SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
homeownership
Privatizing Freddie and Fannie Is Another Trump Scheme to Make the Rich Richer
The basic story here is that in order to give donors in the financial industry still more money, Trump is planning to privatize a perfectly well-functioning public system for securitizing mortgages.
Aug 13, 2025
In Washington no bad idea stays dead long. Therefore it should not be surprising that U.S. President Donald Trump is planning to move forward with plans to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants that have been in government conservatorship for almost two decades.
As with many of the moves undertaken by Trump, it is not clear what problem this is meant to solve. For the period they have been in conservatorship, Fannie and Freddie have been securitizing mortgages at a low cost and have not faced any substantial management problems.
There is of course one problem that privatizing Fannie and Freddie would solve. This is yet one more way that the financial industry can run up some profits and high pay for top executives at the expense of the rest of us.
The Congressional Budget Office calculated that having private institutions, rather than Fannie and Freddie in their current form, would add roughly 20 basis points, 0.2% to the cost of securitizing mortgages. With around $1 trillion in mortgages being securitized each year, that comes to $2 billion annually. That is not huge in the context of the federal budget (0.03%), but it is four times the annual appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that got Trump so upset.
Trump is giving a green light to his finance buddies to find every more creative ways to rip off businesses and ordinary people.
And in the case of privatizing Fannie and Freddie, we literally get nothing for it except a less efficient mechanism for securitizing mortgages. This is similar to the plans for privatizing Social Security. We have an extremely efficient public system, but many people in the Trump administration see the opportunity to make trillions of dollars in fees by turning it into a private system.
As with a privatized Social Security system, we would also be exposing ourselves to needless risk by privatizing Fannie and Freddie. The basic problem is that we would be allowing a private corporation to operate with a government guarantee against losses. This guarantee gives a private securitizer an enormous incentive to securitize bad mortgages in order to increase volume and make more profits. That was the story of the housing bubble and the subsequent collapse and financial crisis in 2008-09.
If a private securitizer is carefully regulated, it can limit the risk of reckless lending. But does anyone believe that the Trump administration is going to have careful regulation of the financial industry?
The basic story here is that in order to give donors in the financial industry still more money, Trump is planning to privatize a perfectly well-functioning public system for securitizing mortgages. This move will almost certainly increase the cost of mortgages for homebuyers, the only question is by how much. And it raises the risk for future financial crises and government bailouts.
Making the financial sector less efficient in order to hand money to contributors is very much front and center in the Trump administration. This is the same story with his decision to promote crypto currency, which is making Trump and his friends tens of billions of dollars; as opposed to letting the Federal Reserve Board issue a digital currency, which would save us tens of billions in bank and credit card fees.
The evisceration of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau follows the same pattern. Trump is giving a green light to his finance buddies to find every more creative ways to rip off businesses and ordinary people.
That’s how we should understand the drive to privatize Fannie and Freddie. How could anyone oppose it?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Economic Anxiety of Americans Surges Under Trump: Poll
"The president promised to lower costs on day one, and by that standard, he's broken that promise and has made choices that will cost families thousands of dollars a year," said one policy expert recently.
May 12, 2025
The Trump administration has made its desire for Americans to expand their families well known, but a new survey out Monday details how a growing number of people are postponing such major life decisions—including having children, buying a home, or expanding their education—due to the economic anxiety created by President Donald Trump's policies.
The Harris poll was conducted on behalf of The Guardian between April 24-26, in the wake of the news that the White House was considering multiple ways to encourage people to have more children. The proposals being floated by "pronatalist" advisers include a $5,000 "baby bonus" that the administration would offer to people when they have a new baby—which would cover less than half of the average annual cost of childcare in the United States.
The survey suggested that the proposal was not enticing to would-be parents in the U.S., with 65% of people who had previously planned to have a child in 2025 reporting they were now holding off on the decision. Thirty-three percent said they were not comfortable expanding their families in the current economy, and 32% said they were unable to afford having a child.
Trump has imposed and rolled back various tariffs several times since taking office; the White House announced Monday that reciprocal tariffs with China were being paused for 90 days while the two countries try to work out a trade deal. Tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods are partially in effect, and the administration has also imposed tariffs on aluminum and steel imports, cars, and car parts.
The U.S. economy contracted in the first quarter, with the gross domestic produce declining at an annual rate of 0.3% after having climbed by 2.4% in the final quarter of 2024.
For Americans, the tariffs have meant higher prices for items like toys, children's clothes, household tools, and washing machines.
As Common Dreams reported last week, despite Trump's proposal of a "baby bonus," Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens has termed the tariffs a "baby tax"—directly causing essentials like strollers, high chairs, and cribs to cost more.
"The president promised to lower costs on day one, and by that standard, he's broken that promise and has made choices that will cost families thousands of dollars a year," said Groundwork Collaborative fellow Michael Negron told a U.S. House committee last week.
Nearly 80% of people surveyed said they've experienced higher grocery prices since Trump took office—despite the fact that he explicitly promised his presidency would swiftly bring about a lower cost of living—and 60% said they noticed their monthly bills going up.
The Harris poll found that 66% of people are now putting off making large purchases like cars or home appliances under Trump's economy, and three-quarters of those who had previously been hoping to buy a home are postponing that purchase.
Mortgage rates are currently 6.7%—more than double what they were four years ago.
CNN reported last month that although interest rates on home loans have been falling, "President Donald Trump's scattered approach to tariffs and an escalating trade war with China has injected volatility into the stock market, and resulted in a sell-off in U.S. bonds last week."
Sixty-eight percent of Millennial and Gen Z renters—those in their 20s, 30s, and early 40s—said they had a goal of buying a home, compared to 29% of older renters, suggesting that the major life decisions of younger Americans are being most affected by the Trump administration.
The Harris poll also asked respondents if they believed the economy is worsening, and found a partisan divide: 33% of Republicans said yes compared to 73% of Democratic voters who agreed.
But among Independents—44% of whom supported Trump in the 2024 election, according to a post-election survey—64% agreed with the majority of Democrats about the economy's trajectory.
Nearly a third of respondents said they believe Trump's tariffs will cause the most harm to their household finances, despite the president's claims that the tariffs will "make America wealthy again."
During his testimony last week, Negron said that higher prices on essential goods and services "are the types of things that you would expect to hear when you look at what experts have said, that [tariffs are] going cost anywhere from $4,500 to $5,000 more for the average household once they're fully in effect."
"When you look at the promises to lower prices," he said, "the administration is not living up to them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What We Can Learn From Social Housing in Singapore and Vienna
The housing crisis is threatening to make the American dream impossible. What’s needed is the will and investment necessary to bring social housing—publicly developed homes for residents of mixed incomes—to California.
Oct 05, 2024
California is the epicenter of the national housing shortage. Over half of California renters—and four in ten mortgaged homeowners—are cost-burdened, which means they pay more than 30% of their income on housing. And I am one of them.
Yet of the 120 members of the California State Legislature, I’m one of the only five renters.
In the Bay Area district I represent, home prices average roughly $1.5 million and modest apartments rent for over $2,000 per month. It’s impossible for most working people to afford to buy a home in my district. Too many of my friends and family have been priced out of the communities we grew up in.
To address this urgent crisis, I have tirelessly pursued a policy that has successfully ended housing shortages in jurisdictions around the world: social housing.
Social housing is the public development of housing for residents of mixed incomes. I have introduced the California Social Housing Act every year since I took office. I fought to become Chair of the Select Committee on Social Housing, and I’ve participated in delegations to Vienna, Austria, and Singapore to study their social housing systems.
As that dream becomes impossible for so many Americans, there remains one tool that has realized that dream for millions of people around the world.
Vienna and Singapore have important lessons for us on how social housing can actualize housing as a human right.
In both cities, social housing emerged from crisis. After a crushing defeat in World War I, Vienna saw the collapse of its monarchy and extremely overcrowded living conditions. Singapore experienced destruction during World War II and emerged from both Japanese and British colonization with a severe housing shortage. Squatter settlements were devastated by fire in 1961, leaving about 16,000 people homeless. Today, the two governments are identified with opposite ends of the political spectrum—left-leaning Vienna compared to the more right-leaning Singapore—but both housed their populations through social housing.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
In Singapore, the Housing and Development Board builds 99-year leasehold flats that it sells to citizens. It has built so many units that roughly 80% of Singapore’s population live in them. Nine out of ten of these residents own their homes. Homeowners have the right to resell them, rent them out, and pass them to their heirs. These condos appreciate in value over time, enabling them to generate wealth. Only citizens and permanent residents may buy these flats, so no private equity firms, corporations, or speculators can game this system.
Vienna—sometimes referred to as the “Renters’ Utopia”—builds social housing for rent with indefinite leases that tenants never need to renew and can even pass down to their children. Over 60 percent of its residents live in social housing. As in Singapore, most residents qualify for social housing under the high income cap that encompasses 75% of the Viennese population. This income limit only applies when the tenant moves in. Without constant eligibility screenings, tenants may remain even if they make more money in the future, enabling socioeconomic integration of social housing neighborhoods. Residents pay about a third less rent than their counterparts in other major European capitals. Even private sector renters enjoy strong tenant protections.
While Singapore and Vienna offer different social housing models, both governments prioritize creating housing for the public good. The foundation of their policies are the finances, land banking powers, and expertise to build housing as a human right.
The result? Both are consistently ranked as the most livable cities in the world.
California today is well positioned to implement what Vienna and Singapore undertook in the past century. What’s needed here is the political will to bring social housing to our state. We can’t afford to wait.
The harsh reality is that California has roughly 30% of all people experiencing homelessness in the nation. The Golden State must build at least 2.5 million more homes by 2030 to end the current shortage. But California built just 85,000 housing units annually from 2018 to 2022.
California today is well positioned to implement what Vienna and Singapore undertook in the past century. What’s needed here is the political will to bring social housing to our state. We can’t afford to wait.
Today’s social housing proposals avoid the mistakes of the past by creating socioeconomically integrated, financially self-sustaining housing. And momentum is building nationwide. In 2023, my social housing bill was approved with two-thirds majorities in both houses of the California Legislature, but was vetoed. In 2023, Seattle voters approved a ballot measure to create a social housing developer. The state of Hawaii has passed legislation to develop social housing. Montgomery County, Maryland, is at the forefront of creating publicly developed, mixed-income housing through the Housing Opportunities Commission. The Commission serves roughly 17,500 renter households and owns more than 9,000 rental units.
Earlier this year, British Columbia, Canada, announced a CAD $4.95 billion (USD $3.67 billion) social housing initiative. Called BC Builds, the plan is to build 8,000 to 10,000 homes over the next five years, which could be the world’s largest new social housing program in decades.
The American dream has long been centered on having your own home. As that dream becomes impossible for so many Americans, there remains one tool that has realized that dream for millions of people around the world.
Let’s learn from our global peers and embrace social housing as a proven tool to solve our housing crisis.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular