Trump Administration Live Updates: Lisa Cook Fed Lawsuit, Kamala Harris Secret Service Revoked & Border Crackdown
Trump Administration Live Updates: Lisa Cook Fed Lawsuit, Kamala Harris Secret Service Revoked & Border Crackdown
Key Takeaways
- Fed Governor Lisa Cook filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump's "unprecedented and illegal attempt to remove" her from the Federal Reserve
- A federal judge scheduled a Friday hearing on Cook's bid to temporarily block her removal
- Trump revoked Kamala Harris' Secret Service protection on Thursday, ending coverage that Biden had extended
- Harris loses protection on September 1, just as she begins her book tour
- Border encounters dropped 35% in Trump's first three days compared to Biden's final days
- Immigration raids now target longtime residents and workers, not just criminal immigrants
Article Outline
1. Fed Governor Lisa Cook Fights Back
- Legal challenge to Trump's firing authority
- Mortgage fraud allegations as removal basis
- Constitutional showdown brewing
2. The Federal Reserve Independence Question
- Presidential power limits over Fed governors
- Historical precedent for removal attempts
- Economic implications of political interference
3. Kamala Harris Loses Secret Service Detail
- Biden's extension order overturned
- Timing coincides with book tour launch
- Security concerns for former VP
4. Secret Service Protection Rules
- Standard coverage periods for former officials
- Executive authority over security details
- Political implications of revocation
5. Border Crackdown Expands Scope
- Workplace raids target long-term residents
- Deportation numbers and methods
- ICE operational changes
6. Immigration Enforcement Reality
- Public opinion on Trump's approach
- Economic impact on businesses
- Legal challenges to expanded raids
7. Constitutional Powers in Question
- Executive branch authority limits
- Separation of powers tensions
- Supreme Court implications
8. What Comes Next
- Upcoming court dates and decisions
- Political ramifications
- Long-term institutional impacts
Fed Governor Lisa Cook Fights Back
The woman who made history as the first Black economist on the Federal Reserve Board isn't going down without a fight. Lisa Cook filed a lawsuit challenging what her suit calls President Trump's "unprecedented and illegal attempt to remove" her.
Trump tried to fire Cook on Sunday, citing mortgage fraud allegations that surfaced from his administration's own appointees. The allegations came from Federal Housing Finance Authority Director Bill Pulte on August 20. Cook's legal team calls it a pretext , a convenient excuse to remove someone Trump doesn't want on the Fed.
In her lawsuit, Cook seeks a declaration that her "August 25, 2025 purported firing is unlawful and void and that Governor Cook remains an active member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve". She also wants the court to rule that unsubstantiated mortgage fraud allegations before confirmation aren't grounds for removal.
The case landed in federal court in Washington. Judge Jia Cobb, appointed by Biden in 2021, scheduled a hearing for 10 a.m. Friday on Cook's request to temporarily block her removal while the case proceeds. This hearing could determine whether Cook keeps her job while fighting the larger constitutional question.
Cook's attorney, Abbe Lowell, came out swinging. He stated flatly that Trump lacks authority to remove Cook from her position. The legal challenge sets up what could become a landmark case about presidential power over independent agencies. Cook argues that Fed governors serve 14-year terms specifically to insulate monetary policy from political interference.
The mortgage fraud allegations appear thin. Cook describes them as "an unsubstantiated allegation" from before her Senate confirmation. If these allegations had merit, senators would have discovered them during her confirmation process. Instead, Cook suggests Trump manufactured a reason to remove her after the fact.
Federal Reserve independence has been a cornerstone of American monetary policy for decades. Cook's case could determine whether future presidents can fire Fed governors based on politically motivated allegations. The stakes extend far beyond one person's job , they involve the credibility of America's central banking system.
The Federal Reserve Independence Question
The Federal Reserve operates under a unique structure designed to shield monetary policy from political pressure. Fed governors serve 14-year terms that span multiple presidential administrations. This system exists for good reason , central bank independence correlates with economic stability.
Presidents appoint Fed governors, but they can't fire them at will. The Federal Reserve Act allows removal only "for cause" , a deliberately vague term that has never been tested in federal court. Cook's lawsuit portrays Trump's attempt as a power grab that could cause "irreparable harm" to the US economy.
Presidents have clashed with Fed chairs before. Truman tried to pressure the Fed during the Korean War. Nixon wanted easier money policies. Reagan disagreed with Paul Volcker's tight money approach. But none actually fired a Fed governor based on personal allegations unrelated to job performance.
Trump's action breaks new ground. He's attempting to remove Cook not for monetary policy disagreements but for alleged pre-confirmation conduct. This precedent could allow future presidents to manufacture reasons for removing Fed governors who disagree with their economic policies.
The independence question extends beyond monetary policy. If presidents can fire Fed governors based on unsubstantiated allegations, what stops them from threatening other independent agency officials? The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission all operate with similar independence protections.
Cook's case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. The current court has shown willingness to expand executive power in some areas while limiting it in others. How they rule on Cook's case could reshape the balance between presidential authority and agency independence.
Economic markets hate uncertainty. The longer this case drags on, the more questions investors will have about Fed independence. Bond markets, currency values, and interest rate expectations all depend on the perception that the Fed operates free from political interference.
Cook's 14-year term runs until 2030. If she wins, she stays put. If Trump prevails, he sets a precedent that future presidents can use to reshape independent agencies based on political calculations rather than policy expertise.
Kamala Harris Loses Secret Service Detail
The woman who almost became president just lost her bodyguards. Trump revoked Kamala Harris' Secret Service protection on Thursday, cutting short an extension that Biden had quietly arranged before leaving office.
Former President Joe Biden signed an executive memorandum before leaving office which extended Harris' protection for an additional year after the normal six months that former vice presidents received. Trump discovered Biden's order and killed it with his own directive.
The directive states: "You are hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by Executive Memorandum, beyond those required by law, for the following individual, effective September 1, 2025: Former Vice President Kamala D. Harris".
The timing appears deliberate. Harris loses protection ahead of her public book tour, which starts on September 23. She'll be making public appearances across the country without federal security just weeks after losing her detail.
Harris represented the Democratic opposition in the 2024 election. She commanded massive rallies, raised hundreds of millions in donations, and came close to winning the presidency. Former presidential candidates typically receive ongoing Secret Service protection due to continued security threats.
The decision raises practical questions about Harris's safety. Vice presidents and presidential candidates receive threats throughout their careers. These threats don't disappear when they leave office , they often intensify based on the person's continued political profile.
Biden's extension recognized this reality. Harris remains a prominent political figure with significant influence in Democratic politics. She gives speeches, appears on television, and participates in party events. All these activities create security risks that the Secret Service typically manages.
Trump's revocation sends a clear message about how he views political opponents. While legal, the move breaks with traditions designed to protect former high-ranking officials from ongoing security threats. Harris must now arrange private security for her book tour and other public appearances.
Secret Service Protection Rules
Secret Service protection operates under a complex set of rules that balance security needs with budget constraints. Former vice presidents typically receive six months of Secret Service protection upon leaving office. This standard coverage recognizes that security threats don't immediately disappear when officials leave office.
Presidents have authority to extend or revoke protection beyond legally mandated minimums. Biden used this authority to give Harris an extra year of coverage. Trump used the same authority to end that extension early.
The decision affects more than just Harris. It establishes precedent for how future administrations handle protection for political opponents. If presidents routinely revoke extended protection for members of the opposing party, it could create security gaps for former high-ranking officials.
Budget considerations play a role in protection decisions. Secret Service details cost millions annually per protectee. The agency faces resource constraints that limit how many people can receive full-time protection simultaneously. Trump's decision frees up agents for other assignments.
Security assessments typically drive protection decisions. The Secret Service evaluates threat levels, public profiles, and risk factors when recommending coverage periods. Harris's threat assessment likely supported Biden's extension , and Trump apparently disagreed with that assessment.
Former presidents receive lifetime protection regardless of political considerations. Former vice presidents get less coverage because they typically face fewer ongoing threats. But Harris's case differs from typical former vice presidents because she was also a recent presidential candidate.
The book tour creates additional complications. Public appearances generate crowds, media coverage, and potential security incidents. Private security firms can provide protection, but they lack the Secret Service's resources, training, and coordination capabilities with local law enforcement.
State and local authorities might step up protection during Harris's book tour appearances. Major cities often provide security for high-profile visitors regardless of federal protection status. But this patchwork approach creates inconsistencies and potential gaps in coverage.
Border Crackdown Expands Scope
Trump's immigration enforcement machine shifted into high gear the moment he took office. Border Patrol encounters at the southern border dropped 35% in the first three days of the Trump administration compared to Biden's final three days. But the real action happens inland, where ICE agents conduct workplace raids and residential arrests.
The operation expanded beyond Trump's campaign promises. The administration promised to deport the "worst of the worst" criminal immigrants, but is now detaining undocumented workers with no serious criminal record. Factory workers, restaurant employees, and construction crews face arrest alongside violent criminals.
ICE arrested over 370 illegal immigrants in Massachusetts as part of a major operation , many with serious criminal convictions including murder, child rape, fentanyl trafficking, and armed robbery. But mixed in with these serious criminals were longtime residents with clean records who happened to be in the wrong place during raids.
Documents obtained by CBS in August 2025 show the United States signed deportation agreements with Honduras and Uganda. The Uganda deal particularly stands out , African and Asian asylum seekers who entered through the Mexican border will be sent to Uganda rather than their home countries.
Workplace raids create ripple effects throughout the economy. Some facilities report staff staying home to avoid potential raids, while others scramble to fill shifts with little notice. In Florida, one senior living center lost 10 employees during a single operation.
The fear extends to legal immigrants. The crackdown has triggered fear among legally present workers, slowed visa approvals, and discouraged new applicants. Green card holders worry about traveling internationally, while visa applicants face longer waiting times.
ICE operates with broader authority under Trump's directives. Agents can arrest anyone they encounter during operations, not just their specific targets. This "collateral enforcement" approach increases arrest numbers but also sweeps up people who weren't originally under investigation.
The administration frames enforcement as public safety. Removing criminals and gang members protects American communities. But critics argue that mixing workplace raids with criminal enforcement undermines both goals by making immigrant communities afraid to cooperate with police or report crimes.
Immigration Enforcement Reality
Public opinion on Trump's immigration approach splits along predictable lines. A Pew Research Center survey found 54% disapprove of increasing ICE raids on workplaces where people who are in the U.S. illegally may be working, while 45% approve. The division reflects broader disagreements about immigration policy.
The numbers tell part of the story. The immigrant population in the U.S. declined after Trump took office and launched an aggressive deportation campaign. Some left voluntarily rather than risk arrest. Others moved to sanctuary cities or states with more protective policies.
Economic impacts ripple through industries that rely on immigrant labor. Agriculture, hospitality, construction, and healthcare face worker shortages as employees disappear. Trump promised the largest mass deportation in U.S history, targeting the more than 10 million unauthorized migrants living in the United States.
The logistics challenge is enormous. ICE has roughly 20,000 employees total, including support staff and investigators who don't make arrests. Processing, detaining, and deporting millions of people would require massive resource increases that Congress hasn't approved.
Legal challenges multiply as enforcement expands. Immigration lawyers file habeas corpus petitions, due process claims, and constitutional challenges to raid tactics. Federal courts move slowly, creating backlogs that complicate deportation proceedings.
State and local governments respond differently to federal enforcement. Some cooperate fully with ICE operations. Others limit cooperation through sanctuary policies. Still others actively resist by providing legal aid to immigrants or restricting information sharing with federal agents.
Business groups face conflicting pressures. They want legal certainty and stable workforces. But they also face penalties for employing unauthorized workers. The E-Verify system helps employers check work eligibility, but it creates administrative burdens and doesn't eliminate all problems.
The humanitarian costs grow as enforcement intensifies. Families separate when some members face deportation while others have legal status. Children born in the U.S. become effectively orphaned when parents get removed. Community organizations strain to provide services as people avoid seeking help.
Constitutional Powers in Question
Three separate constitutional crises simmer simultaneously in Washington. Cook's Fed lawsuit challenges presidential removal authority. Harris's protection revocation tests executive security powers. Immigration enforcement pushes the limits of federal police powers.
The Cook case could reach the Supreme Court fastest. Judge Cobb's Friday hearing will determine whether Cook keeps her job while fighting the broader constitutional question. If she loses the temporary restraining order, Trump effectively wins by removing her before higher courts can rule.
Presidential removal power over agency officials remains murky. The Supreme Court has ruled on some cases but left gaps that the Cook litigation could fill. If Trump can fire Fed governors for pre-confirmation conduct, no independent agency official enjoys real job security.
Executive security authority operates under different legal principles. Presidents have broad discretion to allocate protective resources based on threat assessments and budget constraints. Trump's Harris decision appears legally sound even if politically motivated.
Immigration enforcement involves both executive and congressional powers. Congress sets immigration law and funding levels. Presidents determine enforcement priorities and resource allocation. Courts review specific actions for constitutional violations.
The separation of powers doctrine requires all three branches to stay within their constitutional lanes. Congress can't micromanage executive enforcement decisions. Presidents can't ignore laws or court orders. Courts can't substitute their policy preferences for those of elected officials.
But these principles conflict when applied to real situations. Should courts defer to presidential threat assessments about Secret Service protection? Can Congress limit presidential authority over Fed governors? Do constitutional rights apply to immigration enforcement tactics?
The Supreme Court's conservative majority generally supports executive power in national security and immigration contexts. But they've also shown interest in limiting administrative state authority. Cook's case tests whether they view Fed independence as essential to economic stability or as an improper limitation on presidential control.
These cases will define presidential power for future administrations. If Trump wins the Cook lawsuit, future presidents can reshape independent agencies by manufacturing removal justifications. If he loses, agency independence gets stronger constitutional protection.
What Comes Next
The immediate focus centers on Judge Cobb's Friday hearing in Cook's case. She must decide whether to grant a temporary restraining order blocking Cook's removal. This decision determines whether Cook keeps her Fed position while the broader constitutional case proceeds through federal courts.
If Cook wins the TRO, Trump faces a choice. He could appeal immediately to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Or he could let the case proceed in district court while ignoring the judge's order , a constitutional crisis option that most presidents avoid.
Harris's security situation requires more immediate attention. Her protection ends September 1, just weeks before her book tour begins September 23. She needs private security arrangements for public appearances across multiple cities.
The immigration enforcement continues regardless of legal challenges. ICE operations don't require court approval for individual arrests. But constitutional violations during raids could trigger broader injunctions that limit future enforcement tactics.
Congressional Republicans will likely support Trump's actions in all three areas. They view Fed independence as overrated, Harris's protection as unnecessary, and immigration enforcement as overdue. Congressional Democrats will hold hearings and demand investigations, but they lack power to reverse Trump's decisions.
State governments could play larger roles in all three controversies. State attorneys general might join Cook's lawsuit as amici. State security agencies could supplement Harris's protection during book tour stops. State courts might challenge immigration raids that violate state laws.
The 2026 midterm elections provide another accountability mechanism. Voters will judge whether Trump's actions represent necessary corrections to government overreach or dangerous expansions of presidential power. Democratic candidates will likely campaign on restoring institutional norms and constitutional limits.
These cases will establish precedents that outlast Trump's presidency. Future presidents will inherit whatever authority Trump successfully claims. Congress might respond with new laws limiting presidential removal power or mandating protection periods for former officials.
The Supreme Court will ultimately resolve the deepest constitutional questions. Their decisions could reshape the balance between presidential authority and institutional independence for decades. The stakes extend far beyond the immediate disputes to fundamental questions about American governance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can presidents fire Federal Reserve governors?
The Federal Reserve Act allows removal only "for cause," but this has never been tested in federal court. Cook's lawsuit challenges Trump's authority to remove her based on pre-confirmation allegations.
How long do former vice presidents typically get Secret Service protection?
Former vice presidents typically receive six months of Secret Service protection upon leaving office. Biden extended Harris's coverage for an additional year, which Trump has now revoked.
What's the scope of Trump's immigration enforcement?
Trump promised the largest mass deportation in U.S history, targeting over 10 million unauthorized migrants. Current operations target longtime residents and workers, not just criminal immigrants.
When will Cook's case be decided?
Judge Cobb scheduled a Friday hearing on Cook's request for temporary protection. The case will likely end up before the Supreme Court for final resolution.
What happens to Harris's book tour without Secret Service protection?
Harris loses federal protection ahead of her book tour starting September 23. She'll need private security for public appearances across multiple cities.
Are there legal challenges to immigration raids?
Yes, immigration lawyers file constitutional challenges to raid tactics and due process violations. However, individual arrests don't require court approval, allowing enforcement to continue during litigation.
Could Congress restore Fed independence?
Congress could pass laws explicitly limiting presidential removal authority over Fed governors. However, this would require bipartisan support that currently doesn't exist.
What precedent do these cases set?
These disputes will define presidential power limits for future administrations. Court decisions will determine whether Trump successfully expanded executive authority or faced constitutional constraints.