foe

WASHINGTON — Behind a White House effort to saddle President Trump’s political foes with accusations of mortgage fraud is a 37-year-old home construction executive with a deep partisan past.

Bill Pulte, a Florida native, rose in Trump’s orbit toward the end of his first term. After courting Trump for years on social media and through generous donations, he now runs the Federal Housing Finance Agency — a perch that has allowed him to target prominent figures who have crossed the president.

In the last five months, Pulte has referred three claims of mortgage fraud against Trump’s foes to the Justice Department, leveled against Letitia James, the attorney general of New York; Adam Schiff, the Democratic senator from California; and this week, Lisa Cook, a governor on the board of the Federal Reserve.

Each has denied wrongdoing. Trump announced on Monday night that he was moving to fire Cook.

It is an unusual role for a director of the FHFA, which regulates Fannie Mae — the nation’s largest company by assets — and Freddie Mac. The two mortgage financing organizations, which support nearly half of the U.S. residential mortgage market, were taken over by the FHFA during the 2008 economic crisis.

The grandson of one of Michigan’s wealthiest and most prolific homebuilders, Pulte made a name for himself on Twitter in 2019 with public cash giveaways to individuals in need. He dubbed himself the “inventor of Twitter philanthropy,” vowing to give two cars away in exchange for a Trump retweet that year, which he received. He subsequently built a following of over 3 million.

Records show Pulte donated substantially to Trump, the Republican National Committee and related super PACs leading up to the 2024 election.

Pulte’s letters to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi have been tightly and cautiously written. But his social media posts, celebrating the targeted attacks, have not.

“Trump becomes the first president ever to remove a sitting Federal Reserve governor,” he wrote on X, between retweets of right-wing commentators praising the move. “Mortgage fraud can carry up to 30 years in prison.”

In another post on X, quoting a CNN headline, Pulte wrote that Trump’s firing of Cook was “escalating his battle against the central bank” — seeming to acknowledge that targeting Cook was motivated by Trump’s ongoing grievances with Fed leadership.

Cook’s firing is legally dubious, and her attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that Cook plans on suing the administration while continuing to perform her duties for the Fed. Lowell also represents James in her defense against the Justice Department case.

While the Supreme Court ruled in May that Trump may fire individuals from independent federal agencies, the justices singled out the Fed as an exception, calling it a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.” The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 states that the president may fire a member of its leadership only “for cause.”

But cause has not been definitively established to fire Cook, with Pulte writing in his letter to Bondi that the Fed governor had only “potentially” committed mortgage fraud, accusing her of falsifying bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms.

Pulte has accused Cook of listing two homes — in Ann Arbor, Mich., and in Atlanta — as her primary addresses within two weeks of purchasing them through financing. Cook said she would “take any questions about my financial history seriously” and was “gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts.”

Pulte’s other accusations, against James and Schiff, have been similarly superficial, publicly accusing individuals of potential criminality before a full, independent investigation can take place.

And whether those investigations will be impartial is far from clear. Earlier this month, Bondi appointed Ed Martin, a conspiracy theorist who supported the “Stop the Steal” movement after Joe Biden’s election victory over Trump in 2020, as a special prosecutor to investigate the James and Schiff cases.

Pulte accused James — who successfully accused Trump of financial fraud in a civil suit last year — of falsifying bank statements and property records to secure more favorable loan terms for homes in Virginia and New York. He made similar claims weeks later about Schiff, who maintains residences in California and the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump during the president’s first term and has remained one of his most vocal and forceful political adversaries since joining the Senate, dismissed the president’s claims as a “baseless attempt at political retribution.”

A spokesperson for Schiff said he has always been transparent about owning two homes, in part to be able to raise his children near him in Washington, and has always followed the law — and advice from House counsel — in arranging his mortgages.

In making his claims, Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.

A memorandum reviewed by The Times from Fannie Mae investigators to Pulte does not accuse Schiff of mortgage fraud. It noted that investigators had been asked by the FHFA inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.

Investigators said they found that Schiff at various points identified both his home in Potomac, Md., and a Burbank unit he also owns as his primary residence. As a result, they concluded that Schiff and his wife, Eve, “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020.

The investigators did not say they had concluded that a crime had been committed, nor did they mention the word “fraud” in the memo.

In recent days, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided at least nine restaurants in the nation’s capital, requesting proof that the establishments are not employing people illegally. Washington, D.C., long presented itself as a “sanctuary city,” so the mere fact ICE agents targeted a few businesses there is hardly surprising.

What is perhaps more newsworthy is the boldface names associated with those restaurants: Geoff Tracy, the husband of CBS News anchor and former vice presidential debate co-moderator Norah O’Donnell; former Biden White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients; and the activist restaurateur José Andrés.

Following the raids, a predictable debate has unfolded: Did the Trump administration politicize law enforcement by siccing ICE agents on the White House’s critics and foes?

Maybe; maybe not. Regardless, and with all due respect: I simply do not care. And I highly suspect tens of millions of other Americans don’t care either. After years of politicized law enforcement, many of us are now sufficiently jaded so as to be well past the point of shock at new examples.

Did the people who are aghast at these ICE raids express similar dismay when, in 2013, Obama-era IRS director Lois Lerner admitted to targeting conservative groups in an attempt to improperly strip them of their tax-exempt status? Did they care when the nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor sued the Obama administration over contraception coverage?

Did the pearl-clutchers care when the Biden administration sued antiabortion activists for praying outside abortion clinics? Did they care when the same administration threw the book at too many Jan. 6 defendants — whether an organizer or a tourist? Did they care when that administration imprisoned Trump allies Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for rejecting subpoenas of the made-for-TV Jan. 6 House committee? Above all, did they care when that administration crossed the ultimate Rubicon by prosecuting its preeminent political opponent, the then-former president and leading presidential hopeful?

The answer to all these rhetorical questions is simple: No. Of course they didn’t care. So, you’ll have to spare me for not viewing it as a particularly big deal that a few Washington restaurants had the feds show up to request immigration papers.

In fact, it would be a good thing if the Trump administration sent a message by targeting political enemies.

Not because two wrongs make a right, but because unilateral disarmament in the face of an insatiable foe is a proven strategic failure. People on the right had their turn being targeted under Presidents Biden and Obama, and it would be folly for conservatives to take a high road now that they are in power.

True, a prior generation of Republicans would have been content to morally preen, to rest on their laurels in “principled loserdom.” But those days are over.

Indeed, those days must be over — not merely for the good of the right, but for the good of the country. American law enforcement has become much more politicized in recent decades. That trend began with the Obama administration, and it accelerated under Biden.

Patriotic Americans who care about the rule of law and our constitutional order ought to lament this sordid state of affairs — not just the latest twist in the long-running saga, but the whole sad story. The key question, then, is how to undo the damage and restore left-right prosecutorial and law enforcement relations to the pre-Obama status quo ante.

The only way out is through. Both sides of America’s political divide must come to accept a Cold War-era paradigm of mutually assured destruction. This mindset saved the planet from nuclear holocaust once, and now it can help us return our domestic politics to something resembling normalcy.

But for the left to accept that the current approach ensures mutually assured destruction, they’re going to have to first see the other side bare its fangs a bit. Some noses must be (proverbially) bloodied. And frankly, given the unprecedented magnitude of the past few years’ lawfare campaign against President Trump, sending ICE agents into a few restaurants barely even registers.

I want an end to the “politicized law enforcement” wars. So should you. It is ironic that we need a short-term escalation in order to have a chance of reaching a long-term stasis. But it’s the cold, hard truth.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

USC’s schedule has featured a jumble of mid-major and mid-minor opponents visiting the Galen Center, lining up for one-sided thrashings. Sunday was no different when Elon came to town, with the Trojans (10-1) defeating theirColonial Athletic Assn. foes handily 88-30.

But what could coach Lindsay Gottlieb still learn about USC before traveling to face No. 2 Connecticut and star guard Paige Bueckers later this week? An early timeout could signal what still needs to be worked on.

Gottlieb watched an early Elon run after the Trojans allowed two open transition shots to the Phoenix (4-5) — who’d faced only one major conference team — within the first three minutes. After Gottlieb settled her team during the break, USC continued to do what they’d accomplished against the likes of Cal State Northridge, Cal Poly and Fresno State — dominate.

Sophomore guard JuJu Watkins and graduate forward Kiki Iriafen scored in double digits for the 11th time this season, leading the team with 26 and 18 points, respectively.

Toying with small lineups — moving freshman guard Avery Howell into the fold in the spot of a forward — the Trojans forced 12 turnovers in the first half, holding their foes to the lowest score they’d allowed in a half this season: 12 points.

Elon‘s 30 points were the least USC has given up this season. The Trojans held Elon to 21.2% shooting from the field, while making 46.6% of their shots.

A season-high four-steal performance from graduate guard Talia von Oelhoffen helped USC force 25 turnovers, with the Trojans scoring 36 points off those turnovers. Freshman guard Kayleigh Heckel continued to make hustle plays, leading to acrobatic layups, four steals and 14 points.

Gottlieb’s focus turns to Connecticut on Saturday, when the Trojans will face the No. 2 Huskies in Harford, Conn.