Rules for thee, but not for me — a phrase that perfectly captures the latest revelation about Donald Trump's mortgage practices. ProPublica's investigation reveals that Trump did exactly what his administration is now prosecuting political rivals for: claiming multiple properties as primary residences on mortgage documents. While his Federal Housing Finance Agency fires officials like Fed Governor Lisa Cook for this exact behavior, calling it "deceitful and potentially criminal," Trump's identical actions from the 1990s are somehow defensible. This isn't just hypocrisy — it's a blueprint for weaponized justice that demands our attention.

Why It Matters

Mortgage fraud prosecutions typically require proving intent to deceive — a high legal bar that makes these cases politically charged when selectively applied.

Key legal context:

  • Standard mortgage occupancy requirements mandate living in the property as a principal residence within 60 days
  • Statute of limitations has expired on Trump's 1990s mortgages
  • Legal experts note Trump's loans "exceed the threshold his administration has established for fraudulent conduct"

The pattern of selective enforcement:

  • Bill Pulte, who leads the administration's mortgage fraud investigations, claims "equal scrutiny for Republicans and Democrats"
  • Yet no publicly known criminal referrals against Republican officials despite "similar mortgage patterns among three Trump cabinet members"
  • All high-profile prosecutions target prominent Democrats

Historical precedent shows how mortgage fraud charges can be weaponized — from the savings and loan crisis to post-2008 financial investigations that disproportionately targeted certain groups while letting others slide.

What Happened

Donald Trump signed mortgage documents in 1993-1994, claiming two separate Palm Beach properties would each serve as his primary residence, then rented both out as investment properties instead of living in them.

The identical behavior his administration now calls "mortgage fraud" when targeting political opponents:

  • Lisa Cook was fired from the Federal Reserve for signing two primary residence mortgages weeks apart
  • Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and Eric Swalwell face similar charges
  • Trump called Cook's conduct "gross negligence" and proof of incompetence

The Trump mortgages financed two Woodbridge Road properties for $525,000 and $1.2 million, each requiring him to live in the property as his principal residence. Records show he remained at Trump Tower throughout this period, only changing his official residence to Florida in 2019. Real estate agents confirmed "they were rentals from the beginning."

A Closer Look

This isn't about mortgage technicalities — it's about the rule of law itself. Several critical questions emerge:

  • Why is identical behavior fraud for Democrats but a defensible business practice for Trump?
  • How can an administration credibly prosecute mortgage fraud while its leader committed the same acts?
  • What does selective enforcement say about the integrity of federal law enforcement?

The voices being ignored in mainstream coverage include:

  • Legal scholars warning about weaponized justice
  • Civil rights advocates noting discriminatory enforcement patterns
  • Former federal prosecutors expressing concern about prosecutorial ethics

The real story isn't Trump's decades-old mortgages — it's the systematic abuse of prosecutorial power to target political enemies while protecting allies. When Suffolk University law professor Kathleen Engel notes Trump's loans exceed his own administration's fraud threshold, she's highlighting a constitutional crisis in the making.

This represents an authoritarian playbook: using state power to punish dissent while exempting the leader from the same standards.

Call to Action

Don't let this be normalized. Here's what you can do:

  • Contact your representatives and demand oversight of selective federal prosecutions
  • Share this analysis to help others see beyond the hypocrisy to the systemic threat
  • Support independent journalism like ProPublica that uncovers these double standards
  • Stay vigilant for other examples of weaponized justice

The rule of law depends on equal application — not rules that apply only to political enemies. Your voice matters in holding power accountable and refusing to accept that some people are above the law while others face prosecution for identical behavior.

Speak up now, because selective justice is no justice at all.

From Silence to Sound

Silence to Sound exists to amplify voices challenging power — and this story exemplifies why that mission matters.

The silenced voices here include:

  • Legal experts warning about prosecutorial abuse
  • Civil liberties advocates documenting discriminatory enforcement
  • Career prosecutors concerned about political interference

When media frames this as mere "hypocrisy," they miss the deeper threat: the weaponization of federal agencies against political opposition. This isn't partisan politics — it's proto-authoritarian behavior that undermines democratic institutions.

Our role is to connect these dots and help readers see beyond surface-level coverage to understand the systemic dangers of selective law enforcement. Truth-telling requires calling out not just individual hypocrisy, but the patterns of abuse that threaten democratic norms.