Two institutional paths for presidential authority
In Lisa Cook's case, the Supreme Court's rule limits removal of a Fed governor to cause. A separate Senate bill would give the president tariff authority of up to 100 percent on buyers of Russian energy, subject to House passage.
Economics & Markets··Morning
Two separate arenas
Two separate NPR reports show presidential authority in two economic settings taking shape before different institutions. Deputy White House chief of staff Daniel Scavino's letter to Lisa Cook seeks an answer to unproven allegations of false statements on mortgage applications. On the same day, the Senate passed the Russia sanctions bill named for the late Senator Lindsey Graham by 86 to 11. NPR reported that the bill would let the president impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on major buyers of Russian oil and natural gas, including China and India. The two developments concern separate events. The comparison is between an executive removal effort meeting a court-drawn condition and Congress defining new tariff authority through legislation. In both reports, the scope of presidential power is considered within an institutional framework wider than the statement of the executive branch alone.[1], [2]
A court-drawn boundary
NPR said the new step involving Cook came about a month after the Supreme Court blocked an earlier removal attempt. Its account of the June 2026 decision says the Court ruled 5–4 that Federal Reserve governors may be removed only for cause. The decision also recognized a special constitutional position for the Federal Reserve. Those two elements place the allegations in Scavino's letter within a distinct legal standard for removal. In NPR's account, the lower courts remain where the question of whether the allegations meet that standard is addressed. Cook's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, described the allegations as baseless, said there was no valid cause for removal, and opposed the letter. The result is a dispute that brings unproven mortgage allegations together with the for-cause condition identified by the Supreme Court.[1]
A congressional grant of authority
The Russia sanctions bill describes possible tariff authority through the congressional process. NPR reported that the Senate-approved text opens the way for tariffs of up to 100 percent on major buyers of Russian oil and natural gas, and it also extends sanctions on Iran. The bill also targets senior Russian officials. Before it can reach the president for signature, however, it must pass the House of Representatives. Speaker Mike Johnson supports the text, while some House Democrats object to giving the president new tariff authority. NPR also reported the sponsors' view that Russia funds its war largely through energy-sale revenue and that reducing those profits would weaken its ability to keep paying for the war. The report places the proposed authority within a legislative chain of Senate approval, House consideration, and presidential signature.[2]
