Also, in legal precedent, an independent federal regulatory agency can be both the US Government and a commercial actor but not at the same time while executing specific actions during specific events. It is erroneous to think that the FHFA must be one or the other (Government or commercial actor) as far as the law goes in defining legal actors.
The self-dealing in the court cases has to do with a not yet established collusive relationship between the US Treasury and FHFA and the execution of the third amendment where they together (as the US Government) conspire to "enrich" the US Treasury via a contract (net worth sweep) that HERA mandates is supposed to enhance not diminish the GSEs. In this action the FHFA is not enriched but the GSEs assets are taken by the US Treasury through FHFA consent on behalf of the GSEs. This action is then seen as the FHFA/US Treasury/US Government acting as a fiduciary for and in its own best interest in a transaction rather than in the best interest of the GSEs as mandated and legally obligated by HERA.
I could not catch the drift of the back in the driver's seat metaphor given the need for a relationship.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
