I interviewed Connor Blancato, an up-and-coming real estate lawyer, for the New York Real Property Law Journal. The interview emphasizes the importance of mentorship for new lawyers.
Click on the picture to read the interview.
I signed on to this important letter, along with hundreds of others:
349 Consumer, Civil Rights, Labor, Legal Services and Community Organizations
April 29, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC
Re: Support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Dear Representative,
The 349 undersigned consumer, civil rights, labor, legal services and community organizations and academics write to urge you to demand action to restore a strong and independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). We further urge you to oppose changes to the CFPB’s funding, structure or other changes that would weaken its ability to stand up for consumers, competition and a fair financial marketplace.
The CFPB, created after the devastating 2008 financial crisis, has worked to protect consumers and responsible industry players alike. The CFPB has obtained over $21 billion in relief for over 200 million people, including $363 million for servicemembers and veterans, and its consumer protection mission continues to be overwhelmingly supported on a bipartisan basis. The CFPB has worked to support a healthy, sustainable housing market, improve credit reports, crack down on junk fees, reduce the burdens of medical and student debt, fight lending discrimination, and promote safe banking practices and banking competition. Now more than ever, we need a strong CFPB that will continue to keep our personal financial data safe, protect our privacy, and fight fraud.
Congress created the CFPB, and Congress must support ordinary people and fair competition by standing up for a strong and independent CFPB.
Yours very truly,
The full list of signatories can be found at the link here.
Cornell Law School just posted this about the new Entrepreneurship Law Clinic on Roosevelt Island:
In the summer of 2024, with a transformative gift from Franci J. Blassberg ’75, J.D. ’77, and Joseph L. Rice III, Cornell formally launched a center for entrepreneurship law in New York City. Bridging Cornell Law and Cornell Tech, the Blassberg-Rice Center for Entrepreneurship Law has continued to grow in the months since, establishing a new Entrepreneurship Law Clinic on Roosevelt Island, welcoming its first cohort of J.D. and LL.M. students, and hiring a second faculty member, David Reiss, clinical professor of law and research director, to lead the New York City program.
“We are thrilled to have David on board,” says Celia Bigoness, director of the Blassberg-Rice Center and clinical professor of law, who continues to lead the Entrepreneurship Law Clinic at the Ithaca campus. “This is the first time we’ve been able to offer a clinical experience that’s entirely embedded in the technology ecosystem of Cornell Tech, and there’s been tremendous demand among students and clients for the work that we’re doing.”
The upstate and downstate clinics operate in parallel, with the two halves meeting together throughout the semester to share lessons and progress. In both locations, students represent entrepreneurs in setting up the business entities for their startups, representing them on a range of matters involving commercial contracts, data privacy, employment, equity allocation, founders’ agreements, governance, intellectual property, and real estate.
Alex Cho ’25 is working with social entrepreneurs, including one that has released an AI-powered chatbot that helps tenants navigate their relationship with their landlords.
“We’re giving students an exposure to the breadth of knowledge that is key to serving entrepreneurs,” says Reiss, who began teaching in January. “Just as important, we’re spending time on the soft skills that will help students not just understand the law, but understand how to effectively counsel their clients. Every student who passes through these programs will come out with hands-on transactional skills that can best be learned in a clinical setting.”
In Ithaca, seven of Bigoness’ twelve current students are continuing from the fall semester, working on increasingly challenging questions for startups in biomedical engineering, food services, product development, technology, and youth sports. In New York City, where the spring semester’s clients are drawn from Cornell Tech, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the Queens Chamber of Commerce, Reiss’ six students are counseling clients in the early stages of creating startups in climate tech, software, and transportation.
“It’s been a great experience, and I think the thing I have gained the most from it is confidence,” says Maria Hatzisavas, LL.M. ’25, who is attending Cornell Tech in the year between earning her J.D. and beginning her first job in corporate law. “At Notre Dame, I developed as a law student, and here, I’m developing more as a lawyer. I’m learning skills I’ll use throughout my career, and I’m gaining new insights into the practice of law because so many attorneys come in to teach us.”
“As someone who wants to do transactional work but hasn’t had an extensive background in accounting or finance, this clinic has shown me the legal side of business,” adds Kylee Nguyen ’25, whose 3L year in the Ithaca clinic has given her a taste of life as a general counsel. “It’s sharpened my soft skills, taught me how to think in the real world, and helped me make a tangible difference in the lives of my clients. I’m taking everything I’ve learned in this clinic into my practice, and I’m not leaving anything behind.”
“This launch is incredibly exciting. I’m grateful to Celia Bigoness, Franci Blassberg, Joe Rice, Jens Ohlin, Eduardo Peñalver, and Shawn Gavin for their vision and to all involved for the hard work it took to bring this about,” says Beth Lyon, clinical professor of law and associate dean for experiential education and clinical program director.
AI Generated from StockCake
I was quoted in Fintech Nexus’ Home Invasion: What Happens if Fannie and Freddie Go Private. It reads, in part,
The Trump Administration has telegraphed significant changes to GSE mortgage lenders — with massive implications for the industry
Since his swearing in on March 14 as the fifth Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), construction mogul William J. Pulte has executed major policy and personnel changes. Among other moves, Pulte has named himself board chair of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, removed 14 of the GSEs’ 25 sitting board members, fired most of the companies’ audit boards, generally slashed headcount, and rescinded several Biden-era oversight-related advisory bulletins.
According to Professor David Reiss of Cornell Law School, a scholar of real estate finance and housing policy, Pulte’s simultaneous leadership of the FHFA in addition to roles at the GSEs, which have been under federal conservatorship since the 2008 financial crisis, is not normal.
“The whole point of regulation is you have somebody who’s overseeing an industry,” he told Fintech Nexus. “This is like the left hand [knowing] what the right hand is doing: You’re overseeing yourself, so it’s … kind of inconsistent with the notion of a supervisory regulator.”
Fintech Nexus contacted the FHFA, requesting that it comment on the impetus behind Pulte’s simultaneous self-appointments to Fannie and Freddie. The FHFA did not respond.
CAPITAL IDEAS
One idea percolating is for the Trump Administration to use Fannie and Freddie as a pool of capital to inject into a sovereign wealth fund. An op-ed in the Financial Times by Stifel CEO Ronald Kruszewski suggested this reconfiguration could provide “continued government backing,” “stabilize investor confidence,” and “pave the way for a $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund by 2040.”
However, in a letter to the editor in the Financial Times, Dini Ajmani, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, suggested the idea would fail, as any privatization of the GSEs would require proper capitalization, taxpayer compensation, and adequate confidence of securities investors.
“I believe the difficulty in meeting all three conditions is why [the] status quo has persisted,” Ajmani told Fintech Nexus. “To build capital, Fannie/Freddie must retain earnings, which means the taxpayer is not compensated. If the taxpayer is compensated through dividend payments, private capital will be uninterested because the agencies will be undercapitalized.”
To this end, FHFA Director Pulte may continue to atrophy many forms of GSE oversight as a way to prime the pump: Pre-empting congressional activity by deregulating Fannie and Freddie can accelerate their transition toward open-market frameworks.
The Trump Administration may see it as its only viable short-term avenue, as many members of Congress are uninterested in bringing Fannie and Freddie out of conservatorship; Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, called the move “Great for billionaires, terrible for hardworking people.”
Should the Trump Administration succeed in its quest, we may see states attempting to fill in the gaps on regulatory accountability, rhyming with blue-state attorneys-general’s litigiousness in the wake of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s de-clawing, though this is unlikely.
“State regulators do not generally play a role similar to the two companies (except to some small extent state Housing Finance Agencies),” Reiss of Cornell Law School said. “I could imagine state agencies trying to increase consumer protection for mortgage borrowers, if the federal regulatory environment changes, but we would have to see how that plays out to understand how the states would respond.”
Mark Calabria, OMB Associate Director for Treasury, Housing, and Commerce
I was interviewed on WBUR-FM’s On Point (distributed by American Public Radio), hosted by Meghna Chakrabarti for an episode on How Trump Plans To Get Government out of the Mortgage Business. The link has the recording of the show as well as a transcript.
The transcript of the interview starts,
CHAKRABARTI: Now that President Trump is back in the White House, it seems that he intends to get the job done this time around. Mark Calabria has returned to Trump’s administration, this time working on housing policy at the Office of Management and Budget. Bill Pulte is now director of FHFA, and he just made the highly unusual move of appointing himself chair of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, making the regulator and the regulated basically the same.
Pulte also fired 14 of the 25 sitting board members at Fannie and Freddie. A shakeup many are suspecting is a first step in leading these two companies out of government control and into privatization. We’re talking about a huge part of the U.S. economy that underpins the housing market. So this hour, we want to explore what privatization of Fannie and Freddie actually means, what it should look like, and how it might have an impact on homeowners and the housing market.
So to do that, David Reiss joins us. He’s a clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and Cornell Tech, an expert in housing finance and policy. Professor Reiss, welcome to On Point.
DAVID REISS: Meghna, thank you so much.
CHAKRABARTI: I have to tell you that I actually can’t believe that it’s been 17 years since the financial crisis of 2008.
Let’s dust off the memory banks professor and go back to before 2008 and start there. Can you just remind us like what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, what their purpose was, who owned them, et cetera?
REISS: I’m gonna go even a little bit further back than Fannie and Freddie’s creation, because I think it’s really gonna help people visualize what’s at stake here.
And if you think back to the 19th century and somebody was trying to buy a house, they didn’t have that many options. A house has always been a very expensive thing to buy, so they need to borrow some money to buy a house. And how could you do that?
Maybe if you’re rich, you could do it, or had a rich uncle, but otherwise you need to go to somebody who has capital and that you could borrow it and give them some interest in return. And pay them back over time, and be able to live in that house while you’re paying back the amount of money that you borrowed. And so if people think of It’s a Wonderful Life where there’s the Bailey Brothers building in loans and where they, people deposit their small savings into the buildings and loan.
And then some people are then able to borrow some money from the buildings and loan for mortgages. And there’s the famous scene where there’s a panic at the bank. And Jimmy Stewart says, Mrs. Kennedy, your money is in Mrs. Smith’s house. And Mrs. Smith, your money is in Ms. Macklin’s house.
And that’s the way it was done in the 19th century and the early 20th century. But there were real limitations to that. Sometimes communities didn’t have a lot of capital to lend people, so maybe in out west or in the Midwest there wasn’t a lot of capital, like there might’ve been back east in Boston or New York.
And so people who could have handled the mortgage just didn’t have access to it. It was like they were living in a dry area, and the fresh flowing credit didn’t reach their dry community. So during the Great Depression and the New Deal the government started to intervene, to spread credit out across the country in a way that kind of provided liquidity to all the communities where people wanted to borrow.
And Fannie Mae was a creature of the New Deal, but really took off in the ’70s along with its sibling Freddie Mac. And effectively, what those two companies were designed by Congress to do was to ensure that capital could go across state borders in a way that banks were typically not allowed to do. And they effectively created at first a national market for mortgage credit, and effectively when they access the global credit markets over time, an international global market for credit. So they’re really intermediaries.
Bill Pulte, FHFA Director and Chair of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
I was quoted in the American Prospect’s story, Move Fast and Break the Mortgage Market. It reads, in part,
This week, the Donald Trump–appointed chief regulator for the two quasi-governmental companies that own or control about half of the residential housing market anointed himself the board chair of both those companies. This maneuver could signal a host of shenanigans: the culmination of a 17-year hedge fund get-rich-quick scheme, a balance-sheet fiction to justify tax cuts, a new favor factory for apartment developers with ties to the president, a data transfer so Elon Musk’s everything app can learn how to sell mortgages, or something equally problematic.
But what gives former board members, market observers, and officials at the regulator greater concern is the distinct possibility that mucking around with the $7.7 trillion secondary mortgage market could lead to breaking it.
If that happens, homebuyers may not be able to get mortgages, homebuilders may be reluctant to break ground, and uncertainty would abound in a market that has brought down the economy on more than one occasion in U.S. history, most recently in 2008. “It could freeze sales, freeze refinances, stop people from forming households, cause people to be afraid of moving, freeze up developers of housing and the secondary market,” said David Reiss, a professor at Cornell Law School.
The GSEs have a pretty sober business on the single-family side, and since the housing collapse really originated there, a lot of work was done to clean up that part of the business. But Fannie and Freddie also make loans in the multifamily market to support building of apartments and condos. A former official with one of the GSEs told me that business is a little looser, with ways to enhance those loans.
This president, of course, is a multifamily real estate developer himself, who has friends in multifamily real estate development. Hamara, one of the new board members, is a vice president at Tri Pointe Homes, a major homebuilder. You could imagine these relationships leading to the GSEs pushing risk limits, loosening credit standards, or raising loan-to-value ratios for favored borrowers. There is a secret mortgage blacklist at Fannie Mae for condos without enough property insurance or in need of repairs; controlling the board could make that blacklist go away, at least for certain developers.
This kind of setup resembles the opportunity zones that were a feature of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. They gave significant tax breaks to investors in certain communities deemed in need of development. Trump administration officials credit opportunity zones with increasing housing construction, but critics argue that the investments were rife with corruption and favor-trading.
That could also be the case here: New criteria guiding the new boards might lead to more multifamily housing, but with uneven results, favors to friends, and idiosyncratic deals that would be more about boosting allies than building housing. And as Calabria has pointed out, Fannie and Freddie are likely under Trump to cancel affordable-housing initiatives, meaning that sweetheart deals might only extend to the developers, rather than the public. Plus, there is the potential for dramatic losses if lending standards erode.
Reiss, of Cornell, agreed that this was all a possibility. “If someone gets to one of the directors, and they are there not acting as a fiduciary for the company, it opens the door to political favoritism,” he said.
* * *
Pulte is expected to force job cuts at the GSEs, which employ roughly 15,000 people. He has already been making familiar noises about DEI and remote work. One possibility on the table at the GSEs is merging Fannie and Freddie; you don’t usually have the same person chair the boards of two direct competitors. The regulatory agency is also likely to see cuts; already at FHFA, according to one source, fair lending and consumer protection groups have been put on administrative leave, along with employees at the Division of Research and Statistics.
Controlling the boards would limit dissent about these actions. But cuts in the name of efficiency could strain or even rupture the numerous functions the GSEs carry out, with consequences for the entire housing market.
Due to the conservatorship, the GSEs are limited in what they can pay their employees, which has led to a talent drain. Some systems have not been integrated, and others are not up to industry standards. Fannie and Freddie have a cautious internal culture that doesn’t move quickly. Hacking away at their already weakened structure could easily create operational harm.
But Reiss explained that nothing has to overtly break to lose the confidence of the markets; even a lack of workforce to move the paper around could create that impression, and disrupt the flow of credit. “If there is any kind of uncertainty, the spread between Fannie and Freddie securities and Treasury bonds will increase,” he said. “Investors will ask if the government will make good on Fannie and Freddie bonds. This uncertainty and direction could increase costs over time for all borrowers.”
I am a signatory to a letter being sent to the House’s Committee on Financial Services, in opposition to H.J. Res. 59 (Hill), CRA Resolution to Overturn CFPB Rule on Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions. The letter states,
The undersigned 278 consumer, civil rights, labor, legal services and community organizations and academics write to urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 59 (Hill) and any other effort to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s overdraft fee rule, which will reduce most overdraft fees from $35 to $5, stop manipulative practices by big banks, improve transparency, and put $5 billion back into the pockets of everyday people and their families. The public widely views current overdraft fee practices as unfair.
The overdraft fee rule closes a paper-check era loophole that has allowed big banks to trick people into paying excessive overdraft fees and earn billions in profits off of the most vulnerable families. The rule lowers most so-called “courtesy” overdraft fees from $35 to $5, saving households that pay overdraft fees an average of $225 a year. The rule gives big banks a variety of options to cover overdrafts, including safer, more transparent overdraft lines of credit with no price limit and the same disclosure requirements as credit cards. The rule only applies to very large institutions with over $10 billion in assets, many of which have already adopted similar protections. Smaller banks and credit unions are completely exempt.
We urge you to stand with everyday people over big banks. Banks should not profit off the struggles of working families through excessive, back-end overdraft junk fees. Please oppose H.J. Res. 59.
