The U.S. housing market is facing a critical turning point — one that could reshape how Americans buy homes for decades to come. The Trump administration has reignited efforts to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two major players in the housing finance system. While investors cheered the news, housing experts are sounding the alarm: Without careful planning, this move could drive mortgage rates even higher, putting homeownership further out of reach for many Americans. This isn’t just a financial shift — it’s a high-stakes decision that could tip the balance of the entire housing ecosystem.

The Delicate Role of Fannie and Freddie

At the heart of the issue are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that don’t lend directly to borrowers but provide vital liquidity by purchasing mortgages from banks and turning them into securities. These mortgage-backed securities (MBS) are then sold to investors, who trust their safety in large part because of the perceived — and now explicit — government guarantee behind them.

This backing lowers the risk for investors, which in turn helps keep borrowing costs low for homebuyers. In today’s $10 trillion housing finance market, even small shifts in risk perception can create large ripples. The challenge? Figuring out how to release Fannie and Freddie from government control without undermining this trust and raising mortgage costs.

When the companies nearly collapsed during the 2008 financial crisis — after holding too many risky loans — the government stepped in with a massive bailout and took control. That emergency intervention was meant to be temporary. Yet over 15 years later, they remain in conservatorship, caught in a political and financial limbo.

New Administration, Old Challenge

Recent statements from the Trump administration signal renewed interest in ending this conservatorship. The companies are now profitable and have repaid the government, and proponents of privatization argue it’s time to return them to the private sector. However, timing is everything. Today’s housing market is already strained: affordability is at historic lows, mortgage rates hover near 6.7%, and many prospective buyers have been priced out.

Removing government support — or even weakening it — could make things worse.

Click here to learn more and subscribe to the newsletter

The Risk of Higher Mortgage Rates

Why would privatization raise rates? Without a clear, formal government guarantee, investors would likely view Fannie and Freddie as riskier bets. To compensate, they’d demand higher returns, and that cost would trickle down to borrowers.

Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi warns that even an “implicit guarantee” — the assumption that the government would step in during a crisis — isn’t enough to stabilize investor confidence. He estimates that this kind of soft support could raise mortgage rates by 20 to 40 basis points. A scenario with no government backing at all could push rates up by over a full percentage point — potentially exceeding 7%, a level not seen consistently since before the 2008 crash.

This would have serious implications. Higher mortgage rates reduce buying power, slow home sales, and could even trigger declines in home prices — a ripple effect that could impact consumer spending and broader economic growth.

Comparing to Related Financial Systems

The issue mirrors debates in other sectors, like student loans or health insurance, where government backing helps make services more accessible and affordable. In each case, the question boils down to how much risk the government should shoulder to support public needs — and how to do so without creating long-term liabilities or inefficiencies.

In the case of housing, the stakes are arguably higher. Homeownership is not just a financial asset; it’s tied to wealth building, family stability, and even community development. Any disruption in the mortgage system could have far-reaching consequences.

Get your free guide “Passive Real Estate Investing For Busy Professionals”

A Middle Ground?

Experts agree that if privatization is pursued, it must include some form of reliable government guarantee — ideally an explicit one backed by legislation. This would provide clarity to markets and help preserve low borrowing costs. But passing such legislation is a tall order in a deeply divided Congress.

Another option could be a hybrid model: privatized GSEs that pay a fee to the government in exchange for a formal guarantee. This would keep private incentives intact while preserving public safeguards. However, crafting this structure would require delicate negotiations and careful oversight.

Conclusion: Proceeding with Caution

Privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may sound like a logical next step after years of government control, but it’s far from simple. The housing finance system relies heavily on the stability and trust that come with government support. Removing or weakening that pillar risks pushing mortgage rates higher — potentially locking more Americans out of homeownership at a time when affordability is already strained.

The road ahead must be navigated with extreme care. Any transition must balance investor confidence, borrower protection, and political feasibility. As Treasury officials weigh their options, one thing is clear: housing is not just another market — it’s the foundation of the American Dream. And any reform that shakes that foundation must be done with eyes wide open and a steady hand on the wheel.

Share this: