For several months, the Trump administration has been vocal in its accusations of mortgage fraud against political adversaries, claiming they falsely declared multiple primary residences. President Donald Trump notably labeled one opponent as “deceitful and potentially criminal,” and labeled another as “CROOKED” on his Truth Social platform, urging the attorney general to take action.
However, records reveal a significant irony: years prior, Trump himself engaged in similar behavior. In 1993, he signed a mortgage for a home in Palm Beach, Florida, declaring that it would serve as his primary residence. Merely seven weeks later, he secured another mortgage for a neighboring property, again claiming it as his primary residence.
Contrary to these assertions, it appears Trump, then primarily based in New York, did not occupy either home, which instead functioned as rental properties adjacent to his well-known Mar-a-Lago estate. Reports from the time, including statements from his longtime real estate agent, indicated that they were intended as investment properties from the outset.
Shirley Wyner, who worked alongside Trump’s late real estate agent, stated in an interview that Trump “never lived there.” Additionally, she referenced the businessman’s decision to invest in improving the houses for rental purposes, contrary to his mortgage claims.
Experts examining these mortgages from a legal standpoint expressed surprise at the contradiction between Trump’s situation and his administration’s stance on mortgage fraud. They noted that while claiming primary residences on multiple mortgages isn’t commonly prosecuted or deemed illegal, Trump’s actions seemed to exceed the administration’s defined criteria for such misconduct. Kathleen Engel, a law professor and authority in mortgage finance, remarked, “He’s going to either need to fire himself or refer himself to the Department of Justice.”
Mortgages for primary residences are typically associated with more favorable terms, such as lower interest rates. Experts clarified that while some scenarios for having multiple primary-residence mortgages can be legitimate, such instances often require careful examination of intent. The discretion exercised by lenders is also significant; in this case, Trump utilized the same lender for both loans.
Recently, administration officials, including Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, have insisted that claiming multiple primary residences warrants criminal investigation. Pulte stated, “If somebody is claiming two primary residences, that is not appropriate.”
When contacted for commentary about the discrepancies in his mortgage agreements, Trump abruptly ended a conversation with a ProPublica reporter. The White House maintained that Trump’s situation was legitimate, arguing that it’s unreasonable to suggest that a lender would agree to defraud itself.
Further inquiries into related documents and details about Trump’s mortgage applications received no response from the White House. During the time of these transactions in the early 1990s, Trump was navigating significant business challenges, including notable failures in his casino ventures. Shortly after the mortgage deals, he would marry Marla Maples in a highly publicized ceremony.
Trump acquired the two properties—one for $525,000 and the other for $1,200,000—in December 1993 and January 1994, respectively, both through Merrill Lynch. Each mortgage document required Trump to occupy the properties as his primary residence within 60 days, yet no evidence suggests he ever lived in either house, as federal election records indicate his address remained Trump Tower in Manhattan.
Despite claims made in his mortgage documents, the homes were advertised as rentals over the years. One property, a seven-bedroom mansion, was even listed for $3,000 per day in rental ads during the late 1990s. While legal experts noted that even if Trump did commit fraud, the loans have since been settled, and the time elapsed is likely beyond the statute of limitations for mortgage fraud.
The mortgage agreements have drawn parallels to those of political rivals Trump has accused of similar misconduct. For instance, New York Attorney General Letitia James faced charges regarding a mortgage for her Virginia residence, where she allegedly misrepresented its use, a charge she denied. This has drawn attention to the inconsistency in the administration’s treatment of such matters, especially as other political figures have also been scrutinized for their mortgage dealings.
Pulte, maintaining that his investigations are impartial, acknowledged that both Democrats and Republicans will be scrutinized for potential fraud. However, he has yet to publicize any referrals for criminal investigation against Republican officials.
