Pulte renews mortgage fraud allegations against Lisa Cook after Supreme Court ruling

Skip to content

Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), reiterated his allegations of mortgage fraud against Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook on Monday, after the Supreme Court blocked President Trump from immediately firing her for cause.

“As I have repeatedly said, I believe Lisa Cook will be indicted for mortgage fraud,” Pulte wrote on social platform X.

On Monday, a divided Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Cook, an appointee of former President Biden, can remain on the central bank’s board of governors while her legal challenge to Trump’s attempt to remove her runs its course. The decision sent the case to a lower court.

The president attempted to fire Cook last August, after Pulte alleged she illegally designated properties in Michigan and Georgia as primary residences for financial purposes.

In those allegations, Pulte included photographs of Cook apparently signing on to applications to two different primary residences — one in Michigan and another described as an “Atlanta condo.”

Pulte, a Trump campaign donor, has also referred New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) for prosecution over mortgage fraud allegations. James successfully sued the Trump Organization over allegations of fraud between the president’s two terms in office.

In addition to his role as director of the FHFA, Pulte has served as acting director of national intelligence since June 19, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressing concern about his credentials and partisanship.

The move by Trump to fire Cook marked the first time a president has tried to remove a board member of the central bank in the body’s 112-year history.

Cook, meanwhile, has not been criminally charged and has denied wrongdoing. She has also argued Trump is trying to fire her over his dissatisfaction with the Fed not lowering interest rates sooner last year.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in preventing the president from immediately removing Cook. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.

Roberts wrote in his majority opinion the issue of whether the president can remove Cook “will depend in part on the underlying facts” of the case.

“In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards,” the chief justice added. “Rather, we have simply addressed the parties’ arguments about the appropriate legal standards under which the facts must be evaluated.”

Thomas, meanwhile, wrote in his dissenting opinion that the Supreme Court should take issue with the Constitution and not the president if it prefers an “independent” Fed board.

“Regardless of whether unaccountable executive officers like Cook would better govern the economy, the Framers rejected such a ‘promised land of technocratic governance.’ They instead chose government by the people,” Thomas added.

“As a court, our duty is not to second-guess that decision, but to uphold it,” the conservative justice argued, referring to Trump’s attempt to fire Cook.

After the high court issued its ruling, Trump doubled down on his push to fire the Fed board member, writing on Truth Social his administration “will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone [Cook] who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions” concerning the country.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Read the full story at The Hill ↗ · The Hill ↗

On Monday, the Supreme Court blocked President Trump from immediately removing Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, allowing her to remain in her position while the case proceeds to lower court. FHFA director Bill Pulte, a Trump campaign donor, has alleged that Cook illegally designated properties in Michigan and Georgia as primary residences for financial purposes, and stated he believes she will face mortgage fraud charges. Cook has neither been criminally charged nor convicted, and she denies the allegations. She has characterized Trump's removal effort as retaliation for the Fed's interest rate decisions. The 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh joining the three liberal justices, centered on legal procedure rather than the factual merits of the underlying claims. The four conservative dissenters argued the President should have broader removal authority. This marks the first presidential attempt to remove a Federal Reserve board member in 112 years.

Read the full story at The Hill ↗ · The Hill ↗

Skip to content

Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), reiterated his allegations of mortgage fraud against Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook on Monday, after the Supreme Court blocked President Trump from immediately firing her for cause.

“As I have repeatedly said, I believe Lisa Cook will be indicted for mortgage fraud,” Pulte wrote on social platform X.

On Monday, a divided Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Cook, an appointee of former President Biden, can remain on the central bank’s board of governors while her legal challenge to Trump’s attempt to remove her runs its course. The decision sent the case to a lower court.

The president attempted to fire Cook last August, after Pulte alleged she illegally designated properties in Michigan and Georgia as primary residences for financial purposes.

In those allegations, Pulte included photographs of Cook apparently signing on to applications to two different primary residences — one in Michigan and another described as an “Atlanta condo.”

Pulte, a Trump campaign donor, has also referred New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) for prosecution over mortgage fraud allegations. James successfully sued the Trump Organization over allegations of fraud between the president’s two terms in office.

In addition to his role as director of the FHFA, Pulte has served as acting director of national intelligence since June 19, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressing concern about his credentials and partisanship.

The move by Trump to fire Cook marked the first time a president has tried to remove a board member of the central bank in the body’s 112-year history.

Cook, meanwhile, has not been criminally charged and has denied wrongdoing. She has also argued Trump is trying to fire her over his dissatisfaction with the Fed not lowering interest rates sooner last year.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in preventing the president from immediately removing Cook. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.

Roberts wrote in his majority opinion the issue of whether the president can remove Cook “will depend in part on the underlying facts” of the case.

“In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards,” the chief justice added. “Rather, we have simply addressed the parties’ arguments about the appropriate legal standards under which the facts must be evaluated.”

Thomas, meanwhile, wrote in his dissenting opinion that the Supreme Court should take issue with the Constitution and not the president if it prefers an “independent” Fed board.

“Regardless of whether unaccountable executive officers like Cook would better govern the economy, the Framers rejected such a ‘promised land of technocratic governance.’ They instead chose government by the people,” Thomas added.

“As a court, our duty is not to second-guess that decision, but to uphold it,” the conservative justice argued, referring to Trump’s attempt to fire Cook.

After the high court issued its ruling, Trump doubled down on his push to fire the Fed board member, writing on Truth Social his administration “will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone [Cook] who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions” concerning the country.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Read the full story at The Hill ↗ · The Hill ↗

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday that Lisa Cook can remain on the Federal Reserve board while her legal challenge proceeds. Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged Cook illegally designated properties in Michigan and Georgia as primary residences for financial purposes. Pulte stated he believes Cook will be indicted for mortgage fraud. Cook has not been criminally charged and denies wrongdoing. Cook argues Trump is attempting to remove her because of disagreement over Federal Reserve interest rate policy. This is the first time a U.S. president has attempted to remove a Federal Reserve board member in the institution's 112-year history. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Supreme Court did not address the underlying facts, leaving those determinations to lower courts. Trump stated his administration will take appropriate action to ensure Cook does not make vital decisions.

Read the full story at The Hill ↗ · The Hill ↗

• The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday that Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook can remain in her position while her legal challenge to President Trump's removal attempt proceeds to lower court.
• FHFA director Bill Pulte reiterated allegations that Cook illegally designated properties in Michigan and Georgia as primary residences, and stated he believes she will be indicted for mortgage fraud.
• Cook has not been criminally charged and denies wrongdoing, arguing Trump is attempting to remove her due to disagreement over Federal Reserve interest rate policy.
• The ruling marked the first time a U.S. president has attempted to remove a Federal Reserve board member in the institution's 112-year history.
• Chief Justice Roberts noted the Supreme Court did not evaluate the underlying facts, leaving that determination to lower courts.