Judge Shields Trump Housing Chief From Defamation Liability in Fannie Mae Case

A federal judge said Bill Pulte, President Donald Trump’s federal housing chief, cannot be held liable in court under a decades-old immunity law, a ruling that narrows one front in a fierce fight over who bears responsibility for public accusations tied to Fannie Mae’s mass firings.

The dispute began after Fannie Mae fired more than 100 workers in April 2025 over alleged misuse of its charitable giving program. The former employees say they were cut loose on April 2, 2025, during a Microsoft Teams call, then publicly tied to fraud in statements they say damaged their reputations and careers. Forty-one of them later filed defamation lawsuits in Fairfax County, Virginia, naming Fannie Mae, chief executive Priscilla Almodovar and Pulte, who also serves as chairman of Fannie Mae.

The workers said the company’s public accusations went too far when it linked them to “unethical conduct” and “facilitating fraud.” Pulte, who was sworn in as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency on March 14, 2025, after nomination by Trump and confirmation by the U.S. Senate, said in an April 2025 statement that the company had fired workers for “unethical conduct.” He also said in a Fox News appearance that some employees were making charitable donations and then getting “kickbacks.”

The lawsuits sought about $82 million in combined damages, or roughly $1 million to more than $2 million per worker, plus punitive damages. They also sharpened scrutiny of Fannie Mae’s matching gift program, which reportedly matched employee charitable donations up to $5,000 each year. For the former workers, the case has been about more than money: it has centered on whether a government-linked housing giant can publicly stain employees with fraud allegations while leaving them with little practical way to fight back.

The new ruling suggests Pulte may have legal protection from at least part of the defamation case, even as the broader litigation continues. That matters beyond one executive. It raises the stakes for fired employees trying to challenge reputational harm in the shadow of federal housing oversight, and it underscores how legal immunity can shield officials in government-adjacent power struggles, even when public accusations can follow workers long after they lose their jobs.