Trump responds to criticism: Paying off a 50-year mortgage is no big deal; what's wrong with paying less each month?

Trump proposes 50-year mortgage plan, sparking bipartisan criticism; concerns grow that long-term debt pressure could significantly increase. (Background: Ethereum finalizes the December 3 Fusaka upgrade, introducing PeerDAS and raising Gas limits) (Additional context: Fusaka upgrade in one month: Ethereum’s boldest scalability gamble to date) President Donald Trump mentioned the “50-year mortgage” plan in an exclusive interview with Fox News on the 9th, claiming that extending the repayment period could lower monthly payments. This seemingly casual remark ignited a flurry of discussion in Washington and the financial sector within just two days: can it truly ease housing pressure, or will it trap homebuyers in half a century of debt?

A “nothing major” comment sparks policy storm Host Laura Ingraham questioned whether extending the term is reasonable, to which Trump responded: “All of this just means you pay less each month, but over a longer period. It’s not a big deal.” On the same day, Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), appointed by Trump, publicly called this move a “total game-changer.” The mixed signals from officials immediately triggered polarized interpretations in the market, with praise far outnumbered by concerns.

Apparent affordability, actual expense The incentive is straightforward: lengthening the term reduces monthly payments. Senior economist Joel Berner calculated that for a $360,000 loan at 6.25% interest, extending from 30 to 50 years could save about $250 per month. But the cost is equally clear: total interest skyrockets—paying an additional 20 years could mean tens of thousands of dollars more in interest.

Slow equity buildup: Most early payments go toward interest, meaning Americans who buy homes at around age 40 might still carry mortgage debt at age 90. Retirement planning delayed: Traditional advice encourages paying off mortgages before retirement, but a 50-year plan could extend working years and diminish quality of life in old age. Gennadiy Goldberg, an analyst at TD Securities, described this as merely a “stopgap measure.” Sharon Cornelissen, director of research at the American Consumer Federation, warned that extending the term could weaken families’ ability to build wealth through home equity.

Legal red lines and intra-party doubts The technical hurdle is significant: the Dodd-Frank Act stipulates that “qualified mortgages” are limited to a maximum of 30 years. Without congressional legislation, 50-year products would likely be classified as non-qualified loans with higher interest rates. This legal risk makes it difficult for Republicans to fully endorse the plan.

Representative Thomas Massie questioned on social media: “How do you distinguish between ‘Come on, enjoy this 50-year mortgage’ and ‘You’ll have nothing and love it’?” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene also expressed concern that Americans could be “indefinitely in debt for life.” Conservative host Glenn Beck bluntly stated that the plan would “lock families onto the banks’ chains.”

The fundamental issue: supply and demand The root cause of high housing prices, Trump blamed on previous administrations and the Federal Reserve’s rate hikes, but most analysts believe the core problem is the long-term shortage of housing supply. Bloomberg View columnist Allison Schrager cited that while there may be demand for ultra-long-term mortgages, product pricing is challenging, and the long-term impact on the financial system is difficult to assess. Relying solely on extending terms to stimulate demand could push prices even higher, worsening housing affordability.

Ultimately, for this proposal to enter the market, it must clear three hurdles: congressional legislation, lenders willing to bear capital costs, and consumer acceptance of long-term debt. Under the dual pressures of supply shortages and high interest rates, the “50-year mortgage” acts as a painkiller—temporarily easing pain but not addressing the root cause.

Trump’s “ultra-long” mortgage debate shifts focus back to an age-old question: Are homes for living or for betting? The answer remains elusive, but the controversy has prompted American society to reevaluate the fragile balance between debt, wealth, and intergenerational fairness.