conservatorship

Britney Spears will not stand for ex-husband Kevin Federline’s scathing claims about how she raised their two sons, writing on social media that the allegations in his upcoming book are part of his “constant gaslighting.”

The “Stronger” and “Oops!… I Did It Again” pop star hit back at her ex-husband Wednesday evening in a statement shared to X and Instagram, writing that confronting his latest revelations has been “extremely hurtful and exhausting.” The 43-year-old singer, whose conservatorship ended four years ago, said she has “always pleaded and screamed to have a life with [her] boys.”

“Relationships with teenage boys is complex,” her statement continued. “I have felt demoralized by this situation and have always asked and almost begged for them to be a part of my life.”

Spears and Federline, 47, married in 2004 and divorced three years later after welcoming boys Sean Preston and Jayden James. Federline, a dancer, was awarded sole custody in 2008 when Spears was placed under a conservatorship. In excerpts from his incoming book “You Thought You Knew,” Federline accuses Spears of consuming cocaine while she was still breastfeeding their second son. He also accuses her of holding a knife while she watched her sons sleeping and raises claims about the singer’s alleged cheating and a physical incident.

Federline wrote that the alleged cocaine incident occurred in 2006 during the release party for his album, according to an excerpt shared with Us Weekly. “The first thing I saw was Britney and her young starlet friend snorting a fat line of coke off the table,” he said in his book. He said he urged the pop star not to “feed the kids like this” and that she responded by allegedly throwing a cocktail in his face.

“That’s what ended us,” he wrote, according to Us Weekly.

In a memoir excerpt published by the New York Times, Federline alleged that their sons would awake “sometimes to find her standing silently in the doorway, watching them sleep” with a knife in her hand. “Then she’d turn around and pad off without explanation,” he wrote.

In her social media retort, Spears said their sons “have always witnessed the lack of respect show by [their] own father for me” and added “they need to take responsibility for themselves.” She claimed that she had seen one son for only “45 min in the past 5 years” and that the other has visited only four times since 2021. A judge terminated Spears’ controversial conservatorship in November 2021.

“I have pride too,” the Grammy-winning vocalist said, adding she intends to make herself more available to her sons.

Federline’s book isn’t the first time he dropped bold claims about Spears. He claimed in a 2022 interview with the Daily Mail that their sons had “decided they are not seeing her right now” and opted not to attend her marriage to Sam Asghari, whom she has since divorced. At the time, Federline also claimed the boys had taken issue with her scantily-clad Instagram posts.

“I try to explain to them, ‘Look, maybe that’s just another way she tries to express herself.’ But that doesn’t take away from the fact of what it does to them,” he said. “It’s tough … I can’t imagine how it feels to be a teenager having to go to high school” with those posts existing.

In response to those comments, Spears said she gave her sons “everything” and found Federline’s claims “HURTFUL.”

Federline’s “You Thought You Knew” comes out Tuesday, two years after Spears published her memoir “The Woman in Me.” Her book dished on topics including her struggles with drugs, her relationship with ex-boyfriend Justin Timberlake and her conservatorship.

Spears said on Wednesday that her ex-husband’s “white lies in that book, they are going straight to the bank.” She also urged followers to take tabloid reports about her mental health and drinking with a grain of salt.

“I am actually a pretty intelligent woman who has been trying to live a sacred and private life the past 5 years,” she concluded her statement. “I speak on this because I have had enough and any real woman would do the same.”

The movie “The Big Short” — dramatizing the reckless behavior in the banking and mortgage industries that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis — captures much of Wall Street’s misconduct but overlooks a central player in the collapse: the federal government, specifically through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

These two government-created and government-sponsored enterprises encouraged lenders to issue risky home loans by effectively making taxpayers co-sign the mortgages. This setup incentivized dangerous lending practices that inflated the housing bubble, eventually leading to catastrophic economic consequences.

Another critical but overlooked factor in the collapse was the Community Reinvestment Act. This federal law was intended to combat discriminatory lending practices but instead created substantial market distortions by pressuring banks to extend loans to borrowers who might otherwise have been deemed too risky. Under threat of regulatory penalties, banks significantly loosened lending standards — again, inflating the housing bubble.

After the bubble inevitably burst, Fannie and Freddie were placed under conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The conservatorship imposed rules aimed at preventing future taxpayer-funded bailouts and protecting the economy from government-fueled market distortions.

Now, President Trump’s appointee to lead that agency, Bill Pulte, is considering ending this conservatorship without addressing the core structural flaw that fueled the problem in the first place: implicit government guarantees backing all Fannie and Freddie mortgages. If Pulte proceeds without implementing real reform, taxpayers on Main Street are once again likely to be exposed to significant financial risks as they are conscripted into subsidizing lucrative deals for Wall Street.

Without genuine reform, the incentives and practices that led to the crisis remain unchanged, setting the stage for a repeat disaster.

Pulte’s proposal isn’t likely to unleash free-market policies. Instead, it could further rig the market in favor of hedge funds holding substantial stakes in Fannie and Freddie, allowing them to profit enormously from the potential upside, while leaving taxpayers to bear all the downside risks.

A meaningful solution requires Fannie and Freddie to significantly strengthen their capital reserves. The two government-sponsored enterprises still remain dangerously undercapitalized. A report from JP Morgan Chase describes it this way: “Despite steady growth in [their net worth], the GSEs remain well below the minimum regulatory capital framework requirements set by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2020.” Imposing robust capital requirements similar to those that govern private banks would oblige the two enterprises to internalize their risks, promoting genuine market discipline and accountability.

Further reforms should address transparency and oversight. Enhanced disclosure standards would allow investors, regulators and the public to better assess risks. Additionally, limiting the types of mortgages these entities can guarantee could reduce exposure to the riskiest loans, further protecting taxpayers. Implementing clear rules that prevent Fannie and Freddie from venturing into speculative financial products would also mitigate potential market distortions.

Critically, the federal government must clearly communicate that future bailouts are not an option. Explicitly removing government guarantees would compel Fannie and Freddie to operate responsibly, knowing that reckless behavior will lead to their insolvency, not to another taxpayer rescue. Clear legal separation from government backing is essential to prevent moral hazard.

The combination of government guarantees, regulatory pressure from policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act and inadequate capital standards created the perfect storm for the 2008 financial crisis. Ignoring these lessons and repeating past mistakes would inevitably lead to a similar disaster.

Proponents of prematurely releasing Fannie and Freddie argue that market conditions have changed and risk management has improved. Yet, history repeatedly demonstrates that without structural changes, financial entities — particularly those shielded by government guarantees — inevitably revert to risky behavior when market pressures and profit incentives align. Markets function best when participants bear the full consequences of their decisions, something impossible under the current structure of these government-sponsored enterprises.

Ultimately, the only responsible approach is removing taxpayers from the equation entirely. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should participate in the mortgage market only as fully private entities, without any implicit government guarantees.

The American public doesn’t need a sequel to “The Big Short.” The painful lessons of the 2008 crisis are too recent and too severe to be ignored or forgotten. Market discipline, fiscal responsibility and genuine reform — not government-backed risk-taking — must guide our approach going forward. We can only hope that the Trump administration chooses fiscal responsibility over risky experiments that history has already shown end in disaster.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.