On the menu today: President Trump announces he has fired Lisa Cook, a member of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve system; Cook contends that as a member of an independent central bank, the president doesn’t have the authority to fire her. This is likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, hinging on whether the accusation, not indictment or conviction, of declaring on more than one mortgage application that two separate locations are her “primary residence” is sufficient reason for the president to fire her. Elsewhere, the New York Times learns that the Democratic National Committee spent much of this year covering the unpaid bills from the Kamala Harris presidential campaign. Meanwhile, you will not believe which celebrity is now contending that studios should refrain from portraying same-sex relationships in movies aimed at very young children. Read on.

Yes, There Will Be a Court Battle Over Trump’s Dismissal of a Member of the Fed

In 1935, the Supreme Court addressed the question of when and how a president can fire a member of an independent agency, in the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States:

The authority of Congress, in creating quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies, to require them to act in discharge of their duties independently of executive control cannot well be doubted, and that authority includes, as an appropriate incident, power to fix the period during which they shall continue in office, and to forbid their removal except for cause in the meantime.

So, it comes down to how the law defines “for cause.” There is no one uniform definition, but “agreements typically define it as ‘willful or gross misconduct, moral turpitude, failure to perform duties, or breach of fiduciary duty.’ Less frequently, sexual harassment, substance abuse or incompetence are specifically included as grounds for termination for cause.”

In May, the independence of the Federal Reserve came up in the majority opinion of Trump vs. Wilcox, about Trump’s decision to fire Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Lawyers for Wilcox and Harris argued that upholding their firings would create the precedent that the president could fire members of the Federal Reserve Board:

Nor is the government able to meaningfully distinguish the Federal Reserve Board, whose independence is critical to the nation’s economic welfare. At a time when the President is publicly pressuring the Fed Chair on monetary policy, experts warn that any signal from this Court that the Fed’s independence is in jeopardy will further unsettle jittery markets. This moment calls for orderly process and sober deliberation—not a destabilizing rush to judgment.

While the Supreme Court’s majority upheld Trump’s right to fire members of those boards, it specifically rejected the argument that the precedent in that case would apply to the Federal Reserve, concluding, “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.” Court watchers interpreted this as the court warning Donald Trump that he did not have the constitutional authority to fire members of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve system without cause.

If that line in the majority opinion was a warning, President Trump ignored it.

At 8:02 p.m. Monday, President Trump posted to Truth Social a letter to Lisa Cook, a member of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve system, declaring that she was fired from the board. Trump contended that he did have cause, writing:

You signed one document attesting that a property in Michigan would be your primary residence for the next year. Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating that it would be your primary residence for the next year. It is inconceivable that you were not aware of your first commitment when making the second. It is impossible that you intended to honor both.

At some point, the Supreme Court is likely to be asked to weigh in on Cook’s firing. But at first glance, there are some challenges to Trump’s position.

There is a criminal referral letter from William J. Pulte, director of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, to the U.S. Department of Justice, accusing Cook of committing fraud by separately declaring two properties as her primary residence. Pulte is a philanthropist and longtime donor to the GOP. A week ago, Pulte contended that Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was “harboring” Cook, terminology usually reserved for wanted felons.

But as of this writing, Cook has not been indicted or charged with any crime. She certainly hasn’t been convicted of any crime. As far as we know, no federal prosecutor has even brought this before a grand jury yet.

Georgetown Law School Professor Adam J. Levitin argues that a successful prosecution of Cook would hardly be a slam-dunk:

Let’s consider the statutes that Pulte referenced in his referral. First, he referenced 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which criminalizes false statements in loan applications. The covenants in the security instruments are not “statements.” They are promises, not representations of current fact, so they cannot be false. A misrepresentation about intended occupancy on the Uniform Residential Mortgage Application could trigger 18 U.S.C. § 1014, but the representation there, that property will be the borrower’s “primary residence,” is very narrow given that no duration is specified. That vagueness cuts against a criminal prosecution. . . .
Most borrowers do not read their security instruments, so it is entirely possible that Cook had no idea what she was promising beyond that she would pay the mortgage note when installments came due. While contract law readily tags consumers with constructive knowledge of the terms and conditions of their prolix form contracts, criminal law doesn’t work like that.
Moreover, even if Cook did know that she was promising to have both properties be her “principal residence,” it isn’t clear that she was making a false promise. The term “principal residence” is not a defined in the security instruments, but it is not the same phrasing as “primary residence” (as used in the UMRA). “Principal” is more capacious than “primary,” and is capable of covering multiple residences. Imagine someone who has an co-op in NYC, a house in the New York suburbs, and a condo in Florida and splits time among all three depending on seasons and days of the week, spending roughly a third of the year at each. That person might very well consider himself to have more than one principal residence.

At some point in the near future, the U.S. solicitor general is going to argue before the Supreme Court that the mere accusation of a crime — not even an indictment — is sufficient cause for the president to fire a member of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve system. Based upon that line in Trump vs. Wilcox, it is likely that a majority will greet that assertion with extreme skepticism.

Kamala Harris Was Just the Worst, Continued

I now suspect that Kamala Harris will not run for president in 2028. Between now and the end of 2026, when the 2028 Democratic presidential primary will unofficially be in gear, it will become abundantly clear even to Harris that her chances of winning the primary will be close to nil. She was handed a gift-wrapped nomination in mid-summer of last year, enjoyed a wave of gushing national press coverage focusing on her so-called “joy,” seemed to have a good convention and good debate, and in the end went 0-for-7 in the key swing states. Nothing about a 2028 presidential campaign would be easier.

Along the way, Harris and her campaign spent more money than any presidential campaign had ever spent — $1.5 billion over 15 weeks, or in what’s pretty easy math, roughly $100 million per week. (The Biden and Harris campaigns collectively raised about $2.15 billion during the 2024 cycle.) After Harris had lost, people noticed that her campaign was still sending out fundraising emails. Patrick Stauffer, the campaign’s chief financial officer, said in a statement to the New York Times that there had been no outstanding debts or overdue bills as of Election Day. He said that “there will be no debt” on the next Democratic National Committee and Harris for President campaign filings in December.

Last night, the Times reported that that pledge from Harris’s campaign was technically true but deeply misleading; there was no debt because the Democratic National Committee had stepped in to cover $20 million in unpaid bills. “The agreement with Ms. Harris helps to explain the seeming dissonance between the party’s promotion of record fund-raising while it reports dwindling cash on hand.”

If you are a Democrat, you should be working on your Kamala Harris voodoo doll right about now. Sure, it’s an off year, but that doesn’t mean that there are no elections going on and no Democratic candidates who could use help from the DNC — six special House elections held or scheduled to be held, two gubernatorial races, two state supreme court races, state legislative elections for the New Jersey General Assembly and Virginia House of Delegates, mayoral elections all over the country. And at the end of July, the DNC has $15 million in cash on hand while the Republican National Committee has $80 million.

The Harris campaign didn’t just torpedo the hopes of Democrats in the 2024 cycle; they put the Democratic Party at a disadvantage to start the 2026 cycle.

A line I wish I had written: “That campaign was a bonfire of many vanities, and a bonfire of even more cash.”

That Proud Defender of Traditional Conservative Values . . . Snoop Dogg

Hey, remember when the cultural left argued that only prudish fuddy-duddies were bothered by the depiction of gay couples in children’s movies and television?

Snoop Dogg, one of the most famous rappers of all time, has some thoughts on the subject:

Snoop Dogg says he’s “scared to go to the movies” due to what he perceives to be an increase in LGBTQ+ representation in children’s films.
“What you see is what you see, and they’re putting it everywhere,” he said on a recent episode of the It’s Giving podcast.
The rapper and pop culture personality described taking his grandson to see 2022’s Lightyear, and being shocked to discover that one of the animated film’s protagonists has two mothers.
“They’re like, ‘She had a baby — with another woman.’ Well, my grandson, in the middle of the movie is like, ‘Papa Snoop? How she have a baby with a woman? She’s a woman!'”
Snoop recalled thinking, “‘Oh sh**, I didn’t come in for this sh**. I just came to watch the ***damn movie.’ . . .”
The rapper reflected that the experience “f***ed me up. I’m like, scared to go to the movies. Y’all throwing me in the middle of sh** that I don’t have an answer for.”

For those who will instinctively sneer and say, “Okay, boomer,” I would note that Snoop Dogg is 53 years old.

Notice that Mr. Dogg didn’t say that films should never portray gay or lesbian characters. He simply didn’t want scenes depicting them shoehorned into children’s programming, because they’re introducing concepts that kids in the audience aren’t ready to encounter. Whether the Hollywood creative class likes to hear it or not, there are a lot of parents in the audience who feel that way, and when they go to see an animated movie about the adventures of a spaceman, they don’t like having the story paused for a “Heather Has Two Mommies” lesson.

Now, in the eyes of some corners of the LGBTQ-and-whatever-new-letters-I’ve-forgotten community, Snoop Dogg must be destroyed: “The comments by the 53-year-old rapper, born Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr., have led to calls for him to be replaced as the headline entertainer at the upcoming Australian Football League’s Grand Final.”

It’s a bit ironic, after Snoop Dogg was so ubiquitous in NBC Sports coverage of the 2024 Paris Olympics. The BBC even called him “America’s cheerleader.”

Back in July 2023, this newsletter wrote:

Snoop Dogg has turned into this oddly warm-and-fuzzy, corporate-America-approved national spokesman for marijuana use (language warning for that scene from the reboot of Starsky and Hutch), despite hanging around dangerous convicted felons like, er, Martha Stewart. (Those hip-hop icons of the 1990s sure evolved, didn’t they? Snoop Dogg hangs around with America’s favorite homemaker, Ice Cube ended up making family-road-trip comedies, and Ice T, once best known for “Cop Killer,” ended up playing an NYPD detective for 23 years. Middle age comes for us all, gentlemen.)

ADDENDUM: In case you missed it yesterday, another case in which the policies at the Department of Defense in place under Pete Hegseth and Elbridge Colby were the exact opposite of what President Trump said he wanted.