继续争夺美联储，特朗普宣布解雇美联储理事库克，库克称继续履职

Core Viewpoint - The legal battle surrounding Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve Board member, is not just about her career but the future of the Federal Reserve's independence and its ability to operate free from political interference [1][16]. Legal Context - The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against former President Donald Trump's emergency request to block the White House from firing Cook, reinforcing the legal protections for Federal Reserve officials [1][7]. - The Federal Reserve Act requires "just cause" for the dismissal of a board member, typically involving serious misconduct during their tenure, which Trump's allegations did not meet [7][9]. Allegations and Defense - Trump's administration accused Cook of mortgage fraud related to her obtaining favorable loans before her appointment, but these claims were deemed insufficient to justify her dismissal [5][7]. - The court noted that Cook had not faced criminal charges and that the allegations were unrelated to her duties as a Federal Reserve member [7]. Political Implications - The attempt to remove Cook is seen as part of a broader strategy by the White House to reshape the Federal Reserve's leadership, aiming to replace dissenting voices with allies [8][16]. - Cook's appointment was politically contentious, and her removal would symbolize a significant shift in the Federal Reserve's independence, which Trump has criticized for its monetary policy decisions [8][11]. Court's Concerns - The court expressed concerns that allowing the president to dismiss Federal Reserve members at will could lead to market instability and undermine the credibility built over a century [9][11]. - The potential for repeated legal battles over the dismissal of board members could disrupt the Federal Reserve's decision-making process and policy continuity [9][11]. Future Outlook - Although Cook has temporarily retained her position and will participate in upcoming interest rate meetings, the legal struggle may continue, with expectations that Trump’s side could appeal to the Supreme Court [13]. - The case represents a critical test of the limits of political pressure on an independent economic governance institution, highlighting vulnerabilities within the system [16].