Washington
Washington state debuts racist home loans program, furthers divide
Washington State’s new Covenant Homeownership Program has been in effect for just over a month, offering an advantage of home ownership based purely on race. It is a classic example of the misguided, feel-good policies that perpetuate division rather than solve the problems they claim to address. Indeed, this is nothing more than a racist home loans program.
On the surface, the Covenant Homeownership Program, which offers zero-interest loans to individuals from “historically marginalized communities,” might seem like a noble attempt to right the wrongs of past discrimination. It earned celebratory media coverage this month and earlier in the year. However, when you dig deeper, it becomes clear that this initiative is more about virtue signaling and less about fostering genuine equality. Under the eligibility guidelines, a loan recipient doesn’t even have to establish they or their family have been the victims of discrimination. It’s their race alone that deems them a victim of oppression, a common belief amongst progressives.
The program gives up to $150,000 in zero-interest loans for down payments and closing costs to first-time homebuyers who can trace their ancestry to people who lived in Washington before 1968 and belong to a specified marginalized racial group. You must be either black, Hispanic, Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Korean or Asian Indian. Though Jews were subject to restrictive covenants, Democrats in the state legislature did not deem them worthy of access to their housing loan program. Jews are considered privileged white people by the Radical Left.
More from Jason Rantz: Wing Luke Museum banned exhibit to appease antisemitic staff. Now, Jews fight back
What is the racist home loan program supposed to do?
The Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which handles administration for the Covenant Homeownership Program, claims the loans will help bridge the wealth gap created by discriminatory housing practices of the past. But is this really the solution, or is it just another layer of racial preference that excludes people based solely on the color of their skin?
One of the most troubling aspects of this program is its assumption that people today are victims of racism simply because their ancestors might have been. The idea that one’s eligibility for financial assistance should be tied to their race is as racist as the policies they claim made it less likely for these loan applicants to afford a home to begin with. It perpetuates the notion that people are defined by their racial background rather than their individual circumstances; that a poor white or Jewish family is still better off than a wealthy black or Hispanic family.
This program divides us further rather than bringing us together, creating resentment for those in need who are left out because they’re not from a demographic Democrats can exploit for political power. It’s no wonder why Democrats are struggling, especially nationally, amongst low-income working white families.
You don’t even have to show you’re the victim of racism
The program doesn’t require applicants to demonstrate that they’ve personally suffered from discrimination; their race is enough to qualify them. This not only undermines the principle of individual responsibility but also disregards the many non-minority families who have struggled to achieve homeownership due to financial hardships unrelated to race. By focusing solely on race, the Covenant Homeownership Program ignores the complex socio-economic factors that affect all potential homebuyers, regardless of their racial background.
Moreover, the criteria for eligibility are shockingly exclusionary.
If you’re a white family that’s struggled for generations to make ends meet in Battle Ground or Sultan, too bad. The program’s benefits are explicitly not for you. This is a program designed to benefit some at the expense of others based purely on the color of their skin—a notion that runs counter to the ideals of equality and fairness that should guide public policy.
More from Jason Rantz: Developer pauses massive residential project over Seattle crime crisis
What’s the actual impact of the racist home loans program?
According to the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which operates the program, only 19 applicants had the loans closed (including 16 black and one Hispanic applicants). In a state with millions of residents, this hardly seems like a sweeping success. If the goal was to make a substantial impact on homeownership disparities, this program is clearly not the answer. Instead, it’s an expensive exercise in virtue signaling that will help a select few while doing little to address the broader issues at play.
There’s also a glaring problem with the racist home loans program. It makes it easier for a family to buy a home it can’t afford and benefits people who can afford a home without the interest-free loan.
Under the program, an applicant is eligible if they make up to the Area Median Income (AMI) of the county they’re purchasing a home in. If a household makes a combined $65,000 in King County (AMI $147,400), and has little in savings, it likely doesn’t make sense to purchase a home yet. If the household makes $147,000 and has a healthy savings account, they likely don’t even need the assistance, even if they’d like to have it (who wouldn’t?).
The program is also incredibly expensive. Each loan is worth up to $150,000, and while it’s interest-free, it still needs to be repaid eventually. But who’s footing the bill in the meantime? Washington taxpayers, many of whom will never qualify for this assistance because they don’t meet the program’s racial criteria. This is a redistribution of wealth based on race, plain and simple, and it’s both unfair and unsustainable.
More from Jason Rantz: Auburn HS ditched speaker it didn’t properly vet after accusations of antisemitism
Home loans program based on racism to address past racism we assume impacted wealth
The justification for this racist home loans program rests on the idea that past discrimination has left minority groups without the generational wealth to buy homes today. While it’s true that discriminatory practices in the past have had lasting effects on some, it’s not fact for all. Generational wealth is also not mandatory for home ownership. And a solution should not be to create new forms of racial discrimination in the present.
Instead, we should focus on policies that help all low-income families, regardless of race, to achieve homeownership. Programs that offer financial education, credit counseling, and, to the extent necessary, assistance with down payments should be available to anyone who needs them, not just those who belong to a specific racial group that the politicians in power need to placate in order to stay in power.
Washington’s Covenant Homeownership Program is a misguided attempt to address historical wrongs through present-day racial preferences. In 50 years, will we need another program to undo the injustices this current program creates? True equality comes from treating everyone with fairness and respect, not by doling out benefits based on the color of one’s skin.
Washington State should rethink this program and instead focus on initiatives that help all families, regardless of race, achieve the American Dream of homeownership (I will admit that it’s at least refreshing that this program makes it harder for the Radical Left to claim home ownership is steeped in “white supremacy culture.”) The path to equality is not through exclusion, but through inclusivity (that other buzzword progressives love to throw around) that uplifts everyone.
More from Jason Rantz: Prominent Seattle business leaders fed up with crime plaguing city as major Starbucks shuts down for safety
Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow Jason on X, Instagram and Facebook.
Washington
Washington University officials issue all-clear after reports of armed person on campus
Washington University issued an all-clear alert Tuesday morning after police completed a search of the Danforth campus.
The university said normal activity on campus could resume and there was no threat.
The university had issued reports of an armed person on the Danforth campus earlier in the morning. University officials asked students to shelter in place while police searched the area around Brookings Hall.
The first alert, issued at 9:18 a.m., read “WashU Alert: Armed person on Danforth Campus. Run, Hide, or Fight. If hiding, lock or barricade yourself in a room until further notice. If off campus, stay away. Updates at emergency.washu.edu.”
A second alert, issued minutes later, said police were on the scene near Brookings Hall and other buildings on the Danforth campus.
This story has been updated.
Washington
‘Eye-opening’: Ursula shocked at nearly half of ICE arrests in Washington have no criminal history
After federal data revealed that nearly 2,000 people were taken into ICE custody in Washington between the start of President Trump’s second term and October 2025, The Seattle Times found that 47% of those who were taken into custody had no criminal convictions or pending charges.
KIRO hosts Ursula Reutin and Spike O’Neill were appalled at the findings due to the Trump administration’s promise to target the most violent offenders, but now individuals without a criminal history are being arrested.
“It’s just like promises kept, promises made, promises broken, from the Trump administration,” Spike said. “Nobody campaigned on clearing out the Home Depot workforce or the kitchen staff here, there, and everywhere. That’s not what people campaigned on. They campaigned on the worst of the worst. We all, I think, support the removal of the worst of the worst. But you mentioned 47% in Washington have no criminal record.”
Ursula noted that a small percentage of the 2,000 ICE arrests made in Washington had a criminal with a violent crime, while a vast majority had nothing worse than a traffic violation.
“When we break it down, we’re talking about a very, very tiny percentage, 13%, being violent crimes,” Ursula said. “If you have a violent crime, you should be deported, period. But we’re talking about, again, some kind of traffic infraction. It’s eye-opening when you see what was promised, and what is actually happening.”
Watch the full discussion in the video above.
Listen to Gee and Ursula on “The Gee and Ursula Show” weekday mornings from 9 am to 12 pm on KIRO Newsradio.
Washington
Judge scolds prosecutors in hearing on search of Washington Post reporter’s home
A federal judge in Virginia scolded Justice Department attorneys on Friday for not mentioning the 1980 Privacy Protection Act when they submitted their application for a warrant to search a Washington Post reporter’s home and seize her devices.
The Privacy Protection Act limits the government’s ability to search and seize journalists’ materials.
“Did you not tell me intentionally or did you not know,” Magistrate Judge William Porter asked.
The testy exchange unfolded in the middle of a hearing to determine whether the government should be permitted to search through the devices seized from Post reporter Hannah Natanson – or whether the government must return those devices to Natanson without an extensive search.
The judge appeared inclined to find a middle ground that would allow the court to do a search of the devices on behalf of the government – and then hand information relevant to the search warrant over to prosecutors. This would prevent the government from having potentially unfettered access to Natanson’s devices, which The Post said the reporter has used to communicate with roughly 1,200 confidential sources.
“I have a pretty good sense of what I’m going to do here,” Porter said, adding that he wanted to spend some more time thoroughly considering his options before making a ruling. He scheduled another hearing for March 4 and said he expects to issue his ruling before then.
Friday’s hearing marked the first time that prosecutors and attorneys for The Post have met in court since the unprecedented Jan. 14 search of Natanson’s home in Virginia. Federal agents seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive and a Garmin watch. Law enforcement officials said the search was part of their investigation into government contractor Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a systems administrator with top secret clearance who was indicted in Maryland last month on charges of unlawfully obtaining and sharing classified materials.
The discussion of the Privacy Protection Act reflected the tense moment of the nearly hour-long hearing in the Alexandria, Virginia, federal courthouse. Porter said he was particularly frustrated because he had spent two days going back and forth with the government in January before he approved the warrant. He said he rejected multiple versions of the warrant requests before settling on a relatively narrow warrant to seize information on Natanson’s devices pertaining to her communications with the government contractor.
The 1980 act is intended to prevent the criminalization of a reporter gathering information. It says that a journalist’s materials should be seized only if that journalist is suspected of committing a crime with those materials. The law says that a reporter’s possessions can be seized if investigators suspect they contain certain materials related to sensitive national security information.
Justice Department trial attorney Christian Dibblee apologized to the judge and said he could not answer the questions about why the government had not discussed that law because he was not involved in the submission of the warrant. Another prosecutor who submitted the warrant – Gordon Kromberg, a veteran attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia – chimed in and said he did not mention the law because he does not believe it applied to the case.
Porter suggested that whether or not the law applied in this instance, prosecutors should have included it in the application so that the judge could determine its relevance.
“That’s minimizing it,” Porter told the government trial attorney when he said he understood the judge’s frustration.
It is exceptionally rare for law enforcement officials to search reporters’ homes to further cases in which the journalist is not a target. The law allows such searches under some circumstances, but federal regulations intended to protect a free press are designed to make it more difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters to obtain the identities of their sources.
The Post and Natanson’s attorneys have decried the search as one that “flouts the First Amendment and ignores federal statutory safeguards for journalists.” They have demanded that the government return the devices so Natanson can continue reporting and said that “almost none” of the materials on the devices are relevant to the case against the contractor.
Attorneys for The Post and Natanson argued in court that the seizures have prevented Natanson from doing her job because she cannot publish material without her devices and sources. They also said that the government’s seizure could have a chilling effect on future government sources who may want to speak out about their workplaces to reporters.
“It is not about one reporter and one journalist – it has to do with confidential sources,” an attorney for The Post, Simon Latcovich, told the judge.
The Justice Department attorneys conceded that they seized more materials from Natanson than is relevant to the search warrant. But they said that’s a standard reality in such searches. The government planned to set up a filter team to sift through the materials and then hand over only relevant information to the investigators, the prosecutors said.
“The government takes seriously that you did not authorize a fishing expedition,” Dibblee told Porter.
Perez-Lugones pleaded not guilty last month to counts of retaining and sharing sensitive national security information. The Justice Department has said that Perez-Lugones had been messaging Natanson shortly before his arrest.
Natanson covers the federal workforce and has been part of The Post’s most high-profile and sensitive coverage related to government firings, national security and diplomacy during the first year of the second Trump administration. She contributed reporting to a number of recent articles around the United States’ capture of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro.
In December, Natanson wrote a first-person account about her experience covering the federal workforce as the Trump administration created upheaval across the government. She detailed how she posted her secure phone number to an online forum for government workers and amassed more than 1,000 sources, with federal workers frequently contacting her to share frustrations and accounts from their offices.
Natanson wrote in a declaration to the court last month that she typically receives anywhere from dozens to upward of 100 tips from sources per day on Signal. Since the seizure, the number of tips has fallen to zero.
Prosecutors also served The Post with a subpoena seeking information related to the same government contractor. The subpoena asked The Post to hand over any communications between the contractor and other employees.
Porter said at the hearing that he took issue with the framing of the search as unprecedented because it was executed at a journalist’s home. He noted that Natanson wrote in her first-person essay that she often works from home, which would make it a logical place to execute a search warrant.
“I think that’s an inflammatory fact,” Porter said.
Attorneys for The Post and Natanson repeatedly suggested that the government’s search was an overreach because agents seized all of her devices, which comprised the entirety of her reporting materials. Porter asked multiple times whether there was an alternative way the government could have conducted its search since the materials are stored together on electronic devices – and not, for example, on individual pages or notebooks.
“I still haven’t heard some alternative way that you think this could have been done,” Porter said to the attorneys.
Jeremy Roebuck contributed to this report.
-
Montana5 days ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Oklahoma7 days agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Technology3 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Education1 week agoVideo: Secret New York City Passage Linked to Underground Railroad
-
Louisiana2 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Politics1 week agoChicago-area teacher breaks silence after losing job over 2-word Facebook post supporting ICE: ‘Devastating’
-
Technology3 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics3 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT