For nearly a century, the 30‑year mortgage has been the backbone of American homeownership. Born out of the Great Depression, it became dominant because it offered families flexibility: lower monthly payments, more manageable cash flow, and a path to stability. Today, with affordability strained by sustained inflation and higher interest rates, it’s time to revisit that same principle of choice.
Donald Trump’s proposal to allow 50‑year mortgages has drawn sharp criticism. The real question isn’t whether every family should take out a half‑century loan, but whether they should have the freedom to decide what structure best fits their financial lives. For many buyers, a longer amortization could make the difference between renting indefinitely and finally owning a home.
When I served on the House Financial Services Committee and chaired its Capital Markets Subcommittee, my focus was stabilizing housing finance, reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and protecting taxpayers from irresponsible lending. I argued then that the financial crisis was rooted in “bad mortgages” — loans made without sound underwriting or transparency. That principle still guides me today: mortgage products must be safe, clearly explained, and responsibly underwritten. But within those guardrails, consumers deserve options.
The economic pressures facing households today are real. Inflation has fallen sharply from its 2021–22 peaks but has remained above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, leaving families with less purchasing power. Mortgage rates, meanwhile, are still elevated by historical standards, making it harder for first‑time buyers to enter the market and discouraging current homeowners from moving.
At the same time, average credit‑card APRs remain high, adding strain to everyday borrowing. And with wage growth failing to keep pace with rising costs, many families are searching for financial breathing room. These realities make the debate over mortgage flexibility especially relevant now.
A 50‑year mortgage is not a cure‑all. It results in higher lifetime interest payments, and it won’t solve supply shortages or boost wage growth. But for the right buyers — those who understand it and choose it knowingly — lower monthly payments could free up cash for education, healthcare, savings, or simply keeping up with rising expenses. That tradeoff should be available to the right buyers.
Critics argue that longer mortgages will trap borrowers in debt or inflate housing prices. Those risks exist — but they are manageable with proper safeguards. Policymakers can build a framework that pairs choice with transparency — requiring clear lifetime payment disclosures, protecting prepayment rights, and insisting on sound underwriting tied to realistic debt‑to‑income standards. Done properly, these guardrails ensure that borrowers understand what they are choosing and that lenders avoid the excesses that contributed to the 2008 crisis.
This approach avoids the mistakes of the past while recognizing that different families have different needs. A young buyer trying to enter the market, a growing family seeking stability, or a household facing tight monthly budgets may benefit from flexibility that a rigid 30‑year structure cannot always provide. Empowering borrowers does not mean encouraging risk; it means giving them tools that fit their financial realities.
Instead of embracing market-oriented solutions to the credit and housing affordability crises, which is all that the president is attempting to do, too many in Washington are turning to the big-government songbook for “solutions” instead.
Take independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, whose competing plan to “help” Americans make their monthly mortgage payments is slapping a 10 percent cap on credit card interest rates.
Well‑intentioned as they may be, such caps — by discouraging banks from lending to higher-risk borrowers — often restrict credit access for the very households that rely on it most. We learned during the Great Recession what happens when credit markets freeze: families suffer and the broader economy slows.
Illinois already tried its hand at this public policy idea back in 2021. The result was a swift 38 percent decline of loans made to subprime borrowers. Let’s not bring this counterproductive idea to the federal level.
Expanding options responsibly is a better path than constraining them.
Trump’s broader economic agenda — from proposals aimed at middle‑class tax relief to cutting regulatory burdens — centers on expanding consumer choice. Whether one agrees with every policy detail or not, the principle of increasing flexibility for households is worth taking seriously.
The lesson of the 30‑year mortgage is simple: consumer choice transformed American homeownership. The lesson of the financial crisis is equally clear: choice must be paired with transparency and responsible lending. Both truths can coexist.
Rather than dismissing new ideas — such as President Trump’s 50-year mortgage — out of hand, policymakers should focus on ensuring that mortgage products are safe, clear, and available to those who can benefit. That means giving consumers a chance — not to take on reckless debt, but to choose the mortgage term that best fits their lives.
Scott Garrett is a former Member of Congress from New Jersey. He served on the House Financial Services Committee and chaired its Capital Markets Subcommittee. He is also a former Trump nominee to run the Export-Import Bank.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
(Featured Image Media Credit: Wikimedia Commons/www.alanharder.ca/)
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
