Washington: President Donald Trump has set off a political and legal storm in Washington after firing three high-profile officials in less than a week, a move that many see as an aggressive attempt to test and expand the limits of presidential authority. The dismissals targeting Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan Monarez, and railroad regulator Robert Primus have rattled financial markets, public health institutions, and regulatory bodies that are traditionally safeguarded from partisan interference.
Legal experts and political analysts warn that these removals could reshape how independent agencies function in the United States. Institutions like the Federal Reserve and the CDC are designed to operate with a degree of autonomy, ensuring stability and credibility in economic management, health policy, and regulatory oversight. Trump’s move, however, represents a direct challenge to that tradition, raising the possibility that political loyalty could take precedence over professional expertise and independence.
The most controversial dismissal came with the firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The White House claimed “for cause” grounds, citing vague allegations of mortgage fraud. But Cook has filed a lawsuit against the administration, arguing that her removal violates the Federal Reserve Act, which allows termination only under narrowly defined circumstances. A federal judge is now weighing whether to block her ouster, a decision that could set a precedent with sweeping consequences for the independence of monetary policy.
At the CDC, Trump’s removal of Susan Monarez who played a key role in coordinating pandemic preparedness programs has sparked alarm among public health officials. Critics argue that such a politically motivated dismissal undermines the credibility of health institutions and could leave the country vulnerable to future health emergencies. Meanwhile, the firing of railroad regulator Robert Primus has drawn less public attention but is equally significant, as it demonstrates Trump’s willingness to exert control over technical regulatory agencies that are meant to resist political influence.
White House aides insist the president acted within his legal authority, framing the firings as part of a broader strategy to “align government leadership with the administration’s priorities.” Yet independent watchdogs, legal scholars, and former government officials see a dangerous precedent in the making. Max Stier of the Partnership for Public Service called the firings “novel, in a bad way,” arguing that treating independent agencies as mere extensions of presidential power risks hollowing out the very institutions that protect U.S. democracy from authoritarian overreach.
Jane Manners, a law professor at Fordham University, warned that if the courts uphold Trump’s right to dismiss a Federal Reserve governor, “all the rest of the dominoes are going to fall.” Such a ruling would effectively strip away the structural safeguards that preserve expert-led decision-making, allowing future presidents to exert direct political influence over economic policy, public health management, and regulatory enforcement.
The broader implications extend far beyond Washington. Investors are monitoring the Federal Reserve dispute closely, as uncertainty about the institution’s independence could impact global financial stability. Public health leaders are concerned that the CDC’s credibility already tested in recent years may be further weakened at a time when trust in institutions is vital.
Trump’s moves reflect a broader pattern seen during his presidency: testing institutional boundaries, forcing legal confrontations, and reshaping the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies. While some supporters hail the firings as decisive leadership, critics argue they represent a dangerous erosion of democratic checks and balances.
As lawsuits proceed and political debate intensifies, the nation faces a pivotal question: Will the courts and Congress reaffirm the independence of America’s most vital institutions, or will the expanding power of the presidency redefine the way government functions in the years ahead.