Trump’s Fed War Just Got Worse, Lisa Cook “Firing” Explained, Flag Burning Ban, & Today’s News
PDS Published 08/26/2025
-
We have to talk about the Constitutional standoff between Donald Trump and this woman, Lisa Cook. [Image]
Because Trump just said “you’re fired,” she replied “no I’m not,” and now nobody knows what’s going to happen.
Right, so for context, you should know who Lisa Cook is, and why many people say she’s one of the few people keeping Trump from wrecking the American economy more than he already has.
In short, she’s a very accomplished economist, professor, and since 2022 the first Black woman to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve. [Image]
With Biden appointing her to a 14-year term that ends in 2038, that is, unless she’s removed for cause by the President. [Headline/image]
And now, that’s exactly what Trump is attempting to do, though it’s unclear whether he actually can.
Right, because the law that created the Federal Reserve in 1913 didn’t specify what a legitimate “cause” for removing a board governor would be.
So legal experts generally agree it’s some kind of malfeasance or dereliction of duty, but the question’s never been tested in court because no president in history has ever tried to do this.
But if we know anything about Trump, it’s that he loves bulldozing norms.
So the malfeasance he’s alleging is that in 2021, Cook apparently listed two different properties as her primary residence within two weeks while applying for mortgages on both.
And for context, lenders generally give lower interest rates for primary residences because they’re seen as less risky.
So Trump’s argument is that there’s no legit reason she would have two primary residences at once, therefore this is fraud.
However, when CNN reviewed the mortgage documents, they listed her properties as principal residences, not primary residences. [Quote, find “principal”]
And as experts have pointed out, it’s possible to have more than one principal, and even if it wasn’t, borrowers often don’t even read these specific documents, so her intent would be hard to prove. [Quote, find “capable” and “do not read”]
But regardless, in the past week Trump has called on Cook to resign, then threatened to fire her, and now announced that he’s actually firing her. [Headline, headline, headline]
Which, if his order stands, could give Trump unprecedented control over the Fed.
Right, because he’s already got two appointees on the board from his first term, and this month another member resigned six months earlier than expected. [Headline]
So Trump quickly put one of his own people in her place, and now, if he replaces Cook too, that would give him four allies on the seven-member board. [Headline/image]
Though to actually change interest rates, he would need a majority on the broader 12-member committee of which the board is a part, and that includes five presidents of the regional Fed banks.
But in February, all the bank presidents will be up for renewal, and that has to be approved by the board. [Quote, find “renewal”]
So if Trump controls the board, then he could exert pressure on the committee, and the final nail in the coffin is that he gets to appoint a new Fed chair in May, replacing Gerome Powell.
All of which could give him what he’s been trying to get for months now: very deep interest rate cuts.
Right, because cutting interest rates speeds up the economy, and it makes it easier for the government to finance its budget deficit.
Which is of course something Trump really needs to do after signing his Big Beautiful Bill.
But while lowering rates may be good in the short-term, it’s arguably not so good in the long-term.
Because if the Fed’s independence from political pressure is put in doubt, then so is its credibility as a guard against runaway inflation.
And if investors think there’s a greater risk of inflation in the future, they might compensate for that by raising the interest on their own credit, making mortgages and other long-term loans more expensive for the average American.
Plus too much inflation is just bad in itself.
All of which is why Trump’s advisors have so far convinced him not to fire Jerome Powell, but Trump is getting antsy.
Right, reportedly he wants rate cuts of as much as three whole percentage points. [Quote, find “3 percentage”]
Which, in case that doesn’t sound like much to you, let me be clear; it’s enormous.
Right, even when the Fed cut rates by one point last year, that was considered a lot, and it’s been holding out on any more cuts since then.
So in short, the stakes of firing Cook are huge, which is why everybody’s freaking out about this.
But this is where things get dramatic, because Cook? She’s openly defying the president.
With her saying last week after Trump threatened to fire her:
“I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet. I do intend to take any questions about my financial history seriously as a member of the Federal Reserve and so I am gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts.” [Quote]
And then this week, after he did fire her, or at least told her she was fired, Cook responded:
“President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so.” [Quote]
“I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.” [Quote same link]
With her attorney announcing today that they’re suing the Trump administration, saying:
“President Trump has no authority to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. His attempt to fire her, based solely on a referral letter, lacks any factual or legal basis. We will be filing a lawsuit challenging this illegal action.” [Quote]
And legal experts say that on a first glance, they’ve got a pretty strong case.
Because not only has she not been convicted yet, she hasn’t even been charged; right, all this is based on a criminal referral.
Plus there’s the simple fact that even if the alleged fraud did happen, it took place before she entered her current role.
So whether something completely unrelated to her duties as a board governor counts as “cause” for firing is a separate question the courts would have to answer.
But on the other side, you have Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, making this argument on CNBC:
[Clip, 00:49 - 00:18] Caption: “A governor of the Federal Reserve literally signed her name and commits mortgage fraud. It’s alleged that she’s committed mortgage fraud, and she says ‘I’m not going anywhere.’ Well, the crook always says ‘I’m not going anywhere,’ and why would anybody defend that? [Don’t have time to transcribe rest]
But critics of this move counter that anyone with two eyes and ears can see this has nothing to do with Cook’s supposed mortgage fraud.
With for example one Fed historian telling The Washington Post:
This is the escalation of a prolonged and ongoing assault on the Fed’s legitimacy and the Fed’s independence. It’s for one purpose and one purpose alone: to bully the Fed to dramatically lower interest rates.” [Quote]
And you have the economist Paul Krugman opining on his Substack:
“If Powell caves, or the Supreme Court acts supine again and validates Trump’s illegal declaration, the implications will be profound and disastrous. The United States will be well on its way to becoming Turkey, where an authoritarian ruler imposed his crackpot economics on the central bank, sending inflation soaring to 80 percent.” [Quote]
“And the damage will be felt far beyond the Fed. This will mark the destruction of professionalism and independent thinking throughout the federal government.” [Quote same link]
But this also goes beyond the Fed in another way, and that’s the pattern of Trump using mortgage fraud allegations to persecute his political enemies.
With his administration making the same criminal referral for Letitia James, the New York Attorney General who sued him, and Adam Schiff, the Democratic Senator who led impeachment proceedings against him. [Image and post]
And all three criminal referrals against Cook, James and Schiff came from the same little office in one corner of the federal government: the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA. [Quote, find “all three”]
And that agency’s led by a man named Bill Pulte [Pull-tee]; right, an enthusiastically loyal Trump minion.
And in his role, he oversees two incredibly important, state-run mortgage finance companies you may have heard of: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [Image]
Right, together they guarantee about half the existing home loan market, which is trillions of dollars large.
But back in March, Pulte overhauled their boards, made himself chairman of both, and purged top staff. [Quote, find “overhauled”]
So as a result, experts say he could have access to vast troves of personal mortgage data on millions of Americans. [Quote, find “vast troves”]
So perhaps it’s not a coincidence that he was the first person to accuse Cook of fraud.
With him personally attacking her on social media for a week now, and saying last night:
“If you commit mortgage fraud in America, we will come after you, no matter who you are.” [Post]
And adding, “Fraud will not be tolerated in President Trump’s housing market.” [Post]
But as one expert explained to The Post, mortgage fraud investigations are typically brought by the FHFA’s inspector general, not the agency’s head. [Quote]
Which is why many see this as transparently political, with that expert saying:
“This is like the county sheriff who has his deputies pull over his political opponents every time they drive on the parkway.” [Quote same link]
-
But also because the story is so consequential and it's very easy to get lost in the weeds.
I'm bringing on a guy who's way smarter than me on this, break things down.
Economist Joey Politano.
might have seen him on ABC's. He's also got a Substack newsletter.
He writes about economics.
You should definitely check it out, but we just jumped into it.
So, Joey, is there any historical precedent for what Trump's trying to do with Lisa Cook here?
Do you feel like this is I want to get rid of this person.
Let's work away back from that.
Now, thinking back to the Powell clip of.
Let me see that paper. Loved that. But the last thing.
The last thing I'll leave you with.
Or as far as the question is, you know, economists often say that greater independence for central banks is better for our national economies as a whole.
What can you tell me?
What? Like what is the data and research say there?
Joey, thank you for the time.
-
Trump is not a dictator but a lot of people want him to be.
That’s what he said in the Oval Office yesterday – along with some other crazy shit we’ll get into – but the thing is, when it comes to the idea that there’s support for him being a dictator? He’s not entirely wrong.
Right, but with that, this whole conversation goes back to Trump responding to criticism over his current and planned future deployment of the military in US cities:
“And they say, we don't need him. Freedom, freedom. He's a dictator. He's a dictator. A lot of people are saying maybe we like a dictator. I don't like a dictator. I'm not a dictator. I'm a man with great common sense and the smart person.” (BYTE: 9:06-9:19)
But of course, not everyone found his response all that reassuring.
Right, for one, he often uses the phrasing “many or a lot of people are saying” to promote controversial or false ideas he agrees with.
Not to mention he does in fact like a dictator – or actually several.
At least based on how frequently he’s expressed his admiration for authoritarian leaders including Russia’s Putin, Hungary’s Orban, or El Salvador’s Bukele – just to name a few.
And in fact, yesterday, while speaking with the SOUTH KOREAN president, you had him heaping praise on the NORTH KOREAN dictator Kim Jon-Un – not for the first time but laying it on especially thick yesterday.
"I have a great relationship with Kim Jong-un” (BYTE: 29:31-29:33)
"I understand him. I spend a lot of free time with him talking about things that we probably aren’t supposed to talk about. And, you know, I just — I get along with him really well. I think he has a country of great potential, tremendous potential." (BYTE: 29:38-20:53)
And actually even before that meeting, when speaking to the press in the Oval Office, you had him talking about how well they get along:
"I know him better than you do. I know him better than anybody almost, other than his sister. His sister knows him pretty well. I know him well and I got along with him. You know, I'm not supposed to say I really like him a lot because if I do that, I get killed in the fake news media. But I got along with him very well and we had no problem.” (BYTE: 1:16:01-1:16:20)
From there, you also had Trump saying that he'd like to rename the Department of Defense back to what it was called before World War Two: the Department of War.
And notably, suggesting he’d get it done with or without Congress:
“...how do you plan to do that? It requires an act of Congress to rename the Defense Department.”
“We’re just gonna do it, I'm sure Congress will go along if we need that. I don't think we even need that, but if we need that, I'm sure Congress will go along. You know, that was the name when we won World War I, we won World War II, we won everything. And just to me seems like just a much more appropriate. The other is defense is too defensive, and we want to be defensive, but we want to be offensive too if we have to be.” (BYTE: 0:02-0:35)
Right, because nothing screams not a dictator like subjecting Congress to your will and saying the most powerful military on earth should be more “offensive.”
Though, with that, I will say, he sought to assure everyone he has more interest in stopping wars than starting them – falsely boasting as he has before that he’s already ended seven wars, or maybe actually ten:
“We’ve stopped seven wars. And really the number is actually 10. We're not including a couple.” (BYTE: 37:57-38:02)
But whatever the case may be, all that aside, what’s really notable is that whether or not Trump really wants to be a dictator, there are actually a lot of Republicans who would seemingly be more than okay with that.
Right, ahead of the last election, you had more than 24% of Republicans saying that if Trump lost, he should “do whatever it takes” to take power. []
And now that he’s back in office, polls consistently show that their views haven’t changed.
In one, for example, 28% of Republicans said the country needed a president who was “willing to break some rules and laws to set things right” []
And in another, 44% have said the courts shouldn’t even be allowed to review Trump’s policies.
But with that, I’ll pass the question off to you: what are your thoughts on all this?
Go to: NordProtect and use code philprotect at checkout to get an extra 5% off on NordProtect plans.
-
Trump’s new executive order is about to put the First Amendment through the fire - literally.
Right, Trump yesterday signed an order titled “Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag.”
I’m sure you can guess what it does but in case you can’t, let me spell it out - this is an order demanding his administration prosecute those caught desecrating the star-spangled banner.
And if this is raising some red flags for you, that’s completely reasonable - the Supreme Court already gave a ruling about burning flags more than 30 years ago.
Trump’s new order however argues that people burn the flag in order to incite riots and violence.
And so he’s ordering Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate cases where flags were burned to see if those people can be hit with another charge - like disorderly conduct, property destruction, or environmental laws. []
So while this order doesn’t outright criminalize burning flags, it is setting up yet another court battle over the issue.
And should that battle be taken all the way to the top, we may see some serious change because heaven knows this court doesn’t give a damn about precedent on top of being much more conservative than the 1989 bench.
Now, this wasn’t exactly a big surprise - Trump has been speaking out against the desecration of the American flag for years.
Last year, he gave an interview with “Fox and Friends” saying anyone who desecrates the flag in any way should go to prison for a year.
Adding,
“Now, people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people. Those are stupid people that say that. We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence.” []
Hell, he was pushing that one-year-in-jail idea back in 2016 - saying on Twitter at the time,
“Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”
And the general opinion seems to agree with him - a YouGov poll from 2023 shows that nearly 60% of people always disagree with burning flags at protests.
And 50% said that it should be illegal in another YouGov poll back in 2020.
Even Hilary Clinton stood against it back in 2006 - when she took to the Senate floor on behalf of a bill titled the "Flag Protection Act" that would have made it a crime to desecrate the flag.
Calling it a, quote, “deeply offensive and despicable act.”
Regardless, Trump’s new order has sparked a lot of backlash from experts - like Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who said,
“You don’t have to like flag burning. You can condemn it, debate it, or hoist your own flag even higher. The beauty of free speech is that you get to express your opinions, even if others don’t like what you have to say.” []
But it isn’t just experts - we’re also seeing regular people take serious issue with this.
Including a man who identified himself as a 20 year combat veteran when he posted up in LaFayette Square across the street from the White House yesterday to burn an American flag in protest to Trump’s executive order. []
With a video of the incident being posted on Twitter by the news outlet The Bulwark:
[0:24-0:50 “No president can make a law, period. No Congress shall make a law infringing on First Amendment rights. I’m burning this flag as a protest to that illegal fascist president that sits in that house. I do this for every single one of you American citizens - we burn this flag in protest.”]
The fire was quickly put out by law enforcement and the man was detained by the Secret Service before being turned over to the U.S. Park Police. []
Which arrested him for violating a statute that prohibits lighting a fire in a public park.
And the online conversation surrounding that video was fairly mixed - with some people calling him disrespectful and an idiot while others said things like,
“So happy he did this. I hope they give him the mandatory 1 year and he then takes his case all the way to the Supreme Court so they can rule once again that flag burning is protected under the 1st amendment. Mad respect.”
With that, I’m going to pass the question onto you - what are your thoughts here?
About Trump’s new order, this guy in LaFayette Square, or just burning flags generally.
Let me know in those comments down below.
-
Another state will now be redrawing its congressional map in the middle of the decade.
But notably, this time, it’s to prevent gerrymandering – and it’s on a judge’s order.
Right, I’m talking about Utah, where Judge Dianna Gibson has just ruled against the state’s Republican-led legislature and ordered new maps drawn for 2026.
With her reasoning having less to do with the actual design of the old maps but the way we ended up with them in the first place.
Right, back in 2018, Utah voters approved a ballot initiative setting up an independent redistricting commission to draw boundaries for the state’s legislative and congressional districts.
But in 2020, lawmakers effectively repealed the initiative by transforming the commission into an advisory board that they could ignore if they disagreed with its recommendations.
And the next year, that’s exactly what we saw happen, with lawmakers rejecting every congressional map put forward by the board and just coming up with their own version.
But now you have Gibson ruling that the state legislature "unconstitutionally repealed" the ballot measure, writing:
"Redistricting is not a mere exercise in political line-drawing; it strikes at the very heart of our democracy.”
"The way district boundaries are drawn determines whether the right to vote is meaningful, whether equal protection is honored, and whether the fundamental promises of our state and federal constitutions are upheld.”
"How district lines are drawn can either safeguard representation and ensure accountability by elected representatives or erode public trust, silence voices and weaken the rule of law."[]
All that said, however, it’s actually unclear whether Utah will really have new maps in time for the next election.
Right, Republicans are expected to appeal, and there’s a chance they could run out the clock and avoid adopting new maps until at least 2028.
But notably – and this is huge – if they can’t, this could actually be game changing in terms of control of Congress, at least when you consider the razor-thin margins in the House now.
Right, currently, Utah has four representatives (1, 2, 3, 4) in Congress, and they’re all Republican.
But notably, the current map – the one not recommended by the nonpartisan commission? It splits the residents of Salt Lake County between those four districts.
And Salt Lake County? It’s a Democratic stronghold that also accounts for around 36 percent of the state’s population.
So there’s definitely potential for a new more fairly drawn map to make a difference.
Although, of course, the outcome of the next election may ultimately depend more on what happens with Texas, California, and whatever other states decide to get involved in the ongoing gerrymandering war.
Right, to give a quick recap, Trump asked Texas for five more Republican seats in Congress, and they said, yes daddy – with the legislature approving the new map over the weekend.
And on the flip side, you’ve had California Governor Gavin Newsom and state Democrats setting up a special election in November that will let people vote on whether or not California should counter Texas with a new map of its own.
And now both of those efforts are facing legal challenges – with Trump saying yesterday his administration will among those taking action:
“You've mentioned Gavin Newsom on crime –”
“Gavin Newscum, yes.”
“Is there a federal mechanism you're hoping to use to fight back against his redistricting constitutional amendment or is that –
“Well, I think I'm going to be filing a lawsuit pretty soon and I think we're going to be very successful in it. We're going to be filing it through the Department of Justice. That's going to happen.” (BYTE: 56:01-56:22)
And with that, you had Newsom simply responding on social media:
“BRING IT.” []
But of course, it’s not clear if and when the DOJ will actually “bring it” or what kind of case they’ll try to make – or if Trump’s just talking out of his ass.
But either way, there’s already another challenge to Newsom’s plan, coming from California Republicans filing an emergency petition asking the state’s Supreme Court to block the November ballot measure
With the 432-page complaint arguing that the plan violates the state constitution and certain state laws.
And Republican state senator Tony Strickland saying:
"As long as I have breath in my body, I am going to fight every step of the way.”
“Every loophole they do, every constitutional measure they break, we're going to challenge them in court." []
Although, notably, of course, Strickland hasn’t had much to say in the way of criticism for Trump or Texas Republicans and their redistricting efforts.
The same can’t be said of 13 Texas residents now filing a lawsuit alleging that the state’s redrawn districts are racially discriminatory.
With the complaint claiming that what we’ve seen is “...an unnecessary mid-decade revision of Texas’ congressional districts that intentionally dismantles majority-minority districts from the prior plan, explicitly because of the racial composition of those districts.” []
And with that, the complaint notes, for example, that the new map establishes only one majority-Latino district in Harris County even though the county is nearly half Latino according to the latest U.S. census. []
Also, according to the census, Latinos make up the largest share of Texas’s population.
And Texans of color have been responsible for as much as 95% of the state’s recent population growth.
But that’s not reflected in the new congressional map either, at least according to the complaint.
Of course, as far as the state’s response, you’ve had Governor Greg Abbot’s office defending the new map.
With a spokesperson claiming in a statement that it allows “more Texans to vote for the candidate of their choice” – and adding:
“Voters, especially Hispanic Texans, are increasingly moving away from Democrats and deserve to vote for candidates who better align with their values.” []
-
AI is already taking jobs from entry-level workers.
And that isn’t just anecdotal, it's backed up by a first-of-its-kind study.
Right, that new study — which was released just today by three Sanford scientists — appears to provide hard evidence to support the stories we have been increasingly hearing for years now about AI stealing jobs.
Now, notably, the research hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, but the work is very thorough, with the researchers accounting for other explanations that could impact employment.
Like economic shocks that effect certain industries and firms, the impact of remote work and outsourcing, the general slow down in tech hiring, and post-COVID education trends.
Right, and their findings here are massively consequential.
Specifically, the economists analyzed data from ADP — the largest payroll software provider in America — and drew from records for “millions of workers across tens of thousands of firms.”
With that data including detailed information on workers’ ages and occupations.
And that’s actually super significant because, as The Wall Street Journal explains, the specificity of that data means that this reporting is, quote:
“one of [the] clearest indicators yet of AI’s disruptive impact” and is “far more comprehensive than the survey of households the Labor Department uses for its monthly employment report.”
And at first, when the economists looked at the data as a whole, it didn't appear that AI was having a major impact on jobs.
But that is likely because, generally speaking, most industries aren’t seeing sweeping gains from AI — at least from a business perspective.
Right, at least currently, most of the benefits are concentrated within a few specific occupations.
So the researchers zoomed in and looked at specific positions where AI could be used to automate many key tasks of workers.
Like software developers, receptionists, translators, and customer service representatives.
And from there, they discovered that, overall, employment in those categories has softened since late 2022 when compared to other occupations.
But where it gets really interesting is when you break that data down further by age.
Specifically, the economists found that, when looking at the most AI-exposed jobs, employment for early-career workers ages 22 to 25 has fallen 13% overall since the widespread adoption of AI.
And for some occupations, the figures are even more extreme.
For example, employment for software developers in that age group fell nearly 20% from 2022 to 2025.
But — and this is the key thing here — the employment rate actually INCREASED slightly over the same period for mid-career and senior software developers ages 31 to 50+.
And it’s not just software developers — the same trends also held largely true for customer service representatives.
But by comparison, when the researchers looked at overall employment for young workers, they found that it has been relatively stagnant yet steady.
And in jobs less exposed to AI, “young workers have experienced comparable employment growth to older workers.”
And, VERY notable here, the data indicated that employment declines are concentrated in occupations where AI is being used to REPLACE workers, but not in jobs where AI is used to help humans.
And that holds true for entry-level jobs as well — in fact, overall, employment has actually INCREASED in jobs that use AI to help in their work.
So, that begs the question, what might be driving the gap between younger and older workers exposed to AI?
Well, according to one of the authors, Erik Brynjolfsson (Brin-Yolf-Son), the difference could stem from the fact that both entry-level workers and AI have more book knowledge than on-the-job experience, with him arguing:
“More senior workers have more tacit knowledge, they learn tricks of the trade that maybe never get written down. Those are not the things that the AI has been able to learn, at least not yet.”
But the implications there go beyond entry-level workers — right, as The WSJ explains:
“This raises a potential labor-market paradox: If the only way to develop that knowledge is to put in time doing work that AI has largely automated away, who will replace today’s experts when they retire?”
Additionally, Brin-Yolf-Son also says the “multitrillion-dollar question” is whether AI will start to impact higher-level jobs as the technology improves.
And that is a very real possibility given how fast AI’s job impact has gone from theoretical to real, with him arguing:
“This is the fastest, broadest change that I've seen.”
Go to ZBioticz and use code DEFRANCO at checkout to get up to 15% off your first order.
