New York Attorney General Letitia James, known for her successful prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump in a high-profile civil fraud case, is now the subject of a federal criminal referral involving alleged mortgage-related misrepresentations. Legal analysts and James’s office suggest the move may be a retaliatory response as she launches a new insider trading investigation into Trump’s financial dealings.
The referral, obtained by The New York Post, stems from a letter authored by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
It accuses James of making inconsistent statements on mortgage documents regarding her principal residence status—allegations that date as far back as the early 2000s. The referral further claims James mischaracterized the number of units in a Brooklyn property and once co-signed a mortgage with her father while listing him as her spouse in legal paperwork.
Despite the allegations, a spokesperson for the New York Attorney General’s Office emphasized James’s commitment to her duties and denounced the referral as a politically motivated attack:
“Attorney General James is focused every single day on protecting New Yorkers, especially as this administration weaponizes the federal government against the rule of law and the Constitution. She will not be intimidated by bullies—no matter who they are.”
Referral Follows Insider Trading Investigation Announcement
The timing of the referral has raised questions within legal and political circles, as it was made public just hours after James announced a new investigation into President Trump over potential insider trading violations tied to sudden changes in tariff policy. Legal experts suggest this may signal an attempt by Trump-aligned officials to undermine James’s credibility amid escalating legal scrutiny.
James, 66, gained national recognition for leading the 2022 civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and the Trump Organization. That case culminated earlier this year with New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordering Trump to pay over $350 million in penalties.
The judgment, a significant legal blow to the former president, affirmed James’s position as a formidable figure in state-level financial enforcement.
In response to the federal referral, constitutional and criminal law experts have expressed concern over what appears to be a growing trend of politicized legal retaliation.
“This is not a typical prosecutorial referral,” said one former U.S. Attorney who asked to remain anonymous. “The allegations are either decades old or rooted in non-material technical discrepancies. In the current political context, this could easily be construed as retaliatory and chilling to law enforcement independence.”
History of Targeted Rhetoric from the Trump Administration
The referral also follows repeated public threats by President Trump against James. During the 2024 campaign cycle, Trump called for James’s arrest and punishment, frequently referring to her as a “corrupt politician” and “wacky crook.” In speeches and social media posts since returning to office, Trump has vowed to “expel rogue actors” from government and described his prosecutorial adversaries as “scum.”
James has remained steadfast in the face of these threats. In her legal career, she has maintained a strong record on public interest litigation, including high-impact cases against opioid manufacturers, major corporate fraud schemes, and environmental violations.
Her office insists that the recent referral will not impact ongoing investigations:
“AG James is fully engaged in protecting New Yorkers from fraud, abuse, and corruption—regardless of how powerful the target,” her spokesperson said.
Legal Community Responds
Multiple legal scholars have voiced support for James, warning that federal referrals based on tenuous allegations may represent a dangerous precedent.
“This isn’t just about Letitia James,” said a legal ethics professor at NYU School of Law. “It’s about whether prosecutors can pursue public corruption and financial crime without becoming targets themselves. If we normalize this behavior, we erode the safeguards of the justice system.”
As the referral is reviewed by the Department of Justice, legal observers will be watching closely to determine whether the claims against James warrant federal action—or represent a politically fueled overreach.
