Analysis: Swalwell v. Pulte – Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Accused of Weaponizing Mortgage Records for Political Retaliation

Assistance from Claude AI.

Document Type and Context

This is a civil complaint filed in federal court on November 25, 2025, by Rep. Eric Swalwell against William J. Pulte (Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency), the FHFA itself, and the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A complaint is the initial legal document that begins a lawsuit, where the plaintiff sets out the factual allegations and legal claims against the defendants.

This case arrives in a politically charged context: the complaint alleges that President Trump’s administration has been systematically targeting political opponents through criminal investigations, and that Pulte has weaponized his access to private mortgage records to manufacture criminal referrals against prominent Democrats who have criticized the President.

The Parties

Plaintiff:

• Eric Swalwell: Democratic Member of Congress representing California’s 14th District since 2013, currently running for Governor of California. He served as an impeachment manager during Trump’s second impeachment trial and has been a vocal Trump critic.

Defendants:

• William J. Pulte: Director of FHFA since March 2025, who also appointed himself chairman of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after firing board members. Dubbed “Little Trump” by administration officials for his attention-seeking behavior.
• Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA): Federal agency created in 2008 to regulate entities involved in the housing market.
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Two government-sponsored enterprises that purchase mortgages and create mortgage-backed securities. Both have been under FHFA conservatorship since 2008.

The Factual Allegations

The complaint paints a picture of systematic abuse:

The Pattern of Targeting

According to the complaint, since Trump returned to office in January 2025, Pulte has referred four prominent Democrats to the Department of Justice for alleged mortgage fraud:

1. Tish James (NY Attorney General) – April 14, 2025
2. Adam Schiff (Senator) – May 27, 2025
3. Lisa Cook (Federal Reserve Board Governor) – August 15, 2025
4. Eric Swalwell (Congressman) – November 13, 2025

All four are outspoken Trump critics. The complaint notes that FHFA has “never issued a criminal referral to DOJ alleging mortgage fraud by anyone who supports President Trump.”

The Swalwell Referral

On November 13, 2025, Pulte referred Swalwell to DOJ claiming he falsely designated his DC home as his primary residence to obtain favorable loan terms. However, Swalwell asserts this is “patently false”—he filed a sworn affidavit with his mortgage stating the home would be his wife’s primary residence, not his own, and that he remains a California resident.

The Coordinated Leak

The complaint meticulously documents what appears to be a coordinated media leak on November 13, 2025:

• NBC News published the story at 1:52 PM ET
• Within minutes, conservative social media accounts posted details containing information beyond what NBC reported (like the home’s value)
• Many posts explicitly tagged Pulte’s account
• CNN later reported that DOJ hadn’t even received the written referral yet—Pulte had only delivered it orally and mailed a copy

Unprecedented Conduct

The complaint emphasizes several irregularities:

• FHFA has no historical role in criminal investigations or maintaining individual mortgage records
• No statute authorizes the FHFA Director to make criminal referrals absent a DOJ request
• When Fannie Mae ethics officials questioned Pulte’s access to mortgage records, he fired them (approximately a dozen employees)
• When FHFA’s Acting Inspector General disclosed an internal complaint to prosecutors, the administration fired him

Legal Claims

Swalwell brings two main legal claims:

Count 1: Privacy Act Violation (5 U.S.C. § 552a)

The Privacy Act, enacted after Watergate to prevent Nixon-style enemies lists, restricts how federal agencies can use and disclose personal information about individuals.

Key requirements:

• Agencies can only disclose records from a “system of records” (databases searchable by personal identifiers) with written consent or under specific statutory exceptions
• One exception allows disclosure to DOJ for law enforcement—but only in response to a written request identifying the specific law enforcement activity
• Agencies must maintain safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure

Swalwell’s argument:

• Defendants accessed his mortgage records from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac databases
• They disclosed this information to DOJ without his consent and without a proper written law enforcement request
• They disclosed information to the press without authorization
• They failed to maintain proper safeguards

Strengths:

• The Privacy Act’s requirements are clear and specific
• The complaint alleges willful and intentional violations, not mere negligence
• The coordinated media leak strongly suggests deliberate disclosure
• The pattern across four cases suggests systematic violation rather than isolated error

Potential weaknesses:

• Defendants may argue some law enforcement exception applies
• Privacy Act cases can turn on technical questions about whether records qualify as a “system of records”
• Defendants might claim the information came from other sources, not the mortgage records themselves

Count 2: First Amendment Retaliation (via Administrative Procedure Act)

First Amendment retaliation doctrine prohibits government officials from taking adverse actions against individuals because of their protected speech. To establish a claim, a plaintiff typically must show:

1. Protected activity (speech criticizing government)
2. Adverse action by the government
3. Causal connection between the speech and the adverse action
4. The action would chill speech by a person of ordinary firmness

Swalwell’s argument:

• His impeachment role, lawsuit against Trump, and ongoing public criticism are clearly protected speech
• A criminal referral is obviously an adverse action
• The timing (following Trump’s September 20 directive demanding prosecution of critics) and pattern (only Trump critics referred) demonstrate causation
• Being subjected to federal criminal investigation would deter ordinary people from criticism

Supporting evidence:

• Trump’s public attacks on Swalwell (“low life,” “idiot,” “total sleazebag”)
• Trump’s September 20 Truth Social post demanding action against “Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia”
• The fact that only Trump critics have been referred
• Pulte’s reputation as seeking to “impress and curry favor with President Trump”

Strengths:

• The factual pattern is extraordinarily strong—the temporal proximity and selective targeting are damning
• Courts take First Amendment retaliation claims very seriously
• The allegations, if proven, represent textbook viewpoint discrimination

Potential weaknesses:

• Defendants will argue they had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the referral (alleged mortgage fraud)
• Retaliation claims can fail if the government shows it would have taken the same action anyway
• The complaint may face qualified immunity defenses (though these typically apply to individual defendants, not agencies)
• Defendants might argue Pulte lacks authority to control DOJ’s actions, weakening the causal chain

Evidence and Legal Precedents

Evidence Supporting Swalwell’s Claims

Direct evidence:

• Trump’s September 20, 2025 Truth Social directive to AG Bondi
• Trump’s repeated public attacks on Swalwell
• The coordinated media leak timeline
• The exclusive pattern of referring only Trump critics
• Exhibits A and B (FHFA letters and emails showing the referral process)

Circumstantial evidence:

• Swalwell’s sworn affidavit explicitly disclaiming the DC home as his primary residence (undercutting fraud claim)
• The firing of ethics officials and the Inspector General who questioned the conduct
• Pulte’s reputation as “Little Trump” seeking favor
• The unprecedented nature of FHFA making criminal referrals

Legal Precedents

The complaint doesn’t cite specific cases, but relevant precedents include:

For First Amendment retaliation:

• The Supreme Court has long held that the government cannot retaliate against citizens for exercising First Amendment rights
• Hartman v. Moore and Nieves v. Bartlett establish frameworks for proving retaliatory prosecution claims
• The key challenge: showing the prosecution wouldn’t have occurred “but for” the retaliatory motive

For Privacy Act:

• Courts interpret the Act’s exceptions narrowly given its protective purpose
• The law enforcement exception requires strict compliance with written request requirements
• Willful violations (as alleged here) carry stronger remedies including compensatory damages

Historical parallel:

• The complaint explicitly invokes the Nixon administration’s enemies list—the very abuse that prompted the Privacy Act’s enactment

Evaluation of Arguments

Swalwell’s Arguments: Strong Foundation, Real Challenges

Logic and coherence: The complaint presents a compelling narrative with clear internal logic. The pattern of targeting only Trump critics, combined with Trump’s explicit directive and the timing, creates powerful circumstantial evidence of retaliation.

Evidentiary support: The factual allegations are specific and verifiable. The media leak timeline is meticulously documented. The sworn affidavit directly contradicting the fraud allegation is strong evidence.

Legal grounding: Both claims rest on well-established legal principles. The Privacy Act claim has clear statutory language to work with. The First Amendment claim aligns with core constitutional protections.

Potential vulnerabilities:

• The “legitimate basis” defense: Even if Pulte’s motive was retaliatory, if there was some legitimate basis for investigation, defendants might prevail
• Causation gaps: Pulte referred the matter, but DOJ decides whether to investigate—defendants may argue Pulte can’t be liable for DOJ’s independent decisions
• Privacy Act technicalities: Success may depend on proving mortgage records fit statutory definitions and no exception applies
• Discovery burdens: Proving state of mind and coordinated leaking will require extensive discovery

Defendants’ Likely Arguments

While defendants haven’t yet responded, expect them to argue:

1. Legitimate law enforcement purpose: They will claim they had genuine concerns about mortgage fraud based on evidence independent of any retaliatory motive

2. No Privacy Act violation: They may argue:

• Records don’t meet “system of records” definition
• A law enforcement exception applies
• Information came from public sources, not protected records

1. No causation: They’ll argue DOJ makes independent prosecutorial decisions, breaking the causal chain

2. No adverse action yet: They might claim a mere referral, without actual prosecution, isn’t sufficiently adverse to support retaliation claims

3. Qualified immunity: Individual defendants may claim protection from suit

Assessment of defense viability:

These defenses face serious obstacles. The pattern evidence is devastating—exclusively targeting Trump critics after Trump’s explicit directive is hard to explain innocently. The coordinated leak suggests bad faith. The firing of those who questioned the conduct suggests consciousness of wrongdoing. And Swalwell’s sworn affidavit seems to demolish the fraud allegation itself.

Likely Outcome

This is a close case, but Swalwell has strong prospects on the Privacy Act claim and reasonable prospects on the First Amendment claim.

Privacy Act Claim: Advantage Swalwell

If Swalwell can prove:

• The records came from a statutory “system of records”
• No proper written law enforcement request existed
• Defendants disclosed information to the press

Then the Privacy Act violation is clear. The “willful and intentional” nature could support significant damages. The main risk is defendants proving some exception applies or disputing the source of the information.

Prediction: 60-65% likelihood Swalwell prevails on Privacy Act claim

First Amendment Claim: Competitive but Challenging

The circumstantial evidence of retaliation is very strong. However, First Amendment retaliation claims in the prosecutorial context face high bars. Defendants will argue mixed motives—even if politics played a role, they had some legitimate basis for referral.

The Supreme Court has been protective of prosecutorial discretion. Courts may hesitate to second-guess referral decisions even when political motives seem evident.

Prediction: 40-45% likelihood Swalwell prevails on First Amendment claim

Next Steps for the Parties

For Defendants:

1. File motion to dismiss (likely within 21 days): Argue claims fail as a matter of law

• Challenge standing and ripeness (no actual prosecution yet)
• Assert qualified immunity
• Argue Privacy Act exceptions apply
• Claim insufficient causal connection for First Amendment claim

1. If motion fails, answer the complaint: Deny allegations and assert affirmative defenses

2. Discovery battle: Expect fierce fights over:

• Internal FHFA communications
• Communications with the White House
• Communications with media
• Swalwell’s actual mortgage documents and affidavits

1. Potential settlement discussions: The political optics are terrible; defendants may seek to settle quietly

For Swalwell:

1. Oppose motion to dismiss: Emphasize this is a fact-intensive case unsuitable for early dismissal

2. Aggressive discovery: Seek:

• All communications between Pulte, FHFA, White House, and DOJ
• Communications with media outlets
• FHFA’s records of all criminal referrals
• Internal ethics complaints and investigations
• Documents showing how Pulte accessed the mortgage records

1. Move for preliminary injunction: Seek to force withdrawal of the criminal referral

2. Consider additional claims: Potentially add Bivens claims (constitutional damages against individual defendants)

3. Media strategy: This case will play out publicly; maintain narrative of political persecution

Broader Implications

Political and Democratic Norms

This case raises fundamental questions about democratic governance:

• Weaponization of government: Can federal officials use their access to citizens’ private information to punish political speech?
• Enemies lists: The complaint explicitly invokes Nixon’s abuses—are we seeing history repeat?
• Prosecutorial independence: The allegations suggest DOJ responding to political directives rather than exercising independent judgment
• Chilling effect: If prominent politicians can be targeted this way, what message does it send to ordinary citizens?

Legal and Institutional Significance

Privacy Act enforcement: This could become a landmark case on the Privacy Act’s scope and remedies. The Act is under-litigated; a clear violation finding could strengthen privacy protections.

First Amendment boundaries: A ruling for Swalwell would reinforce limits on retaliatory government action. A ruling for defendants might suggest officials have wide latitude to investigate critics.

Checks on executive power: The case tests whether courts will intervene when executive branch officials appear to abuse power for political purposes.

Separation of powers: The involvement of a Member of Congress as plaintiff raises questions about congressional-executive relations and whether the Speech or Debate Clause offers any protection.

Broader Political Context

This lawsuit is one battle in a larger war over Trump’s second term. The complaint references:

• Multiple prosecutions of Trump critics (Comey indictment, James indictment)
• Systematic removal of officials who questioned questionable conduct
• A pattern suggesting coordinated executive branch retaliation

If Swalwell prevails, it could:

• Embolden other Trump critics to challenge retaliatory actions
• Force more careful adherence to legal process
• Create discovery revealing the extent of coordination
• Potentially lead to congressional oversight

If defendants prevail, it might:

• Suggest limited judicial recourse against politically motivated investigations
• Embolden further aggressive action against critics
• Test the boundaries of executive authority

Conclusion

This complaint presents serious allegations of constitutional and statutory violations arising from apparent political retaliation. The factual pattern—exclusive targeting of Trump critics following presidential directives, coordinated media leaks, and the firing of ethics officials—suggests systematic abuse rather than isolated error.

The Privacy Act claim appears particularly strong given the specific statutory violations alleged. The First Amendment claim faces higher barriers but rests on compelling facts.

The case will likely survive a motion to dismiss, leading to discovery battles that could prove explosive. The eventual outcome may turn on whether courts find the pattern evidence sufficiently damning to overcome defendants’ arguments about legitimate law enforcement purposes.

Beyond its immediate legal stakes, this case represents a critical test of whether legal institutions can effectively check executive branch retaliation against political opponents—one of the core dangers the Constitution’s framers sought to prevent.