Trump Accused Lisa Cook of Fraud Also Ally Did the Same

---

USA | Planet & Commerce 

The controversy over mortgage filings has emerged as a flashpoint in US politics, with President Donald Trump accusing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook of “potentially criminal conduct” over contradictory primary residence pledges—while his own Treasury Secretary Scot Bessent once made similar filings without consequence.

Bloomberg revealed that in 2007, Bessent’s attorney signed mortgage agreements designating two homes as his principal residence simultaneously—a Bedford Hills manor in New York and a Provincetown beachfront house in Massachusetts. Mortgage experts insist the filings were not fraudulent, since lenders were aware of the arrangements. Yet the striking similarity to Cook’s case raises questions about selective standards and political expediency.

For Cook, who has denied wrongdoing, Trump’s accusations have become the basis for an unprecedented White House attempt to remove a sitting Fed governor—a move that could redefine the balance of power between the presidency and the central bank.

Appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022, Lisa Cook signed mortgage documents in 2021 for two properties:

1. A home in Michigan, her longtime residence.
    
2. A condominium in Atlanta, financed under terms requiring it to be declared a “primary residence.”
    

While documents pledged both as “principal residences,” loan estimates from the Atlanta lender described the condo as a “vacation home.” Experts note this contradiction suggests the bank never intended to enforce full-time occupancy.

Nevertheless, Trump seized on the issue, calling it “gross negligence” and citing it in a letter firing Cook. Judges, however, have repeatedly blocked her removal, with a federal appeals court ruling she could remain on the Fed board while litigation continues.

In September 2007, Bessent’s lawyer signed two mortgage agreements, each declaring a different home as his primary residence. The loans—part of a $21 million Bank of America financing package—covered both his Bedford Hills and Provincetown properties.

Key details:

• Bank of America confirmed it never expected the Provincetown property to be occupied full-time.
   
• Bessent’s lawyer said the bank had waived occupancy requirements, and both sides understood the homes as secondary residences.
   
• Experts stressed there was “nothing improper,” describing the issue as a paperwork technicality.
   

Despite the parallels with Cook’s filings, Bessent’s record has drawn no political scrutiny. When asked about Cook’s case, he instead echoed Trump’s rhetoric, declaring that any Fed official accused of mortgage fraud “should be examined.”

Mortgage experts interviewed by Bloomberg and Reuters stressed that:

• Contradictions in occupancy clauses are common.
   
• Errors often arise from missing paperwork, such as a “second-home rider.”
   
• If lenders are informed of the intended use, no fraud exists.
   

Douglas Miller, a real estate lawyer, summarised:

“If you made disclosure to the lender, and they missed a form, that’s on them. This whole thing is just blown out of proportion.”
 

The discrepancy lies not in the mortgages but in Trump’s political framing.

• Cook’s filings: Branded by Trump as “potentially criminal conduct,” used to justify her dismissal.
   
• Bessent’s filings: Treated as routine financing, defended by his lawyers and the bank.
   

Critics say the double standard reflects Trump’s willingness to weaponise technicalities against political adversaries, while overlooking similar conduct by allies.

Bessent is not alone. Reports show:

• Labour Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer signed similar pledges in 2021 for Oregon and Arizona homes. Her office explained she changed plans after deciding to run for Congress.
   
• Trump allies, including housing regulator Bill Pulte, have referred multiple Democrats’ mortgages to the Justice Department, though none resulted in charges.
   

Meanwhile, Trump has accused opponents like New York Attorney General Letitia James and Representative Adam Schiff of mortgage irregularities, further fuelling claims of selective targeting.

At the core of Cook’s case lies the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which allows presidents to remove governors “for cause.” But the statute never defined what counts as cause.

• Historical precedent: No president has ever removed a Fed governor.
   
• Legal ambiguity: Courts have never ruled on the standard.
   
• Potential impact: If Trump prevails, it could erode the Fed’s independence and grant presidents sweeping new powers.
   

Legal scholars warn that using mortgage technicalities as grounds for removal sets a dangerous precedent.

1. Undermining Fed independence – The Cook case risks politicising the central bank.
    
2. Selective accountability – Similar filings by Trump’s own appointees remain unchallenged.
    
3. Weaponising bureaucracy – Technical mortgage clauses have become tools of political warfare.
    
4. Future precedent – Any president could use personal financial paperwork to remove opponents from independent posts.
    

• Bessent’s lawyer, Alex Spiro:

               “The bank has confirmed it was done properly. This nonsensical article reaches the conclusion that this was all done properly.”

 

• Cook: She has consistently denied wrongdoing, stressing that she disclosed her housing arrangements to lenders. She argues Trump’s campaign is politically motivated, aimed at silencing a Democratic appointee on the Fed board.
   

The saga of Lisa Cook versus Donald Trump is no longer just about housing paperwork—it is about power, precedent, and the politicisation of independent institutions.

Cook’s alleged “fraud” mirrors nearly identical filings by Scot Bessent, yet Trump has treated the two cases in radically different ways. The contrast highlights not only double standards but also the broader risks of weaponising technicalities in pursuit of political goals.

For Cook, the fight is about personal integrity and professional survival. For Trump, it is about reshaping the Federal Reserve and flexing executive power. For America, it is a test: can independent institutions withstand political storms when even a mortgage clause becomes a battlefield?

USA | Planet & Commerce 

The US Federal Reserve has delivered its first interest rate cut since President Donald Trump began his second term in office, lowering the benchmark lending rate by a quarter point to a new range of 4.00–4.25%. While the move was intended to ease mounting pressure on a weakening labour market, it has only added to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding America’s economic future.

Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell admitted:

“It’s not incredibly obvious what to do.”
 

The blunt admission highlights how Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies, combined with fragile employment numbers, are pulling the US economy in two different directions — making the Fed’s balancing act between inflation and unemployment harder than ever.

The Fed described the reduction as a “risk management cut,” suggesting policymakers could no longer afford to wait for clarity on the long-term impact of Trump’s fiscal and trade decisions. Powell stressed that central bankers had to act proactively:

“We have to live life looking through the windshield rather than the rearview mirror.”
 

The quarter-point reduction marked a cautious approach, but Powell signaled that further cuts are possible, particularly in October and December, depending on how the economy evolves.

The move reflects growing concern about the labour market. While inflation has not surged dramatically, layoffs in certain sectors and persistently high youth unemployment have convinced Fed officials that the risks to employment now outweigh the risks of inflation.

The decision was not unanimous. Stephen Miran, a Trump-appointed Fed governor sworn in just hours before deliberations began, opposed the cut. According to reports, Miran pushed for a larger half-point reduction, aligning with Trump’s long-standing demand for aggressive easing to fuel growth.

The disagreement underscored an emerging split within the Fed:

• Cautious officials, led by Powell, worry that cutting too quickly could stoke inflation, especially as Trump’s tariff regime raises costs for consumers and businesses.
   
• Aggressive doves, often aligned with the administration, argue that rapid cuts are needed to offset global uncertainty and sustain hiring.
   

Despite the rate cut, the Fed left its projections for both inflation and unemployment unchanged compared with its June estimates, reinforcing the sense of uncertainty.

Powell characterised the US labour market as being in a fragile state of “low hiring and low firing.” In other words, while layoffs have not surged, businesses are also reluctant to take on new employees.

Key points include:

• Youth unemployment is disproportionately high, reflecting a lack of entry-level hiring.
   
• Job creation has slowed, with several sectors holding off expansion plans amid policy unpredictability.
   
• The Fed’s policy statement explicitly noted that “downside risks to employment have risen.”
   

Powell warned that if layoffs begin to spread, the low level of new hiring could quickly translate into a deeper unemployment crisis.

The Fed also faces another Trump-era challenge: tariffs. Trump’s new round of trade measures has the potential to push prices higher, especially on imported goods.

This presents a policy paradox:

• Cutting rates makes credit cheaper, supporting businesses and households.
   
• But lower rates could also fuel inflationary pressures, especially when tariffs are already raising costs.
   

Powell acknowledged the tension but argued that supporting jobs must take priority for now.

Financial markets responded with volatility:

• Equities initially rose, as investors welcomed cheaper borrowing costs.
   
• Bond yields dipped, reflecting bets on more cuts later this year.
   
• But analysts warned the Fed’s cautious tone — particularly Powell’s line that the future is “not incredibly obvious” — left investors unsure whether the central bank has a clear long-term strategy.
   

The Fed’s dual mandate — stable prices and maximum employment — has rarely looked so conflicted. Under Trump’s second term, the economy faces a convergence of challenges:

• Inflationary pressure from tariffs
   
• Weak job growth, especially among the young
   
• Global uncertainty from conflicts, sanctions, and shifting trade deals
   

This environment leaves the Fed vulnerable to accusations from both sides:

• Critics on the left argue that the Fed is moving too slowly to protect jobs.
   
• Critics on the right, particularly Trump allies, claim Powell is not cutting aggressively enough to spur growth.
   

The Fed’s quarter-point cut may look modest, but it carries enormous symbolic weight. It highlights:

• The fragility of the US economy, caught between unemployment risks and inflation threats.
   
• The limits of central bank policy when fiscal and trade policies create deep uncertainty.
   
• The growing politicisation of the Fed, with Trump’s appointees pushing harder for aggressive moves.
   

For Powell, the challenge is to preserve the Fed’s independence while navigating an economy reshaped by Trump’s second term. The risk is that by trying to satisfy both sides of its mandate, the Fed may end up satisfying neither — leaving the US economy vulnerable at a critical moment.

As Powell himself admitted:

“It’s not incredibly obvious what to do.”

Ecuador| Planet & Commerce 

During a visit to Quito, Ecuador, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated two Ecuador-based criminal gangs—Los Lobos and Los Choneros—as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs). The announcement reflects an intensifying push by the Trump administration to classify violent cartels across Latin America not merely as drug traffickers but as narco-terrorists, expanding Washington’s tools for combating transnational organized crime.

At a joint press conference with Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Gabriela Sommerfeld, Rubio called the campaign a “war” against violent gangs that threaten security in the Americas.

“Frankly, it’s a war. It’s a war on killers. It’s a war on terror,” Rubio said.
 

The remarks underscore how the administration is reframing the drug trade as a counterterrorism issue, opening the door for expanded intelligence cooperation and financial crackdowns.

The two groups designated as FTOs—Los Lobos and Los Choneros—have long histories of involvement in drug trafficking, extortion, and organized violence.

• Los Choneros: One of Ecuador’s oldest gangs, tied to Mexican cartels and notorious for prison violence.
   
• Los Lobos: A rising rival organization, accused of assassinations, kidnappings, and trafficking routes into Central America.
   

By classifying them as terrorist organizations, the US gains new leverage:

• Asset seizures in the US and through international banking networks.
   
• Enhanced intelligence-sharing with allied governments.
   
• Criminal penalties for individuals or groups aiding them.
   

Rubio emphasized that these gangs were “not just narco traffickers, but narco terrorists who terrorize the countries they operate in.”

The announcement came days after a controversial US military strike in the Caribbean. On Tuesday, US forces destroyed a boat allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua cartel, killing 11 people. Trump described them as traffickers; Caracas condemned the attack as an “extrajudicial killing” of civilians.

Legal experts questioned the international legality of such an operation, warning that without congressional approval or a UN mandate, it could be construed as unlawful.

Rubio sidestepped questions about whether similar unilateral strikes would continue, particularly in “cooperating countries” like Ecuador.

“There’s no need, because those governments are going to help us identify these people and blow them up, if that’s what it takes,” Rubio said.
 

His comments revealed the administration’s expectation of direct collaboration with friendly Latin American states, in contrast to hostile governments like Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro.

Rubio contrasted Ecuador’s cooperation with Venezuela’s resistance, describing Maduro’s government as itself a “terrorist organization, an organized crime organization.”

The sharp rhetoric follows weeks of US military posturing in the Caribbean, with F-35 fighter jets, warships, Marines, and a nuclear submarine deployed near Venezuelan waters.

Washington argues that Maduro provides cover for groups like Tren de Aragua, blurring the line between state sovereignty and criminal enterprise.

It is important to note that the FTO designation does not, on its own, authorize unilateral military strikes.

• Instead, it enhances financial and law enforcement tools, allowing the US to freeze assets and prosecute anyone providing material support.
   
• It also deepens intelligence cooperation between Washington and allied governments.
   

In practice, however, the rhetoric of “narco-terrorism” provides political justification for more aggressive tactics, from maritime seizures to potential cross-border raids.

Rubio and Sommerfeld unveiled a package of security and defense commitments:

• $13 million in general security funding for Ecuador.
   
• $6 million to equip the Ecuadorian Navy with drones for maritime surveillance.
   
• Expanded cooperation on migration, aimed at managing flows of Ecuadorians and other migrants toward the US.
   
• Steps toward a US-Ecuador free trade agreement, aligning economic cooperation with security priorities.
   

Rubio also floated the possibility of re-establishing a US military base in Ecuador, dismantled in 2009 after public opposition. President Daniel Noboa expressed openness, but said it would require approval through a national referendum.

Ecuador has in recent years become one of the most violent countries in Latin America, with cartels exploiting its strategic Pacific ports to move cocaine to the US and Europe.

• In 2023, the country saw a record surge in homicides and prison riots.
   
• Cartel violence has infiltrated politics, with assassinations of local officials and threats against journalists.
   
• Ordinary Ecuadorians face extortion rackets, kidnappings, and rising insecurity.
   

By partnering with the US, Noboa hopes to stabilize the situation and reassure citizens of government control.

Rubio’s rhetoric reflects a wider pivot in Trump’s Latin America policy: framing organized crime as terrorism.

• This justifies militarized responses, including the use of advanced weaponry and direct strikes.
   
• It links the war on drugs with the war on terror, blurring distinctions between criminal law enforcement and military conflict.
   
• It pressures regional governments to choose sides—cooperate with Washington or risk being branded as accomplices of narco-terrorists.
   

Human rights groups and legal scholars have raised alarms:

• Expanding the terrorism label risks mission creep, leading to extrajudicial killings.
   
• Countries cooperating with US intelligence may face backlash from citizens wary of foreign military presence.
   
• Aggressive rhetoric could push criminal groups into deeper alliances with states opposed to the US, such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, or even transnational networks linked to Mexico’s cartels.
   

Despite these warnings, Rubio insists the strategy will save lives by dismantling networks fueling drug trafficking and violence.

Ecuador’s strategic role is central to US policy:

1. Geography: Its Pacific coastline provides critical exit routes for cocaine.
    
2. Politics: Noboa’s pro-US stance contrasts with leftist governments in Bolivia and Venezuela.
    
3. Economics: A potential free trade agreement could cement ties.
    

By strengthening Ecuador, the US seeks to secure a reliable partner in a region where political allegiances are often volatile.

Reporting from Santiago, Al Jazeera’s Latin America editor Lucia Newman described Rubio’s trip as “very successful from the point of view of both countries.”

Ecuador gains funding, drones, and diplomatic backing, while the US locks in a cooperative partner for its expanding war on cartels.

But the designation of Ecuadorian gangs as terrorists also sets a precedent: more groups across Latin America may soon be targeted, widening the battlefield of Trump’s narco-terrorism doctrine.

Marco Rubio’s declaration in Quito that Ecuadorian gangs are foreign terrorists underscores a fundamental shift in US policy: organized crime in Latin America is no longer treated solely as a criminal problem but as an extension of global terrorism.

For Ecuador, the partnership promises security funding and closer ties with Washington, but also risks deeper entanglement in US military strategies. For the region, it signals that the war on drugs is being reframed as a war on terror—a designation with far-reaching consequences.

As Rubio put it bluntly:

“They’re going to help us find these people and blow them up. If that’s what it takes.”
 

With rhetoric this uncompromising, the future of US-Latin American relations looks increasingly militarized, and the line between counter-narcotics and counterterrorism more blurred than ever.

Peru| Planet & Commerce 

In a decision that has drawn outrage from Indigenous leaders, environmental activists, and human rights advocates, Peru’s Congress rejected a proposal to create the long-awaited Yavari Mirim Indigenous Reserve. The reserve, spanning 1.17 million hectares (2.9 million acres) of pristine Amazon rainforest along the border with Brazil, was designed to protect five uncontacted Indigenous tribes living in voluntary isolation.

The vote—eight against, five in favor—represents a devastating blow to decades of advocacy and highlights the growing clash between extractive industries and Indigenous rights in the Amazon. Critics say the rejection shows lawmakers’ allegiance to business lobbies over the survival of some of the world’s most vulnerable peoples.

The proposed Yavari Mirim Indigenous Reserve was intended to safeguard five tribes believed to inhabit the remote forests:

• Matses
   
• Matis
   
• Korubo
   
• Kulina-Pano
   
• Flecheiro (Tavakina)
   

These groups live in voluntary isolation, avoiding sustained contact with outsiders. Such isolation leaves them particularly vulnerable to disease, exploitation, and violence, as even minor exposure can lead to devastating epidemics.

Advocates note that protecting these tribes is not only a moral obligation but also a legal one, given Peru’s Indigenous Peoples in Isolation law and commitments under international human rights agreements.

Indigenous leaders reacted with fury and grief.

Francisco Hernández Cayetano, president of the Federation of Ticuna and Yagua Communities of the Lower Amazon, told the Associated Press:

“This shows its anti-Indigenous face in the 21st century. Without Indigenous peoples, the Amazon and its tributaries would already have been wiped out. This is a very hard blow from our own state, which should instead protect us.”
 

Cayetano vowed to conduct additional studies and resubmit the proposal, saying Indigenous groups will not relent despite decades of delay.

The proposal faced intense opposition from logging concession holders, mining interests, and regional business groups in Loreto, Peru’s largest Amazonian region.

Opponents argued that:

• The reserve would block economic development.
   
• It would restrict access to valuable natural resources.
   
• Evidence of uncontacted tribes was insufficient or inconclusive.
   

Some lawmakers echoed these arguments, claiming the territory had been tied up for nearly 20 years without final approval, preventing potential jobs and investment.

For critics, however, these objections amount to little more than greenlighting resource extraction at the expense of Indigenous survival.

The rejection drew sharp rebukes from international observers.

John Walsh, director for drug policy and the Andes at WOLA (Washington Office on Latin America), said:

“Today’s decision is devastating for the future of Indigenous people facing grave threats not only to their health and well-being but their very survival. Despite its clear legal obligations, Peru’s government seems content to open the door to extractive industries to carve up the land and cast aside the rights of those who live there.”
 

Human rights groups argue that Peru is violating both domestic law and international treaties, which mandate protections for Indigenous peoples in isolation.

The national federation AIDESEP, which represents Indigenous communities in the Peruvian Amazon, was equally blunt.

Julio Cusurichi, head of the federation’s program for Indigenous Peoples in Isolation and Initial Contact, condemned the vote:

“Despite overwhelming evidence of uncontacted Indigenous peoples in the area, the vote was eight against and five in favor. This puts the lives of these peoples in danger and shows that the government obeys extractive interests, not the rights of highly vulnerable Indigenous brothers and sisters.”
 

Cusurichi called the decision a “concrete violation” of human rights, insisting:

“No economic activity in the world should be placed above the rights to life and territory of these peoples.”
 

The rejection coincides with congressional efforts to amend Peru’s Indigenous Peoples in Isolation law, a move that Indigenous groups fear will erode protections.

Proposed changes include:

• Mandating regular reviews of reserves, opening the door to revoking protections.
   
• Giving lawmakers greater power to alter or scrap reserves altogether.
   

Supporters of the amendments argue that reserves like Yavari Mirim have languished for too long due to “insufficient evidence” of isolated groups. Indigenous leaders counter that these maneuvers are aimed at stripping protections to clear the way for extractive projects.

The Yavari Mirim reserve would have created a vital buffer against deforestation, logging, oil drilling, mining, and drug trafficking—all rampant threats in the region.

Peru’s Amazon is under relentless pressure:

• Illegal logging drives deforestation and violent land conflicts.
   
• Mining and oil drilling contaminate rivers and ecosystems.
   
• Drug traffickers use remote areas as transit routes.
   

By rejecting the reserve, Congress has left a vast swath of rainforest—an area the size of Jamaica—open to exploitation.

Peru’s decision is likely to invite international criticism. Environmental and human rights groups in Europe and the United States have long pressed Peru to finalize protections for uncontacted peoples.

The rejection could complicate Peru’s standing in:

• Global climate talks, where Amazon protection is a priority.
   
• Human rights forums, where Peru is already under scrutiny.
   
• Trade negotiations, as consumer markets increasingly tie trade benefits to environmental and human rights compliance.
   

The Yavari Mirim proposal dates back more than two decades, with successive governments pledging action but failing to finalize it.

This long delay has allowed:

• Encroachment by illegal loggers.
   
• Mounting threats from drug cartels.
   
• Weakening political resolve under industry pressure.
   

Advocates say the delays themselves have emboldened extractive lobbies to push for further weakening of Indigenous protections.

For Indigenous leaders, the issue is existential.

• Contact with outsiders could devastate tribes through disease.
   
• Loss of land would erase cultures that have survived in isolation for centuries.
   
• Encroachment by extractive industries risks violent confrontation.
   

Hernández Cayetano emphasized that Indigenous peoples have acted as guardians of the Amazon, preserving biodiversity and protecting rivers. Their survival, he argued, is intertwined with the health of the rainforest and the planet.

Peru’s rejection of the Yavari Mirim Indigenous Reserve marks a defining moment in the nation’s environmental and political trajectory. At stake is not only the survival of five uncontacted tribes but also the integrity of a critical part of the Amazon rainforest, often described as the “lungs of the Earth.”

By siding with extractive interests, Congress has signaled that economic development takes precedence over Indigenous rights and ecological preservation. For Indigenous communities, it is a betrayal; for human rights advocates, a violation; and for environmentalists, a catastrophe in the making.

The question now is whether the decision can be reversed, or whether it will stand as another chapter in the long history of sacrificing Indigenous peoples and their lands to the march of economic exploitation.