She's making claims, they're not opposing them as a named defendant! Opposing the Trump move would require a separate suit with the Board as plaintiff.

I do not think that is correct. I believe they could say “we think her claims are correct and we are prepared to comply” as part of this suit. Different defendants take different positions—including ones that support plaintiffs—all the time.

Again I don't think it's reasonable to expect a government agency to take this position. By declining to even contest they're saying a lot!

Fair enough. Reasonable people can disagree. In my experience working in senior roles in the US Senate and Treasury Department, including on litigation requiring Executive Branch coordination, when an agency declines to contradict DOJ it's mostly out of political comity, not legal principles.

tbc I think they are being VERY clear how they feel about it.

My interpretation of their communications is the same as yours. My issue is that constructive ambiguity does not work in either litigation or a political fight. They're the experts on the FRA. If they tell a court Cook is right, that has a lot of weight and they only get one bite at this apple.

I’m curious if you have ever seen a similar example of an agency arguing against the sitting admin’s position like that.

Well, nothing is quite similar to the nature and stakes of this case. But the thing that jumps to mind most immediately is that Treasury and DOJ have disagreed with the OCC about the scope of preemption during the last two Democratic administrations.

That is, *National Bank Act* preemption.

The trouble is that the Fed's accustomed methods of understatement with expert interpreters doesn't quite work for this scenario. I think the real risk is what Nathan ID's in his post today: opposing POTUS could give Trump a better argument for good cause removal of Powell

Yes that’s absolutely true.

We are in a bad place if "defending the proper interpretation of the Federal Reserve Act" constitutes cause sufficient to remove the *Chair of the Federal Reserve.*

Well, yeah, it sucks here!

So for the uninformed/lacking in the subject matter, what do you think they are saying?

"We expect Cook to receive an injunction from a federal court, because the attempted firing is ludicrous. That's why we are not opposing her suit as a named defendant and that's why she still has device/building access. If SCOTUS ultimately rules against her we will follow their ruling."

Thank you. That’s quite helpful. The quotes made me think that the fed actually did say that verbatim and part of me was thinking ‘well, that’s quite explicit, actually’ 😬 So is your interpretation that the Fed and Lisa Cook are aligned on all of this, including the lawsuit she filed inc the Fed?

Yes. Almost certainly.

Thank you, George. Following you has been incredibly insightful and helping me make sense of the macro world. I never followed you on the bad place, so this has been an additional pick up of the switch over to Bluesky.