As housing costs in the United States continue to soar, President Donald Trump has ignited a fierce debate with a bold new proposal: the introduction of a 50-year mortgage plan. Announced on November 10, 2025, and confirmed by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHHA) director Bill Pulte, the plan aims to make homeownership more attainable—especially for younger Americans—by significantly lowering monthly payments through longer loan terms. But as the idea gains traction, it’s also stirring up strong opinions across the political spectrum and the housing industry.
Trump’s pitch is simple on the surface: stretch the traditional 30-year mortgage to 50 years, slashing the monthly cost and, in theory, opening doors for many who currently find themselves priced out of the market. According to Fannie Mae’s mortgage calculator, a $300,000 home at a 5% interest rate with a 5% down payment would cost $2,254 per month on a 15-year mortgage, $1,530 per month on a 30-year, and just $1,294 per month on a 50-year loan. That’s a substantial difference for anyone watching their budget, especially as the median U.S. household now spends 39% of its income on mortgage repayments, with the typical homebuyer needing to earn $112,131 annually—about $25,000 more than the average household brings in, according to Redfin data cited by ABC News.
For Trump and his supporters, this plan is about restoring the American Dream. Bill Pulte, the agency director, was effusive in his support, writing on X (formerly Twitter), “Thanks to President Trump, we are indeed working on The 50 year Mortgage—a complete game changer. We are laser focused on ensuring the American Dream for YOUNG PEOPLE and that can only happen on the economic level of homebuying. A 50 Year Mortgage is simply a potential weapon in a WIDE arsenal of solutions that we are developing right now. STAY TUNED!”
But the road to implementing such a plan is anything but smooth. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Consumer Protection Act, passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, currently prohibits federal backing for mortgages longer than 30 years. Any move to create a 50-year mortgage would require congressional approval—a daunting hurdle in today’s divided political climate. As TNND reports, there is bipartisan interest in expanding housing affordability, but changing the rules could face stiff resistance from lawmakers, even within Trump’s own party.
Indeed, some of the sharpest criticism has come from Republican ranks. Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, typically a Trump ally, took to social media to lambast the plan: “I don’t like 50 year mortgages as the solution to the housing affordability crisis. It will ultimately reward the banks, mortgage lenders and home builders while people pay far more in interest over time and die before they ever pay off their home. In debt forever, in debt for life!” Kentucky’s Thomas Massie echoed the sentiment, questioning whether the plan was any different from “you will own nothing and you will like it.”
Industry experts and analysts are also weighing in, and their reactions are anything but unanimous. On the pro side, Opendoor CEO Kaz Nejatian called the proposal “probably the most pro-homeowner government policy of the last two decades.” Real estate agent John Pompliano argued, “The 30-year mortgage is one of the best financial products available to Americans. 50 years is even better.” Supporters believe that by lowering monthly payments, more people could qualify for home loans, especially first-time buyers who are increasingly squeezed out of the market—something reflected in the fact that the average age of a first-time buyer has climbed from 28 in 1991 to 38 in 2024, according to the National Association of Realtors.
But skeptics warn of significant downsides. Mortgage broker Rebecca Richardson crunched the numbers: “If you borrowed $425,000 at 6.5% over 30 years, you’d pay $542,064 in interest. Over 50 years, you’d pay $1,012,478. That’s an extra $470,414 just to lower your monthly payment by $290. You’re not saving money… you’re just dragging out the debt.” Graham Stephan, a real estate investor, pointed out that a 50-year mortgage “would allow you to buy approximately 10 percent more house (or save about 10 percent) at the expense of nearly DOUBLING your payment schedule. There’s no way that ends well.”
Beyond the question of cost, critics worry about the impact on wealth creation and financial security. Longer loan terms slow the rate at which homeowners build equity, leaving them more vulnerable if home prices fall—a lesson painfully learned during the 2008 financial crisis, when many borrowers with little equity walked away from their homes. “It’s a tradeoff among monthly payment, total interest paid and equity build up. It’s saying, ‘what are your goals in homeownership?’” said Keith Munsell, who leads the real estate concentration at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. He also noted that the plan “doesn’t overcome the biggest impediment to homeownership, which is the down payment.”
Lenders, too, would face new risks. A 50-year loan introduces more uncertainty about repayment over such a long period, which could prompt lenders to charge higher interest rates or fees to compensate. As reported by industry publication Ellington Financial, “The viability of a 50-year Agency product will rely on adoption and liquidity in both the primary and secondary markets, starting with the higher level of guarantee fees charged to lenders/borrowers to compensate the GSEs for the longer duration.” The firm also flagged potential market risks: “Demand will also need to coalesce in the MBS market to capitalize the interest rate and prepayment risk, which could initially have the perverse effect of widening spreads as investors create liquidity.”
There’s also the risk that easier financing could actually push home prices even higher, as more buyers chase the same limited supply of homes. Most analysts agree that the root cause of the affordability crisis isn’t just high interest rates or monthly payments, but a chronic shortage of housing. The rate of home building plummeted after the 2008 crash and has never fully recovered, leaving the country millions of units short of demand. As Munsell bluntly put it, “It isn’t going to do a damn thing because the problem is lack of supply. If you want to make housing more affordable, let’s cut the price of the materials used. Let’s bring in some innovation into the construction industry. Let’s build modular and truck it out to the job site. Let’s reduce the regulations. I mean, there are a whole host of things you can do.”
Builders face their own challenges, from rising material costs and labor shortages to zoning restrictions that limit new construction. The average price of an existing home hit $415,200 in September 2025, and new homes aren’t much cheaper, with a median price of $413,500 as of August, according to the National Association of Home Builders.
For now, Trump’s 50-year mortgage proposal remains just that—a proposal. Whether it can clear regulatory and political hurdles is far from certain. But the debate it has sparked is a clear sign of just how desperate the search for solutions has become in one of the least affordable housing markets in U.S. history. If nothing else, it’s a reminder that when it comes to the American Dream, there are no easy answers—just a lot of ideas, and even more opinions.
