed.

Governor Cook may submit a post-hearing written statement to the Committee by November 10, 2026. As soon as practicable after receipt of that statement, the Committee shall submit written findings of fact and conclusions of law to me and shall recommend whether there is cause to remove Governor Cook from her position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The Committee may establish additional procedures or make reasonable changes to the above procedures as necessary or appropriate and shall give Governor Cook adequate notice of any such changes.

The Counsel to the President shall transmit a copy of this memorandum to Governor Cook, to the members of the Committee, and to the Attorney General.

So, in essence, Trump’s going to conduct a closed-door, mock trial at the White House. That’s rather unnerving, isn’t it?

Cook’s attorneys are skeptical. “[We have] grave doubts that this ‘hearing’ is a legitimate one,” they said. The scare quotes around “hearing” are in the original statement, which went on to say that if there’s any justice left in America, Cook will be cleared of mortgage fraud allegations, “leaving no cause to remove her from the Federal Reserve Board.”

At the risk of overstating the case, the results of this “hearing” (and I too will employ scare quotes) will be a litmus test for how far down the road the country is towards an Erdogan-style autocracy.

If the point is simply to harass, bully and intimidate Cook, then democracy’s perhaps not irretrievably lost. If, on the other hand, this is merely “a box checking exercise,” as Cook’s lawyers warned it might be, and Trump’s already decided the “verdict” will be guilty, well then we’re in more trouble that we knew about.

Simply put: The prospect of Trump convening quasi-judicial proceedings at the White House, where the three-person “jury” includes an unapologetic toady like Kevin Hassett, is highly disconcerting, regardless of outcome. I assume Cook would sue again in the event Trump re-fires her.