Written by: Internal Analysis & Opinion Writers
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has launched a proposal to repeal its 2024 Fair Lending, Fair Housing, and Equitable Housing Finance Plans rule, citing redundancy with existing regulations and seeking to ease administrative burdens on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The move marks a significant shift in housing policy less than two years after the rule was finalized.
Enacted in May 2024, the rule required the GSEs to create and implement comprehensive three-year equitable housing finance plans addressing underserved communities, supplementing responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and regulations enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.
FHFA’s repeal proposal argues that these obligations duplicate those already managed by HUD, the CFPB, and FTC. The agency maintains that mandating separate equitable plans adds little benefit and creates costly overlap. The change is being proposed as a cost-saving move and to align FHFA’s role with that of other regulators.
The Federal Register notice confirms FHFA’s authority to revoke regulations that are not statutorily required—part 1293 of Title 12 is such an example, meaning the agency has discretion to remove it entirely. The formal comment period will remain open through September 26, 2025.
Advocates for the repeal point to Executive Order 14219 (issued in February 2025), which directs federal agencies to review and eliminate regulations considered unnecessary. The FHFA states the repeal aligns with broader administration goals of reducing regulatory costs, streamlining agency functions, and focusing enforcement on core statutory obligations.
Still, fair housing advocates are pushing back. Jannell Byrd-Chichester, general counsel at the National Fair Housing Alliance and former FHFA official, warned that the repeal would significantly weaken protections for low- and moderate-income borrowers, rural residents, homeowners in manufactured housing, and other underserved segments. She emphasized that removing the rule would eliminate dedicated oversight and planning tailored to these populations.
Similarly, attorney Peter Idziak noted the proposed change doesn’t signal a broader retreat from affordable housing aims, but rather a shift in where Fannie and Freddie focus their efforts—away from targeted outreach toward minimum statutory compliance.
Among the directive’s effects is the elimination of mandated reporting and outreach programs related to homeownership counseling, language preferences, and special-purpose credit programs targeting underserved groups—provisions many housing advocates considered foundational.
The repeal would also end the requirement for GSE boards to certify compliance with fair housing and unfair or deceptive practices policies, reducing oversight layers established under the original rule.
FHFA argues that the change will reduce administrative costs for both the agency and Fannie/Freddie by curtailing personnel and outreach obligations. That said, supporters of the original rule argue those activities are what made the equitable finance plan purposeful and impactful.
Though the rule produced minimal changes to lender procedures, it imposed reporting and planning burdens on the GSEs themselves. Critics of the rule say it offered limited consumer benefit, while advocates argue it helped institutionalize equitable access metrics and goals.
The repeal notice also confirms other policy rollbacks—such as ending SPF-based renter protections and withdrawing FHFA’s UDAP oversight guidelines—indicating a broader rollback of agency-led consumer safeguards.
As the comment period continues, policymakers, lenders, and consumer groups will debate the merits of maintaining structured equity planning versus relying on existing statutes enforced by other agencies.
If the repeal moves forward, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would no longer be required to publish or execute multi-year equitable housing plans, reducing both transparency and structured accountability around outreach to underserved communities.
Proponents view the revision as a return to focus on core statutory roles, but dissenters caution it could undermine momentum toward expanding homebuying access and institutional oversight of fair lending practices within the GSEs.
