WASHINGTON – In a significant shift affecting the nation’s housing finance system, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has granted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the authority to increase the amount of mortgage bonds they can purchase, potentially doubling previous limits imposed by longstanding federal regulations. An internal email dated January 12, obtained by sources, reveals that the mortgage bond cap for each government-backed lender was raised from $40 billion to $225 billion, effective immediately.
This adjustment considerably elevates the potential volume of mortgage bonds these enterprises may acquire, surpassing the earlier directive from President Donald Trump that targeted a $200 billion bond purchase intended to alleviate mortgage interest rates. Should the institutions choose to utilize the full extent of these expanded permissions, they would effectively augment bond purchases by an estimated $170 billion beyond the President’s original mandate.
Questions remain unanswered regarding the involvement of higher executive officials such as President Trump or Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in sanctioning this alteration to the mortgage bond purchase limits. Neither the FHFA nor Director Bill Pulte has commented on whether this decision was made in consultation with the White House or Treasury Department prior to implementation.
This development represents a marked departure from nearly twenty years of bipartisan consensus that has sought to restrain the risk exposure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through the imposition of purchase caps. These constraints were established in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008-09, during which both enterprises faced government intervention and conservatorship after bearing substantial losses in the housing market collapse.
Historically, following the crisis, the federal government limited the mortgage investment portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to balance taxpayer protection with market stability. Treasury’s cap set the total portfolio limit at $450 billion, a threshold that the FHFA subsequently tightened further – at times restricting individual portfolios to as low as $25 billion. However, under Director Pulte’s leadership, the FHFA has begun to relax those restrictions incrementally over recent months, culminating in this latest substantial raise in bond purchase authority.
This pivot toward expanding bond purchases carries implications not just for the housing finance companies but also for broader financial market dynamics. By allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to hold larger volumes of mortgage-backed securities, the agencies effectively assume greater credit and interest rate risk. Analysts point out that neither institution currently possesses sufficient cash or liquid assets to fund such an expansive acquisition without resorting to increased borrowing, further amplifying financial vulnerability.
Despite the escalated bond purchasing potential, Pulte and the FHFA have stated post-publication clarifying remarks indicating that the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) would not exceed the $200 billion figure initially announced by President Trump. Nonetheless, the initial FHFA communication did not explicitly impose this restriction, authorizing purchases with the intention to “exert meaningful downward pressure” on mortgage rates and indicating that progress could commence without prior agency approval for each increment.
Political ramifications surrounding this move are notable, particularly with mortgage interest rates positioned as a sensitive issue ahead of the midterm congressional elections. Critics among lawmakers, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, have expressed skepticism, highlighting the limited efficacy of such bond buying in sustainably reducing mortgage interest rates without addressing fundamental supply constraints in the housing market.
Senator Warren argued that mere manipulation of mortgage bond purchases might temporarily influence rates but would likely fail to lower borrowing costs over the long term. Moreover, she underscored concerns regarding the elevated risk borne by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a consequence of increased bond holdings, potentially threatening financial stability.
The tenure of FHFA Director Bill Pulte has been characterized by a notably assertive and politically visible approach, which diverges from the traditionally low-profile nature of the role. Pulte has enacted actions including personnel changes within Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executive ranks and ethics offices, and he has promoted policy proposals that have generated debate, such as advocating for a 50-year mortgage product designed to stimulate home buying, a concept that has faced criticism for its potential to increase overall loan costs substantially.
The unique status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as government-chartered entities enables them to borrow at substantially lower costs relative to private firms while functioning as the primary purchasers and securitizers of U.S. residential mortgages. This structure carries inherent tension between their statutory public mission to support housing liquidity and their operational inclination toward generating profit, a dynamic that contributed to prior risk-taking behaviors culminating in the 2008 crisis.
Substantial criticism has emerged from economic experts and housing policy specialists who question the long-term viability and risk profile of expanding mortgage bond purchases on such a scale. While some describe the initial push as a transient "sugar high" for the mortgage market, fears persist that reintroducing high-risk lending practices could destabilize the financial system if not managed prudently.
As Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac navigate these changes, the market and policymakers remain cautious regarding the potential consequences of this policy relaxation, especially given the sensitive timing and ongoing political pressures surrounding housing affordability and financial regulation.