For generations, home ownership has been part of the very definition of capturing the American dream. First-time buyers face a process that can be both exciting and daunting—the right home, in the right community, and with the right financing.
As housing costs continue to rise and first-time home purchases are being delayed more than ever, securing a mortgage at a competitive rate for a homebuyer is vital to making home ownership possible, which underscores the need for an accurate and comprehensive way to analyze borrowers’ creditworthiness.
Unfortunately, nearly 1 in 10 potential homebuyers are denied a mortgage when they apply, and that number is considerably higher for young adults, lower-income individuals, and minority borrowers. For example, Hispanic applicants are denied conventional mortgage financing at more than twice the rate of non-Hispanic white applicants, even when income and credit factors are similar, resulting in Hispanic families’ homeownership rate well below the national average. This tragedy is a reality for too many American families across all demographic groups.
Homeownership builds equity and stability. It ties families to their neighborhoods and strengthens local economies. Undermining access to credit means undermining that foundation, and we must continue to find ways to help correct these inequities.
With 61% of Americans “highly concerned” about housing costs, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey, we as a nation need to explore the barriers that may limit financial prosperity and home ownership. In particular, it is imperative to ensure fair access to credit for all Americans, including those in the working class and from underserved communities.
One system that we know works is the tri-merge credit reporting model, so-named because it combines data from all three major credit bureaus to determine a borrower’s creditworthiness.
A more complete profile is helpful for millions of potential borrowers building credit for the first time. Credit histories can be fragmented. Some may have credit cards or auto loans reported to only one bureau. Others pay rent or utilities faithfully, but those payments may appear inconsistently across the system. The tri-merge model fills those gaps, rewards responsibility, and helps families qualify for affordable credit in an impartial manner that reflects their true record, not one that can easily miss important elements.
However, some are now proposing eliminating the safeguard provided by the tri-merge model in favor of a “bi-merge” or “single-pull” model that uses credit reports from two or even just one credit reporting bureau.
But a less comprehensive report would create blind spots that disproportionately harm working-class and minority borrowers. Millions could see their credit scores misrepresented and mortgage applications denied because of missing or outdated data. Fewer families would qualify for home loans that are in fact within their reach, creating an unnecessary obstacle to the dream of ownership.
Given these realities, it is encouraging to see leaders at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) reaffirm their commitment to maintaining the tri-merge standard. Ultimately, data-driven fairness and fiscal prudence can go hand in hand and align with FHFA’s stated goal of empowering more Americans.
Still, many borrowers can relate to being frustrated by mistakes or inaccuracies in past credit reports. Yet while there may be compelling reasons to adjust some elements of the reporting process, those reasons are separate from the question of the larger system and can be addressed in much more targeted and effective ways.
There certainly is room to improve policy related to housing, construction, and finance to benefit more Americans. Simplifying for the sake of appearances may feel appealing in Washington, but in practice, it could harm millions of responsible borrowers ' access to credit.
The tri-merge system might sound technical at first, but understanding its practical benefits reveals it as a quiet success story that has enabled more Americans from diverse backgrounds to access credit. Maintaining the pillar of credit access should be paramount to a successful policy that benefits Americans across the board.
Mario H. Lopez is the President of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for all.
President Donald Trump says Americans’ financial struggles matter “not even a little bit” as inflation rises, gas prices surge, and a controversial $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded compensation plan for political allies emerges.
Trump Says Americans’ Pain ‘Doesn’t Matter’ as $1.7B Aids His Allies
Perhaps the most effective ad in the 2024 campaign was “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” Since that ad ran, the American people have learned that it is anything but true.
With gas prices having surged 28% in two months, inflation climbing to a three-year high of 3.8%, and the average family is spending an estimated $5,000 more this year than last due to rising costs across the board, a reporter asked Trump a simple question: To what extent are Americans’ financial situations motivating him to reach a deal to end the war in Iran?
Trump's answer was startling in its candor.
“Not even a little bit,” the President said. “The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran — they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.”
But perhaps the most clarifying lens through which to view those words is what emerged just days later: Trump was suing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for $10 billion in damages over an IRS contractor’s leak of his tax returns but is now expected to drop that $10 billion lawsuit, not because justice has been served, but in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate his political allies.
The money would come not from any congressional appropriation but from the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, a public fund funded by taxpayers that exists to pay legitimate court judgments against the federal government.
Under the proposed terms, a five-member commission with total authority to disburse that $1.7 billion would operate with no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making. Trump himself would retain the power to remove commission members without cause.
The beneficiaries? Among them: the nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack, some of whom pleaded guilty, and people Trump already pardoned upon returning to office, as well as allies who claim they were targets of “weaponization” of the legal system under former President Joe Biden. Entities associated with Trump himself are not explicitly barred from filing claims.
The contrast here is not subtle. When asked directly whether the financial pain of working Americans factors into his decision-making, the president answers “not even a little bit.”
Yet within the same week, a deal surfaces in which $1.7 billion in public funds could flow to Trump allies, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and potentially Trump-linked entities — all under a commission the president controls, with no transparency requirements.
While ordinary Americans are losing ground financially, the president himself is doing remarkably well — and the numbers are staggering.
According to Forbes, Trump's net worth jumped from roughly $2.3 billion when he returned to the White House in January 2025 to an estimated $6.3 billion by April 2026 — nearly tripling his fortune in little over a year.
A New York Times investigation found that he personally gained approximately $1.4 billion in 2025 alone, a single-year increase that approaches the combined net worth of every other U.S. president while in office throughout American history.
The primary engine of that growth has not been real estate, the business that built his brand over five decades, but rather cryptocurrency ventures, meme coins, and media deals, all industries he has simultaneously deregulated from the Oval Office.
The American people are not the constituency this president governs for. The data bears that out. Real wages are losing ground as energy costs surge. The personal savings rate has dropped to 4%. Small businesses have shed hundreds of thousands of jobs under the weight of tariffs. Gas sits at over $4 a gallon. And the president's answer to the question of whether your financial pain is even in his mind is: no.
There is, of course, an argument to be made that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is a legitimate and serious national security priority that may justify some economic disruption.
But that argument is entirely separate from whether a president should care about the daily financial suffering of the people he was elected to serve. One can hold two things in mind at once. Trump apparently cannot — or will not.
We clearly have a portrait of a president whose conception of governance begins and ends with him and his loyalists. And when ordinary Americans ask if their struggles even register, they get the most honest answer this administration has offered: not even a little bit.
Lynn Schmidt is a columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. She holds a master's of science in political science as well as a bachelor's of science in nursing.