The Trump administration’s recent proposal to introduce a 50-year mortgage as a way to improve housing affordability has ignited a flurry of debate among economists, housing experts, and political figures. While the idea promises immediate relief in the form of lower monthly mortgage payments, a closer look at the numbers and the broader economic landscape reveals a far more complicated—and potentially risky—picture for American homebuyers.
On November 8, 2025, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to float the concept, sharing an image of himself with Franklin D. Roosevelt and suggesting that lenders, including giants like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, could offer 50-year mortgages. The goal? Lower the required monthly payments on new loans and, in theory, open the door to homeownership for more Americans. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte hailed the proposal as “a complete game changer,” according to CNN. But as with many bold ideas, the devil is in the details—and in this case, the arithmetic.
John Lovallo, an analyst at UBS Securities, ran the numbers and found that a 50-year mortgage could indeed reduce the monthly payment on a median-priced home by about $119 compared to a traditional 30-year loan. For a $420,000 house with a 12% down payment—leaving a loan amount of $369,600—this would mean dropping from $2,295 a month (at a 6.33% interest rate) to $2,176 a month (at a slightly higher 6.83% rate). That’s a meaningful difference for many families struggling to keep up with today’s housing costs.
But the story doesn’t end there. As Lovallo’s team and other analysts, including those at LendingTree, have pointed out, stretching a mortgage over five decades can double the total interest paid over the life of the loan. The Associated Press calculated that the average borrower would pay an additional $389,000 in interest over the life of a 50-year mortgage compared to a 30-year one. LendingTree’s own analysis was even starker: a $500,000 loan at 6.1% interest could rack up $1.1 million in interest over 50 years. That’s a staggering sum—enough to make even the most determined homebuyers pause.
“With a 50-year loan, you’re paying a teeny, tiny amount to your principal loan early on, so your interest payments are not going down very much,” Richard Green, a professor at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business, told CNN. “It depends on what the interest rate is, but it could be like 30 or 40 years before you’ve even paid half your mortgage principal under those circumstances.”
Equity accumulation, the process by which homeowners build up ownership in their property, is also dramatically slowed under such a long-term loan. In practical terms, this means homeowners would spend decades with little to show for their payments in terms of actual ownership—a risky proposition, especially if home values decline or personal circumstances change. UBS analysts warn that this could “trap borrowers in half a century of debt and delay wealth-building for an entire generation,” as reported by Fortune.
There’s also the demographic reality to consider. The National Association of Realtors recently reported that the average age of first-time homebuyers in the U.S. has climbed to a record high of 40 years. This means many borrowers could be paying off their mortgages into their 90s—or might not live to see their homes fully paid off at all. “It’s typically not a goal of policymakers to pass on mortgage debt to a borrowers’ children,” Mike Konczal, senior director at the Economic Security Project, told the Associated Press.
Some in the mortgage industry, like Phil Crescenzo of Nation One Mortgage Corporation, see a silver lining. “It’s not like somebody would have to stay in that loan forever. It’s a starting point,” Crescenzo argued on CNN, noting that refinancing is always an option. He suggests that for some buyers, especially those weighing renting versus buying, even a slow path to home equity might be preferable to no path at all. “If I had the option where I’m renting the home or I can get a 50-year mortgage and I’m not going to gain much equity for a couple of years, I would still take that deal versus renting,” he said.
Yet many financial planners and economists remain deeply skeptical. The core of their argument is simple: while longer amortization periods lower monthly payments, they do so at the cost of much higher lifetime interest and leave homeowners more vulnerable to market shocks. As one analysis put it, “A 50-year mortgage is a re-timing device. It shifts cash flows to make today’s payment smaller but commits a household to more total interest and decades of leverage, with slower equity accumulation and greater vulnerability to local housing shocks late in life.”
There are also broader market risks. Lower monthly payments could boost demand for homes, but if homebuilding doesn’t keep pace, prices may rise, offsetting the supposed affordability gains. This dynamic has played out before, such as when expanded access to student loans led to higher college costs. As CNN noted, “A cheaper home loan might boost demand, but without adding new supply, it could actually push prices higher.”
Legal and regulatory hurdles loom large as well. The Dodd-Frank Act, passed in the wake of the 2008 housing crisis, currently limits mortgage terms to 30 years. Implementing a 50-year mortgage would require significant legislative changes, and it’s unclear whether there’s sufficient political appetite for such a move. When pressed for details, the White House offered only a vague assurance: “President Trump is always exploring new ways to improve housing affordability for everyday Americans. Any official policy changes will be announced by the White House.”
President Trump himself appeared to downplay the idea in a November 12, 2025 interview with Fox News, calling it “not a big deal” and suggesting it “might help a little bit.” Meanwhile, prominent voices on social media, including some of Trump’s own supporters, have expressed skepticism. Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote, “In debt forever, in debt for life!” while activist Mike Cernovich dismissed the idea as “Lifetime mortgages,” according to Reuters.
Some experts, like those at UBS, argue that the real solution to America’s housing woes lies not in creative financing but in direct investment in housing infrastructure. Their research points to a structural shortage of 7 million homes in the U.S. and suggests that boosting the use of manufactured wall panels could reduce construction times and waste—though it would slightly increase per-unit costs.
For now, the 50-year mortgage remains a political trial balloon, floating in the marketplace of ideas. Whether it ever becomes a reality—or simply drifts away—will depend on the interplay of public opinion, legislative action, and the ever-shifting winds of the U.S. housing market.
