A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday grilled lawyers for the Justice Department and Lisa Cook over President Donald Trump’s historic attempt to fire her from the Federal Reserve.

The landmark case is almost certain to be kicked to the Supreme Court for review. Despite the high-stakes nature of the legal dispute, Friday’s hearing ended after more than two hours without clear resolution. 

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, declined to immediately grant the temporary restraining order sought by Lisa Cook’s attorneys, which would keep her in her role on the Fed’s Board of Governors for now. 

Cook’s lawyers included the request for the temporary restraining order in the lawsuit filed in federal court on Thursday, challenging Trump’s attempt to fire her from her position on the independent board due to allegations of mortgage fraud. 

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP FROM FIRING FEDERAL BOARD MEMBERS, TEES UP SUPREME COURT FIGHT

Instead, Judge Cobb ordered both parties to submit any supplemental briefs to the court by Tuesday, shortly before she dismissed the lawyers for the long weekend.

Cobb noted the novelty of the case before her, which involves the first attempt by a sitting president to oust a Federal Reserve governor «for cause.» 

The fraud allegations were first leveled by Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the federal agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He accused Cook of claiming two primary residences in two separate states in 2021, with the goal of obtaining more favorable loan conditions. 

Trump followed up by posting a letter on Truth Social earlier this week that he had determined «sufficient cause» to fire Cook, a dismissal he said was «effective immediately,» prompting her attorneys to file the emergency lawsuit.

The crux of Friday’s arguments centered on the definition of what «for cause» provisions must entail for removal from the board under the Federal Reserve Act, or FRA, a law designed to shield members from the political whims of the commander in chief or members of Congress. 

The arguments also centered on Cook’s claims in her lawsuit that Trump’s attempt to fire her amounts to an illegal effort to remove her from the Fed well before her tenure is slated to end in January 2038 to install his own nominee. 

Lawyers for Cook argued that her firing was merely a «pretext» for Trump to secure a majority on the Fed board, a contention that Cobb admitted made her «uncomfortable.»

They also attempted to poke holes in the mortgage fraud allegations, which they said were made on social media and «backfilled.»

The case «obviously raises important questions» about the Federal Reserve Board, Cobb said shortly before adjourning court.

She also noted that she had not yet made a determination about the alleged «irreparable harm,» prompting her to set the Tuesday filing deadline.

TRUMP SAYS HE’S ‘ALWAYS’ READY FOR LEGAL FIGHT AS OUSTED FED GOVERNOR PLANS LAWSUIT

President Donald Trump speaks to Fed Chair Jerome Powell during a tour of the Federal Reserve in Washington, D.C., July 24, 2025. (Daniel Torok/White House)

Cook’s attorneys argued Friday that Trump’s attempt to fire her violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the Federal Reserve Act. 

Her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, noted on several occasions that there was no «investigation or charge» from the administration prior to Trump’s abrupt announcement that he would fire Cook.  

Lowell also vehemently disputed the Justice Department’s allegations that Cook had an «opportunity» to respond to the mortgage fraud accusations leveled by Bill Pulte, noting that they were made just 30 minutes before Trump called for Cook to be removed.  

He told Cobb that it was the latest attempt by the Trump administration to «litigate by tweet.»

A LOOK AT THE UNFOLDING BATTLE BETWEEN TRUMP AND POWELL OVER FED POLICY

Abbe Lowell in 2024 arriving to the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building in Wilmington, Delaware. Lowell, Hunter Biden’s former lawyer, is now representing Lisa Cook in her court case centered on Trump’s attempt to fire her from her role on the Fed’s Board of Governors.   (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Lawyers for the Trump administration, for their part, argued that the president has broad latitude to determine the «for cause» provision.

Justice Department attorney Yakoov Roth told Cobb that the determination of when to invoke the provision should be left to the president, regardless of whether it is viewed by others as «pretextual.»

«That sounds to me like the epitome of a discretionary determination, and that is when the president’s power is at [its] apex,» Roth said.

DOJ lawyers also noted that Cook, to date, has not disputed any of the allegations in question and argued there is «nothing she has said» about the allegations that would cause her to not be fired.

«What if the stated cause is demonstrably false?»  Cobb asked, going on to cite hypothetical concerns that a president could, theoretically, use allegations to stack federal boards with majorities.

As for the issue of «irreparable harm,» Justice Department attorneys argued that it would be more harmful for Cook to remain in office, arguing that the «harm of having someone in office who is wrongfully there … outweighs the harm of someone being wrongfully removed from office.»

TRUMP ASKS SCOTUS TO UPHOLD FREEZE ON BILLIONS IN USAID PAYMENTS

The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C.  (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Cook’s attorneys said Friday that in reviewing the lawsuit, the court need not itself establish a definition of what «cause» means under the Federal Reserve Act.

Instead, Lowell suggested, the court should instead work backwards to determine whether the accusations leveled by Pulte were in fact «backfilled» by Trump to form the basis of her removal.  

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

«It’s very difficult to come up with an 11-page definition of what it is,» Lowell said Friday of the «cause» definition, adding that it is far easier to come up with a one-page definition of «what it’s not.» 

«Whatever it is, it’s not this,» Lowell said.

Los ministros de Asuntos Exteriores de la Unión Europea se reunirán este sábado en Copenhague para afrontar sus profundas divisiones sobre la guerra en Gaza, después del llamado de Hadja Lahbib, Comisaria Europea de Gestión de Crisis y responsable de la ayuda humanitaria, a que el bloque “encuentre una voz fuerte que refleje nuestros valores y principios”.

“Lo que está ocurriendo allí me atormenta y debería atormentarnos a todos. Es una tragedia. Y seremos juzgados por la historia”, agregó, refiriéndose al conflicto en la Franja. “Es hora de que la UE encuentre una voz colectiva sobre Gaza”, concluyó Lahbib.

Varios gobiernos europeos han criticado con dureza la conducción israelí del conflicto, especialmente por las muertes de civiles y las restricciones al suministro de ayuda humanitaria. Los señalamientos se intensificaron luego de que un observatorio mundial del hambre vinculado a la ONU declarara la semana pasada la existencia de hambruna en Gaza, una conclusión que Israel rechaza categóricamente.

Sin embargo, los países miembros de la UE siguen divididos respecto a cómo responder de manera conjunta a la ofensiva israelí: mientras algunos abogan por medidas económicas para presionar a Israel, otros defienden la necesidad de mantener el diálogo.

El Ejecutivo comunitario propuso el mes pasado restringir el acceso de Israel a un programa de financiación de investigación del bloque, pero la iniciativa aún no cuenta con el respaldo suficiente para ser aprobada. Francia, Países Bajos, España e Irlanda han mostrado su apoyo, mientras que Alemania e Italia se han mantenido hasta ahora al margen, según fuentes diplomáticas.

Israel, por su parte, ha rechazado las críticas y asegura que su acción militar es necesaria para derrotar a Hamas.

En la reunión también se espera que los ministros aborden la guerra en Ucrania y el destino de unos 210.000 millones de euros (245.850 millones de dólares) en activos rusos congelados en la UE como parte de las sanciones impuestas a Moscú.

El ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, Unión Europea y Cooperación de España, José Manuel Albares, presentará a sus homólogos comunitarios en el Consejo de Asuntos Exteriores informal de Copenhague un plan para detener la hambruna en la Franja de Gaza y para que el bloque adopte nuevas sanciones contra quienes “quieren malograr” la solución de los dos Estados, entre otras medidas.

Según explicó el ministro, su propuesta también busca garantizar que “nadie” en la UE venda armas a Israel y asegurar el apoyo financiero a la Autoridad Palestina “para que no se la asfixie económicamente”.

En un vídeo difundido a los medios, Albares denunció que la hambruna “inducida por Israel” en el enclave palestino pone en peligro la vida de miles de gazatíes, incluidos niños, y defendió que el respaldo económico a Palestina “es absolutamente vital”.

Los ministros de Exteriores de la UE también analizarán la situación en Ucrania, considerando que Rusia “no da ningún signo de querer un alto el fuego”, según Albares. España defenderá “redoblar” el apoyo a Kiev “en defensa de su democracia, valores y soberanía”. “La seguridad de Ucrania es también la seguridad de Europa y el agresor no puede tener premio a menos que queramos mañana un mundo más inestable”, subrayó.

Albares advirtió que Europa “se juega su alma, sus intereses, sus valores” en las próximas semanas y consideró que el momento actual es “crucial” tanto para España como para los Veintisiete. “Es un momento en que nuestra voz se tiene que oír con fuerza en defensa de la paz, en defensa del Derecho Internacional, en defensa de Naciones Unidas y de todo aquello que somos los europeos”, concluyó.

(Con información de Reuters/Europa Press)

Russia isn’t backing off from attacking Ukraine and pummeled it with missiles and drones Thursday — just weeks after President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, in an attempt to advance a peace deal. 

The attack could be a signal Putin is utilizing diplomacy to buy himself more time to advance his goals and continue to attack Ukraine, all while avoiding secondary sanctions that the Trump administration has threatened to impose, according to experts. 

The time to act is now, according to Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on cyber issues.  

«Putin is stringing President Trump along and the added time is helping Russia to continue the bombing campaign against Ukrainian cities,» Bacon said in a Friday statement to Fox News Digital. «The longer Trump refuses to impose secondary sanctions against Russia and send high-end weapons to Ukraine, the more he looks like a simp for Putin. It is beyond time for Trump to have moral clarity and come in strong to help the democracy that is being attacked by the Russian thug.» 

RUSSIA LAUNCHES LARGEST ATTACK ON UKRAINE THIS MONTH FOLLOWING TRUMP’S MEETINGS WITH PUTIN, ZELENSKYY

Bacon, a retired Air Force brigadier general who is not seeking reelection in 2026, said that discussions with Putin have proven futile and have indicated Putin isn’t serious about a deal. 

«We’ve seen zero results from the talks as far as Putin being willing to compromise,» Bacon said. «Although I think seeking negotiations was worthwhile initially, it showed Putin does not want peace.» 

The White House has maintained that Trump has made more progress in two weeks to resolve the conflict than his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, did in more than three years, and pointed to Trump’s meeting with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy within days of each other.  

«President Trump’s national security team continue to engage with Russian and Ukrainian officials toward a bilateral meeting to stop the killing and end the war,» White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a Friday statement to Fox News Digital. 

Trump announced July 14 that he would sign off on «severe tariffs» against Russia if Moscow failed to agree to a peace deal within 50 days. He then dramatically reduced the deadline to only 10–12 days — which ended Aug. 8. But rather than lay on additional sanctions against Russia, Trump met with Putin a week later in Alaska and hailed the meeting a great success. 

Still, progress stemming from the meeting appears limited. Russia did not agree to a ceasefire, and while Trump initially said a trilateral meeting with both Putin and Zelenskyy was in the works, Russia has shown disinterest in such a meeting. 

RUSSIAN DRONE STRIKES KILL 7 IN KHARKIV DURING ZELENSKYY’S WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH TRUMP

President Donald Trump, right, greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richards Aug. 15, 2025.  (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with NBC News Aug. 22 that no meeting had been scheduled and Putin would only agree to one if certain terms were approved beforehand. That’s not the case, he said. 

«Putin is ready to meet with Zelenskyy when the agenda is ready for a summit, and this agenda is not ready at all,» Lavrov said. 

Meanwhile, Russia launched a massive attack employing nearly 600 drones and decoys against Kyiv Thursday, killing more than 20 people. In response, the U.N. Security Council scheduled an emergency meeting for Friday, per the urging of Ukraine and several other European allies. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia during former President Barack Obama’s administration, said in a post on X that Putin has only escalated attacks against Ukraine following the Alaska meeting, and said Putin is «openly mocking» Trump. 

«I hope Mr. Trump and his team understand how Putin is spitting in their faces,» McFaul said in a Thursday post on X. 

Additionally, Putin is onto the fact he can bypass economic consequences, and won’t seriously negotiate a deal unless he must, according to Steven Pifer, who previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during former President Bill Clinton’s administration. 

«I think that Putin is, in fact, stringing the president along,» Pifer told Fox News Digital. «Putin still believes he can achieve his goals, vis a vis Ukraine, on the battlefield. And we’re not going to see a serious negotiating attempt by the Russians until Putin is convinced he cannot win on the battlefield, and that continuing to try is only going to mean greater and greater cost — first and foremost, a lot more dead Russian soldiers.»

TRUMP AND PUTIN’S RELATIONSHIP TURNS SOUR AS PRESIDENT PUSHES FOR RESOLUTION WITH UKRAINE

President Donald Trump, right, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, hold a meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Aug. 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska.  ( Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

«I just don’t see any really serious steps the administration has taken to inflict any punishment on Putin,» Pifer said. «I think Putin’s figured that out, and until Putin is disabused of that notion, he’s going to keep missing deadlines.» 

Historically, Russia’s demands for a peace deal have included barring Ukraine from ever joining NATO, along with concessions on some of the borders that previously were Ukraine’s.

Peter Rough, a senior fellow and director of the Center on Europe and Eurasia at the Hudson Institute think tank, said that because Putin knows the U.S. is eager to end the war, Putin’s peace deal requirements are an attempt to turn up the heat on Ukraine. 

Following Trump’s meeting with Putin and ahead of his meeting days later with Zelenskyy, the U.S. president put the onus on Ukraine to end the war – and said that Ukraine could end the war immediately if it agreed to cede Crimea to Russia, and abandon its bid for NATO membership.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Donald Trump participate in a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Aug. 18, 2025. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

«Putin managed to sidestep U.S. sanctions in Alaska and is content slogging away in Ukraine,» Rough told Fox News Digital Monday. «But he also recognizes that the U.S. wants this war to come to an end, so he has put forward a proposal intended to appeal to Washington in the hopes that the U.S. will put pressure on Ukraine to accept its terms. If he can divide the transatlantic alliance along the way, all the better. At the very least, it helps him stave off additional U.S. sanctions.» 

John Hardie, Russia program deputy director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that Putin isn’t interested in agreeing to a deal unless his terms are included in it. In the meantime, Putin is utilizing diplomacy to avoid economic consequences, Hardie said. 

«I think Putin does want a deal — but only if it’s on his terms,» Hardie told Fox News Digital Monday. «Until that happens, he’s bent on continuing the war, and Russia seeks to use diplomacy to forestall tougher U.S. economic pressure and redirect Trump’s ire from Moscow to Kyiv.»