California Congressman Eric Swalwell, a well-known Democratic lawmaker and newly declared candidate for governor, has ignited a high-profile legal battle in Washington, D.C. On November 25, 2025, Swalwell filed a 19-page federal civil lawsuit against Bill Pulte, the Trump-appointed director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), accusing him of violating privacy laws and orchestrating a campaign of political retaliation through the courts. The lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia, marks the latest escalation in a bitter feud between prominent Democrats and the Trump administration over the use of federal investigative powers.
At the heart of Swalwell’s complaint is a series of criminal referrals issued by Pulte to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Earlier this month, Pulte referred Swalwell to the DOJ for an investigation into alleged mortgage and tax fraud connected to a property owned by the congressman in Washington, D.C. According to CBS News, the allegations center on claims that Swalwell improperly designated his D.C. home as his primary residence to obtain more favorable loan terms. Swalwell has vigorously denied any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit does not stop at the personal. Swalwell alleges that Pulte has established a pattern of targeting high-profile Democrats. The complaint notes that Pulte has also submitted criminal referrals for investigations into Senator Adam Schiff of California, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. Each of these figures has faced public scrutiny or legal jeopardy as a result of Pulte’s actions, though the outcomes have varied.
Swalwell’s filing is unequivocal in its condemnation of Pulte’s conduct. The lawsuit asserts, “Pulte’s brazen practice of obtaining confidential mortgage records from Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac and then using them as a basis for referring individual homeowners to DOJ for prosecution is unprecedented and unlawful.” The congressman’s legal team contends that these actions violate the federal Privacy Act and constitute a breach of the First Amendment’s “bedrock prohibition on viewpoint-based retaliation.”
Swalwell, who announced his gubernatorial bid just a week before filing the lawsuit, argues that the disclosure of his mortgage records caused significant reputational harm at a pivotal moment in his political career. “The disclosure of my private mortgage records harmed my reputation at a critical juncture in my career: the very moment when I had planned to announce my campaign for Governor of California,” the lawsuit states. This sentiment was echoed in a public statement by Swalwell, in which he declared, “Director Pulte has combed through private records of political opponents. To silence them.” He further invoked George Orwell, saying, “There’s a reason the First Amendment—the freedom of speech—comes before all others. As George Orwell said, ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’”
Bill Pulte and the FHFA have not responded to multiple requests for comment on the matter, leaving many observers to speculate about the agency’s internal decision-making and the broader implications for privacy and political fairness. According to CBS News, the FHFA’s silence has only fueled concerns among Democrats that federal agencies are being weaponized for partisan gain.
The list of those targeted by Pulte’s referrals is notable for its prominence. Senator Adam Schiff, another California Democrat and frequent Trump critic, was referred to the DOJ in May 2025 for alleged mortgage fraud—a charge he has flatly denied. Schiff’s case remains under investigation, according to sources cited by CBS News. New York Attorney General Letitia James faced similar allegations, but her criminal case was dismissed on November 24, 2025, after it was determined that the interim U.S. attorney who secured her indictment had been improperly appointed. James has since sought to have her case dismissed on additional grounds, including what her legal team describes as “vindictive and selective” prosecution.
Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook has taken a different legal tack, filing a lawsuit to contest her removal from the board—an action she argues is unlawful. The Supreme Court is scheduled to review the matter in January 2025, further highlighting the legal and constitutional stakes of these disputes.
Swalwell’s complaint paints a broader picture of what he sees as a systematic effort by the Trump administration to punish political adversaries. The lawsuit alleges, “Before President Trump reassumed office in January 2025, he routinely threatened to use his power to punish his political opponents. After taking office, he wasted little time in following through on those threats.” This assertion reflects a deepening anxiety within Democratic circles that the machinery of federal oversight is being steered for political ends.
The congressman’s legal gambit comes at a time of heightened political tension in California and nationally. Swalwell, who has long been a vocal critic of Trump and served as a manager for the former president’s second impeachment trial in early 2021, entered the governor’s race with considerable fanfare. His campaign received a major boost on November 24, 2025, when he secured the endorsement of a billionaire who had recently dropped out of the race. The timing of the criminal referral and subsequent lawsuit has led many in California politics to question whether the investigation was timed to coincide with Swalwell’s political ascent.
Legal experts say the case could set significant precedents regarding the use of confidential government data and the boundaries of political retribution. The Privacy Act, enacted in 1974, was designed to protect individuals from unwarranted government scrutiny and the misuse of personal information. If Swalwell’s claims are upheld, it could impose new constraints on how federal agencies access and share sensitive data, especially in politically charged contexts.
On the other hand, supporters of the Trump administration argue that no one should be above the law and that allegations of fraud, no matter how politically inconvenient, deserve thorough investigation. They point out that federal oversight bodies have a responsibility to refer credible allegations to law enforcement, regardless of the political affiliations of those involved. Some legal analysts caution against assuming political motive without clear evidence, warning that doing so could undermine public confidence in the impartiality of federal agencies.
For now, the legal and political drama is far from over. With the Supreme Court poised to weigh in on Lisa Cook’s removal and ongoing investigations into Schiff and others, the coming months promise further revelations and, possibly, additional legal showdowns. As the 2026 California gubernatorial race heats up, Swalwell’s lawsuit ensures that questions about privacy, political power, and the rule of law will remain at the forefront of public debate.
The unfolding saga between Eric Swalwell and the Trump administration is more than a personal dispute—it’s a test of how far political actors can go in wielding government authority, and whether the courts will draw new lines in the sand.