The ongoing battle over Lisa Cook’s position on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, amid President Donald Trump’s efforts to remove her, has ignited a critical discussion on the independence of central banks. This struggle underscores a broader power conflict between political leaders and public institutions tasked with managing monetary policy. Central banks, which regulate a nation’s currency and monetary flow, wield significant influence over economic growth, inflation, employment, and financial stability. Politicians often seek to control or manipulate these levers, especially during pivotal moments like elections or periods of declining popularity. However, such politically motivated interventions can jeopardize long-term economic health, leading to future economic challenges. Since the 1990s, data-driven and technocratic monetary policymaking has been regarded as the gold standard for national financial governance, effectively maintaining low and stable inflation. Despite this, central banks have faced mounting political pressure over the past decade. Trump’s administration exemplifies this trend, with the president openly criticizing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and demanding lower interest rates. Unable to remove Powell, Trump has shifted focus to Cook, alleging misconduct in a mortgage application—a claim Cook disputes, asserting the president lacks the authority to dismiss her. This confrontation highlights the fragile balance between political influence and central bank autonomy, a dynamic that has global implications for economic stability. While laws protect central banks from political interference, recent trends suggest a gradual erosion of this independence. As political economists note, the tug-of-war over monetary policy reflects the tension between short-term political gains and long-term economic well-being.