Less than 800 days remain in Donald Trump's presidency to end the 18-year government conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the president himself has signaled no urgency. Asked about an initial public offering (a share sale that would return the firms to private shareholders) for the two mortgage giants, Trump said: "It's not a rush."

The comment, made days after a May post on Truth Social declaring he was "working on taking these amazing companies public," captures the central contradiction of the administration's housing finance agenda. Trump has long sought to end the conservatorship (the government control imposed on Fannie and Freddie since the 2008 financial crisis), first during his term's earlier iteration and again in his second term, but the effort has not advanced as a priority.

In his Truth Social post, Trump stated the U.S. government would retain its mortgage guarantees and oversight role for both government-sponsored entities, the federally chartered corporations that underpin most American home lending.

What does the delay mean for homeowners?

The stakes are direct: experts have cautioned that removing Fannie and Freddie from conservatorship could push up mortgage rates. That risk now carries sharper political weight, because Democrats regained control of Congress by campaigning on affordability, and many Americans are grappling with a housing cost crisis. A rate-raising restructuring could make lawmakers reluctant to entertain any end to the arrangement.

Trump has also used the companies as instruments of affordability policy. On the eve of the midterm elections, he announced at a rally in Kansas that Fannie and Freddie would invest $4.3 billion in home loans in the state next year, a commitment he said would help 15,000 people achieve their American dream.

The mechanics of an exit remain legally contested. Analysts are divided on whether the administration could end the conservatorship by executive order or whether it would require congressional support, as Realtor.com reported.

Frank Cassidy, the former Federal Housing Commissioner in Trump's second term, told the outlet that Trump can privatize Fannie and Freddie without Republican control of Congress, but that the post-conservatorship structure of the companies would matter.

"It hasn't been a priority yet," Cassidy told Realtor.com. "It would need to be worked on very quickly because it will take some time."

Who is pushing for privatization?

Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman has emerged as the loudest advocate for immediate action. He argues that ending the conservatorship would be "helpful" for housing affordability because it would remove political uncertainty from the mortgage market, particularly if Democrats were to use Fannie and Freddie in the future to "achieve political objectives."

Ackman has an incentive at stake. His firm, Pershing Square, is invested in both Fannie and Freddie, which were delisted from the New York Stock Exchange in 2010 and have traded in the over-the-counter market since.

Still, Ackman frames the payoff as national rather than personal. "This is a major point of economic policy where the president can have a hundreds of billion-dollar win for the American people," he told CNBC, adding that it could be a "windfall" to the tune of $500 billion.

How does Treasury view the risks?

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has offered a far more restrained assessment. On a 2Way podcast appearance last month, he said the administration will tackle the ownership structure of Fannie and Freddie in either 2027 or 2028.

Bessent identified one "north star" for the decision: whether ending the conservatorship can be accomplished without meaningfully increasing the spread between mortgage-backed securities (bundles of home loans sold to investors) and Treasury yields, a gap that feeds directly into what borrowers pay.

"It's unclear why homeowners or mortgage holders would benefit from a change in the arrangement of the shareholder structure," Bessent said.

His skepticism counters Ackman's optimism, and it aligns Treasury's position with the affordability concerns that shaped the midterm results.

Who could block a rushed exit?

People on both sides of the political aisle agree on at least one point: a rush to end an 18-year arrangement would be the most problematic path. The consensus favors deliberation, but the clock limits how much deliberation is available, with fewer than 800 days left in Trump's term.

One likely obstacle is Representative Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California, who is running to chair the House Financial Services Committee after serving on it for more than a decade. Waters has historically opposed any effort to rapidly end the conservatorship without comprehensive congressional oversight.

"To address the affordable housing crisis, Congress must ensure that Fannie and Freddie meet their mission to provide liquidity, sustainability, and affordability to all housing markets in the U.S., and at all times," Waters said at a hearing in April.

If she secures the chairmanship, Waters would hold procedural leverage over any restructuring that requires legislation, and her record suggests she would demand the oversight she has long insisted on.

For now, the outcome rests on three unresolved variables: whether Trump chooses executive action or a legislative route, whether Treasury's 2027 or 2028 timeline holds, and whether a Congress elected on affordability grounds permits a restructuring that experts warn could raise mortgage rates.