The White House is weighing whether federal housing agencies should explore 50-year mortgages to lower monthly payments. Supporters have called the idea a potential game changer, while housing economists and even some conservative allies warn it would raise lifetime borrowing costs and slow equity building.
The concept surfaced over the weekend after Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte publicly said the administration is "working on" a 50-year mortgage, calling it "a complete game changer." Pulte — who also chairs the boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — pitched the idea to President Donald Trump using a poster that compared Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 30-year loan to a Trump-era 50-year version, according to Politico. Trump then shared the image on Truth Social. CBS News separately reported the episode and timing.
In a Fox News interview on November 11, 2025, Trump downplayed the significance of the plan. "It’s not even a big deal," he said, adding that the change would mean "you pay less per month, you pay it over a longer period of time" and "it might help a little bit." When Trump briefly referenced "40 years," host Laura Ingraham corrected him that the standard term is 30 years. Ingraham also noted a backlash from some of Trump’s own supporters, calling the idea a “giveaway to the banks” that would prolong the time to own a home outright, a characterization echoed across conservative media. Reuters and other outlets reported the exchange and pushback.
Analysts see substantial trade-offs. Using a $400,000 home, a 6.25% rate and 10% down payment as a benchmark, Realtor.com senior economist Joel Berner estimates a 50-year loan would cut the monthly payment by roughly $250 compared with a 30-year mortgage — but total interest would jump to about $816,396 versus $438,156, or 86% more over the life of the loan. Berner adds that, in reality, ultra-long loans would likely carry higher interest rates than 30-year mortgages, making the gap wider. The Washington Post reported these figures, which are consistent with other analyses. Chris Hendrix, a senior vice president at NBKC Bank, told NPR member stations that borrowers would pay "almost all interest for the first 10 years," further delaying equity buildup.
Some housing advocates are dismissive. Bruce Marks, chief executive of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, said the proposal "will have no legs" and that borrowers "will not do it" because it won’t help them build wealth, comments carried by public radio reports.
There are legal questions, too. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said the idea is undergoing “a lot of legal analysis,” noting that mortgages longer than 30 years do not qualify as “qualified mortgages” under post-crisis rules — a status important for backing by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — and that legislation could be required. Hassett also argued that home-price appreciation contributes to equity over time, pushing back on concerns about slower principal repayment.
The debate comes as demographic and market pressures intensify. The National Association of Realtors’ 2025 profile shows the median age of all buyers has climbed to 59, while first-time buyers’ median age reached a record 40 — the highest since the survey began in 1981. First-time buyers accounted for just 21% of purchases, also a record low. Meanwhile, Freddie Mac’s latest survey pegs average 30-year mortgage rates around the low-6% range this month, still far above pandemic-era lows.
Even proponents of exploring new loan structures acknowledge that longer terms would not address supply constraints. Pulte and others have also floated ideas such as portable and assumable mortgages to ease “lock-in” effects for existing owners, according to Politico. But many economists argue the most durable path to improved affordability is boosting housing construction and easing bottlenecks — not stretching repayment timelines.
