Trump Administration to Buy $200 Billion in Mortgage-Backed Securities to Lower Mortgage Rates
The Trump administration plans to buy $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities to lower rates: Will it really help affordability?
The cost of buying a home remains one of the biggest economic concerns for millions of families in the United States. In that context, President Donald Trump announced a measure that could directly influence mortgage rates. The plan involves the federal government purchasing up to $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities, with the goal of reducing interest rates and easing monthly payments for homeowners. The announcement was made by the president himself via his Truth Social account. According to him, the resources would come from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage giants that have remained under federal oversight since the 2008 financial crisis. Both entities, according to Trump, have sufficient cash reserves to execute the operation without resorting to new public funds.
“This will make mortgage rates LOWER, monthly payments LOWER, and the cost of homeownership more affordable,” the president wrote on his social media.
The post is part of a broader White House strategy to address voters' concerns about the lack of affordability, especially in the lead-up to the November midterm elections.
The director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Bill Pulte, publicly confirmed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “will be executing” the presidential directive. Their support reinforces the idea that the initiative could be launched in the short term, although doubts remain about its real impact and potential side effects. The government's purchase of mortgage-backed securities is not a new tool. The Federal Reserve used this strategy during periods of economic crisis to reduce financing costs. That policy allowed millions of homeowners to refinance their mortgages at rates near or even below 3%. However, these same low levels have contributed to many homeowners' reluctance to sell, limiting the supply of available housing. Financial analysts warn that Trump's proposal could provide immediate relief, but would not solve the market's structural problems. "We see this as successful in the short term,Although we believe it will reignite housing price inflation given the supply constraints," TD Securities specialists stated in a research note. From the real estate sector, Redfin's chief economist, Daryl Fairweather, estimated that the purchase of mortgage debt could reduce the rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage by between 0.25 and 0.5 percentage points. However, he warned that the initiative does not address other key factors, such as the limited availability of housing and unequal income growth. Currently, mortgage rates hover around 6.2%, according to Freddie Mac data. They have not fallen below 6% since September 2022, following the post-pandemic inflationary surge. Although rates have decreased from the nearly 7% recorded at the beginning of Trump's second term, the relief has been insufficient for many families facing high housing, food, and energy costs. The pressure is evident. More than 75% of homes in the United States are unaffordable for most buyers, according to Bankrate. by the end of 2025, median-priced homes were less affordable than the historical average in 99% of the counties analyzed. The plan also involves risks. By using a large portion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's reserves, these entities would be left with a smaller financial cushion in the face of a potential economic slowdown. In practice, the government would be betting against a repeat of the Great Recession, when both companies required a massive bailout. However, Trump has defended his decision not to privatize Fannie and Freddie during his first term. "Because I chose not to sell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in my first term, a truly excellent decision, they are now worth many times more and have $200 billion in cash," the president wrote. Like many political and economic decisions, it's not all black and white; there are nuances. We'll see if the president's words hold true and are implemented, or if they remain merely public commentary. And then, if it is carried out, measure the benefits and drawbacks that may actually arise.

