Posted on 01/18/2026 7:48:08 AM PST by RandFan
President Trump’s power over the Federal Reserve will be front and center at the Supreme Court next week.
The justices on Wednesday will hear arguments on whether Trump can fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook over accusations of mortgage fraud.
Looming over it all is the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Jerome Powell, the Fed’s chair, which came into public view last weekend.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Banksters run everything so I don’t think the SCOTUS will go along with Trump
There are three branches of government, each beholden to the people.
There are not four or five branches independent of political control by the people.
No Kings!
Yes. They will affirm the “independence” of the Fed. Take it to the bank (ha!)
I wonder what the odds are on the prediction markets? We could make some $ maybe for the site on this insightful analysis?
The irony of course is that the Fed is not even constitutional itself
The Federal Reserve is the most corrupt harebrained concept that could ever emerge from a corrupt Congress. And it is unconstitutional, I might add. Our Founders could never have imagined Congress turning over its currency responsibility to a private banking consortium that it can’t control.
It’s very ironic.
I wonder if any justices will mention that point
It will be interesting to read the opinions of the justices who can detect an authority in the Constitution which authorizes the creation of a fully independent and unaccountable organization that has the power over government at all levels.
Well, the mere fact that we are $38.6 Trillion dollars in debt shows how bad the “system” is.
SCOTUS uber alles.....
Didn’t he just win a case after firing someone from one of those ‘independent’ agencies? I would think the rulings would have to be consistent. Just did a quick search & got back this:
President Trump won key Supreme Court rulings expanding his power to fire heads of independent agencies, notably in
Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) regarding the single-director Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and later, through interim orders in 2025, allowing firings at the NLRB and MSPB, signaling a shift away from strong for-cause protections for many independent agency leaders by finding such restrictions unconstitutional under separation of powers.
Key Case: Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020)
The Issue: The law creating the CFPB allowed its single director to be fired only for “cause,” creating a potential conflict with presidential authority.
The Ruling: The Supreme Court found the CFPB’s single-director structure unconstitutional, ruling that the President must have the power to fire the agency head at will, thereby removing the for-cause restriction.
Later Developments (2025)
NLRB & MSPB: In 2025, the Supreme Court granted emergency requests, allowing the Trump administration to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) despite existing for-cause protections, expanding presidential control.
FTC Case (Trump v. Slaughter): The Court heard arguments in a related case involving an FTC member (Rebecca Slaughter) and appeared likely to rule for Trump, further solidifying broader presidential removal powers over independent agencies, overturning precedents like Humphrey’s Executor that favored agency independence.
In essence, these decisions chipped away at the long-standing concept of independent agencies, granting presidents more direct control over their leadership.
Is the Federal reserve in the Constitution?
Supreme Court prepares to weigh Trump’s power over Federal Reserve
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
Except to twist constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities in defense of Democratic and RINO politically correct, vote-winning civil rights, today's Supremes seem to rarely try to make sure that a challenged official action of the unconstitutionally big federal government, the president's power over the Federal Reserve (FR) in this example, is reasonably constitutionally justifiable.
Given that the Constitution's drafters gave the specific power to regulate the value of money to Congress, subject to a possible veto by the president, Constitution-ignoring activist President Wilson wrongly ignored first successfully leading the states to amend the Constitution to repeal appropriate wording in the Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 in order to constitutionally justify signing Congress's Federal Reserve Act that established the otherwise constitutionally undefined FR imo.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof [emphasis added], and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
In other words, the establishment of the FR is evidence of the emergence of federal career lawmakers who evidently don't want to take responsibility for the actually very few constitutionally enumerated powers that voters trust them with imo.
In fact, not only did FR wrongly destroy the president's power to sign or veto money regulating legislation, but since it remains that ordinary voters can indirectly regulate the value of money with their votes in the absence of a required (imo) FR amendment, the establishment of the non-popularly elected FR president arguably wrongly weakened their voting power in that context.
So misguided, institutionally indoctrinated justices are actually trying to decide if Trump47 is trying to fire somebody from a position that doesn't constitutionally exist imo.
I want to see how many will point this out
Shes a little fish.
Lets just cut to the chase, is the Fed constitutional ??
If not then all of em are looking for new jobs
E N D the F E D
Do you really want Congressional politics in control of banking - controlling monetary policy? (Imagine Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell working their financial magic!) People didn’t like people like JP Morgan being the last word, even though it mostly worked.
The Federal Reserve is a bad compromise between those that hate big private banks\bankers (e.g. JP Morgan) and want politics involved so “the people” can work financial magic and solve those “up & down” problems.
Read “A History of the United States in Five Crashes: Stock Market Meltdowns that Defined a Nation” and “The Panic of 1907”. (It’s hard to find books on this that are “just the facts” and not totally ideological!) And yes I’ve read every book Milton Friedman has published.
Almost all are problems are caused by politicians jiggling “finance” for their political benefit from LBJ, to Obama to now!
I’m convinced the problem is really “us”. We all want “magic”; something for nothing, big gains, big prosperity no risk, no effort and we vote to varying degrees accordingly!
“This will be interesting. I reckon Trump will lose this one to the all-powerful banksters. That’s my prediction.”
Trump should stop fighting with Thomas Massie and help promote Massie’s abolish-the-fed bill.
Yes, even though Massie is acting a fool and picking fights. Trump needs Massie’s help.
Nobody else in Congress seems to have the spine to abolish the fed.
“Do you really want Congressional politics in control of banking - controlling monetary policy?”
So, you prefer unelected, unaccountable, foreign bankers controlling the money supply. According to the Constitution, that is the responsibility of Congress.
“The Federal Reserve is a bad compromise between those that hate big private banks\bankers (e.g. JP Morgan) and want politics involved so “the people” can work financial magic and solve those “up & down” problems.”
You need to let go of your “magic” obsession. You can’t find that desire in American money history.
“Read “A History of the United States in Five Crashes”
You need to check the record of inflation in the United States. Before the Fed, it was virtually nonexistent.
We will always have financial cycles. The Fed makes them worse.
“Almost all are problems are caused by politicians jiggling “finance” for their political benefit from LBJ, to Obama to now!”
And they hide behind the Fed.
“I’m convinced the problem is really “us”.”
No it is not. The average person is too busy working for a living than to sit around and delve into financial theory.
I must be the only person is the world who recalls a conversation a reporter had with an economist when Nixon broke the connection with gold and the dollar. The economist was asked: “Now, then, what would keep the Fed from just printing money?” The economist answered: “Nothing, except the sure knowledge it would wreck the dollar and the economy.”
“Is the Federal reserve in the Constitution?”
If nobody in congress besides Thomas Massie wants to abolish the fed then that is our biggest problem.
We need to fix congress.
If we could go from just one person who supports abolishing the fed to let’s say, 5 members of congress who support abolishing the fed that would be an 80% improvement.
“Do you really want Congressional politics in control of banking - controlling monetary policy?”
Yes.
That is what the Constitution says.
What should be revealed, is the Federal Reserve, has no reserves, and is not a government body. It answers to a “HIGHER AUTHORITY”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.