MYworldfix

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have announced the permanent closure of their New York state offices, attributing the decision to what they describe as the New York Attorney General Letitia James's 'corrupt and dangerous business practices'. This move, first reported by Fox News Digital on October 2, signifies a significant shift in their operational presence within the state.

Federal Housing Agencies Withdraw Physical Presence from New York Amidst Allegations

In a notable development, the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are set to permanently withdraw their physical office locations from New York state. This decision stems from their contention regarding the conduct of Attorney General Letitia James. A source closely associated with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) indicated that while physical offices would be eliminated, operations such as mortgage loan provisions in New York and the employment of local residents would continue. The entities plan to sublease their existing office spaces. The exact timeline for these closures and the impact on current employees remain undisclosed, with both the GSEs and James's office yet to provide official comments. This announcement follows a U.S. Department of Justice criminal investigation into James's alleged mortgage fraud, initiated in May after an April referral from FHFA Director Bill Pulte. Pulte's referral also raised concerns about James's real estate transactions, including a Brooklyn property from 2001 with inconsistent occupancy records and a 2023 Virginia home purchase. James has consistently refuted these allegations, characterizing them as mere 'paperwork errors' and 'political retribution,' particularly given her history of legal challenges against President Trump's administration.

This situation highlights the escalating tensions between federal housing agencies and state-level legal authorities, particularly when political motivations are perceived to influence legal actions. It underscores the potential for such disputes to disrupt operations and raise questions about regulatory environments, emphasizing the need for transparency and clear communication in legal and business practices.