Bankers back fed independence as SCOTUS mulls removability

• Key insight: Bankers overwhelmingly oppose broader presidential interference in the Fed.
• Supporting data: 88% favor removal only ‘for proven cause’; just 4% back absolute power.
• Forward look: The Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling on Trump’s bid to oust Lisa Cook could shape executive limits for decades.

A new survey of bank executives shows strong support for insulating the Federal Reserve from political interference and durable resistance to expanding presidential power over its officials.

In a survey of 441 banking industry leaders conducted by fintech deposit broker IntraFi released Tuesday, 88% of banking professionals surveyed said that presidents should only be able to remove Federal Reserve officials for cause, and only when “improper activity” is proven, rather than merely alleged. Those respondents said Fed officials should be removable regardless of whether the proven offense occurred prior to or during the official’s tenure in office.

“The results of this survey really reaffirm what we’ve known for some time,” said a spokesperson for Intrafi. “Most bankers want the Fed to be left alone.” 

By contrast, roughly 4% of respondents said a president should have absolute removal power, while another 7% offered more ambiguous views: 1% said alleged but unproven misconduct while in office could justify removal, while 6% said unproven activity either before or during office might justify termination.

The responses come as the Supreme Court is slated to consider oral arguments on the extent of the President’s removal powers over the Fed’s Board of Governors early next year, the culmination of a monthslong effort by President Trump to exert greater control over federal interest rates. 

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director BIll Pulte in mid-August shared a screenshot of a criminal referral he made to the Justice Department regarding mortgages Cook received in 2021 — months before being nominated and confirmed to her Federal Reserve post — alleging that she claimed primary residence on two properties. Later that month, President Trump shared a screenshot of a letter to Cook on social media informing her of her termination, even though Cook has not been officially accused of a crime. 

Cook sued, arguing that the president’s effort to fire her violates the Federal Reserve Act’s protection of governors from removal by the president but for cause. She also alleged that the manner of her dismissal violates her right to due process. A lower court issued an injunction allowing Cook to remain at her post pending the outcome of litigation; Trump ultimately appealed the injunction to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hold oral arguments on the matter in January 2026 but allowed Cook to remain at her post until that time. 

Cook’s purported removal is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to embrace unitary executive theory — the notion that all executive power lies with the president alone, meaning that independent regulatory agencies that protect officials from removal by the president at will are unconstitutional. This has led to the attempted firing of officials at a number of agencies, including the National Credit Union Administration, which has also prompted litigation. The Supreme Court held in a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, that those agencies wield “quasi-legislative” and/or “quasi-judicial” powers, making their authorities not purely executive in nature and therefore protected from removal by the president. 

The Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments in a separate case regarding a fired Federal Trade Commission member in December, a case that is widely expected to result in an erosion of Humphrey’s Executor.

Bankers also consistently supported the role of Fed independence in policymaking. Three-quarters of respondents called the Fed’s independence in monetary policy “very important,” with another 20% deeming it “somewhat important.” In contrast with monetary policy, views were more mixed on the role of Fed independence in bank regulatory matters. Just over half — 56% of respondents — said independence there was “very important,” and 35% said it is “somewhat important.” Only 3% of respondents said that Fed independence is not important in either area.

The results track with polling taken earlier this year. Banks responded near-unanimously that banking agencies should remain nominally independent agencies in an Intrafi survey in February. The survey earlier this year found that 93% of bankers supported regulatory independence, broadly rejecting greater executive branch control.

Bankers were split on the economic outlook. Thirty-eight percent believed overall economic conditions in a year would be the same, while 32% believed conditions would be better and 30% saw conditions getting worse a year from now. Trade policy swings under the Trump administration are hindering investment decisions and dragging down the volume of mergers industrywide according to recent comments by panelists at American Banker’s Most Powerful Women in Banking conference.